Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Better still:
theist -- agnostic theist -- agnostic -- agnostic atheist -- atheist.
Judging by what i read from Cody, he was never like Dawkins.
I think Dawkins calls himself an atheist though.
Heck, he's THE famous atheist idol, isn't he?
O, so it's even worse?You have to understand that it's a Dawkins' self-described scale that he himself made up to align and categorize spectrum of beliefs on basis of claims of certainty.
His score on his scale indicates he's quite certain God does not exist, but not 100%If Dawkins calims that he doesn't know whether God exists or not... he is by definition an agnostic, which he admitted that he doesn't know.
His score on his scale indicates he's quite certain God does not exist, but not 100%
But still 87.5% certain God does not exist.
A 'pure' agnostic would score 0%
He's an atheist yes, but he also takes the stance that there is NO GOD. You can be an atheist without saying "there is no God" and being confident in that belief.This is an atheist:
I'll try to put it more simply. Your definition of what is agnostic, is actually what an atheist is.Better still:
theist -- agnostic theist -- agnostic -- agnostic atheist -- atheist.
Judging by what i read from Cody, he was never like Dawkins.
I think Dawkins calls himself an atheist though.
Heck, he's THE famous atheist idol, isn't he?
The rub, as I see it, is the great and opposing difference between the two worlds.Ok, I admit that the title is a bit of a "click bate" for both ends, but here it goes.
Browsing through some popular threads here, it seems like there's a general confusion as to what Atheism really is, and how that label tends to take on a "form" that shouldn't be ascribed to Atheism.
First of all, it should be noted that labels like Christian, Atheist, Republican, Democrat tend to be more pragmatic than carry some full scope of ontology of reality that these labels supposed to describe. These are very different from a more precise labels like "human", etc.
Thus, it's very easy to get lost in arguments against your own perception of the label as to what that label means to a person who takes it on as a description. In such, I'm not sure whether such labels are useful as shortcuts, or these create problematic perception.
We generally use them, because we are either "lazy" to repeat a list of what we believe, or because we find solace in some form of "righteous identity".
But, in short time I've spent on this forum, I've already had to clarify several times that "Atheism" is not a charge that God doesn't exist, at least it's not necessarily the case. In scope of our human experience, it tends to be a default position of not knowing and not believing.
From there we can progress into:
1) Staying in the default - not knowing and not believing that a God exists
2) Not knowing and believing that God exists
3) Claiming to know and by extension believing that God exists
4) Claiming to know and by extension not believing that God exists
So, there are a variety of positions. Some refuse to believe without evidence. Some believe without evidence.
But generally, #1 is labeled as "Agnosticism" and not Atheism, and here where confusion lies. Agnosticism is merely a claim of lack of knowledge through some form of experience or evidence. Both Atheists and theists have an overlap of not knowing.
IMO, the more general form of Atheism is anyone's default position of #1 - not knowing and not believing by extension. There are people who attempt to convince people both successfully and unsuccessfully to shift to a position of believe, but if they do shift to theism based on claims alone... that would make them Agnostic Theists.
The reason why I'm writing this is primarily because a lot of Christians associate Atheism as being closed to possibility of God, and view atheists on this board as trolls. That can be the case, but generally not IMO. There are cynics on either side of the spectrum and it's not inherent to either Christians or theists. I think people like myself are interested following up with whatever innovative evidence there may be for existence of supernatural and God, and such evidence and line of reasoning can come from individuals.
I hope that all of us would be interested to know if we indeed mistaking. I hope that would be true for either side of this issue. But, I don't think it's helpful to assume what a person believes or doesn't solely based on a one word label.
a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Full Definition of theism
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
My view is that an Atheist is an Atheist and an Agnostic is one who hasn't enough information to be able to decide if there is a god. Just as the words suggest. It's evident that many Atheists would like to burnish their reputations, just like Liberals want to be Progressives now, Illegal immigrants want to be known as "undocumented" instead, and Homosexuals, not content to be Gays anymore, want to be LBGTQIsomething or other.But, in short time I've spent on this forum, I've already had to clarify several times that "Atheism" is not a charge that God doesn't exist, at least it's not necessarily the case. In scope of our human experience, it tends to be a default position of not knowing and not believing.
Oh, that will never do. How about: "Siseneg" (Genesis spelled backwards)?I think I'm just going to define my disbelief in deities using the word "genius"...
Confident in no belief then. That's an agnostic, maybe even an 'agnosticist', but not an atheist.He's an atheist yes, but he also takes the stance that there is NO GOD. You can be an atheist without saying "there is no God" and being confident in that belief.
Hmm...a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Indeed..Dawkins and Hitchens would probably be an example of antitheism rather than atheism.
I was using Dawkins' scale on his own beliefs.There's actually no percentage you can put on unfalsifiable certainty.
Oh, that will never do. How about: "Siseneg" (Genesis spelled backwards)?
"In the beginning, we slept in and missed the bus."
That's it.Hmm...
A bit confusing..
There's a big difference between lacking belief and disbelieving...
Maybe i was wrong then, since they're apparently both atheism (according to that dictionary)..
Not so fast buddyThat's it.
Our work here is done.*walks away to matrix music*
I can't beat you.No. Are you attempting to set the record for "most wrong in a thread"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?