The Confused Athiest

[S.A.M.]

The debate on the meaning of the word atheism (Gr. atheos no God; -ism belief, state, principle or condition thereof) and the attempt of atheists to squirm out of the responsibility that it is a belief, is a sad movement that delegitimises their attempt to appear rational.

Hence, as a token of my excellent good will, I offer them a new fourth category that will not only satisfy the criteria for rationality but allow them to discard all belief. For this however, they will have to abandon all pretence of atheism.

This category is called ignosticism or noncognitivism.

Basically it goes something like this:

"God exists" is a proposition. Yes or No to accept or reject that it is a proposition

1. If Yes, it is a proposition, you are a cognitivist and you have three choices:

a. A theist would answer Yes
b. An atheist would answer No
c. An agnostic would refuse to answer

2. If No, it is not a proposition, you can stop right there.

Congratulations, you are a noncognitivist and have no debate with any of the above.


References:
1. Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (1998) Theodore M. Drange
2. Theological Noncognitivism

 

[Syzygys]

What is the English word for someone who is OBSESSED with atheism?*

Maybe you should try to convert those 80% of theists first who don't share your religious views, before you try atheists. You obviously don't understand their mindset anyway...

* got it, it is atheophile!

 

[(Q)]

The debate on the meaning of the word atheism (Gr. atheos no God; -ism belief, state, principle or condition thereof) and the attempt of atheists to squirm out of the responsibility that it is a belief, is a sad movement that delegitimises their attempt to appear rational.

No, it's says more about the idiocy of theists and their lack of thinking skills.

 

[S.A.M.]

I see your sarcasm and raise you a glass of good cheer!! :cheers:

Syzygys

Don't you mean atheophile? A file is used for papers, a -phile on the other hand denotes a liking for. Not that either is appropriate for obsession. :m:

 

[Varda]

better things to do than to feed sam's trolling, deffinitely

 

[(Q)]

sarcasm

Wrong, yet again.

 

[Gustav]

to characterize negative assertions as beliefs is ridiculous in this context
one could conjure up a nonsensical notion, slap an ism on it then simply cos i dont buy into the shit, i get labeled as an anti ism. a believer in the negation of whatever claim you would wanna come up with

sneaky and disingenuous

 

[Syzygys]

Don't you mean atheophile? A file is used for papers, a -phile on the other hand denotes a liking for. Not that either is appropriate for obsession. :m:

Yeah, that's why I used file, but I corrected it.

Now, what were you confused about again?

 

[Cris]

SAM,

"God exists" is a proposition. Yes or No to accept or reject that it is a proposition.

1. If Yes, it is a proposition, you are a cognitivist and you have three choices:

a. A theist would answer Yes
b. An atheist would answer No
c. An agnostic would refuse to answer

Well no.

You have not addressed the option of disbelief which is not the same as a belief that a proposition is false.

The list then becomes –

1. Convinced that the proposition is true.
2. Convinced that the proposition is false.
3. Unconvinced that the proposition is true.
4. Unconvinced that the proposition is false.
5. Such propositions are beyond our ability to know.

(1) Is labeled as theism
(2) Is a variation of atheism
(3) Is a variation of atheism
(4) Does not have a label
(5) Is the agnostic position

The fault in your reasoning is your attempt to insist that a proposition can only have two considered perspectives. While it is true that the proposition is either true or false the actual debate includes all the shades of grey between those two extremes of black and white.

While it would be very convenient to have “atheism” simply mean “belief there is no god” the reality is that many people see it differently. Your unilateral decision here to insist you are correct and they are wrong simply creates poor communication, confusion, and irritation.

So I’d advise you give up this hopeless quest. Atheism means an absence of belief and some take it further to mean belief of non existence.

Deal with it.

 

[Clown]

I loved the options.
It shows a deep mind at work.

 

[S.A.M.]

Cris:

I did, the belief that there is no God covers the cognitivist who rejects the existence of God.

An agnostic too has to accept the proposition to refuse to answer the cognitive belief in existence of God.

 

[(Q)]

cognitivist

Making up new words to suit your agenda?

 

[S.A.M.]

Making up new words to suit your agenda?

You give me too much credit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitivism_%28ethics%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism

 

[Pete]

Hi Sam,
Getting hung up on defining a label is kind of pointless, I think. It opens the door to stereotyping and bigotry. Surely it would be more productive to try and find out exactly what people think, rather than try to impose some predefined set of thought patterns on them?


Your poll could use more options, by the way.
Consider this poll:
[thread=71199]How certain is your opinion on God's existence?[/thread]
That poll was missing an important option as well, I think, specifically the strict agnostic response of "Unknown, perhaps unknowable."
The "noncognitivist" option in your poll is a good one, but do you expect anyone to have that standing?


PS.
I think you know better than to imply that holding a belief is necessarily irrational.

 

[Pete]

Atheism means an absence of belief and some take it further to mean belief of non existence.

Deal with it.

Cris,
Actually, I think the priority is the other way around. Atheism means belief of non-existence, and some broaden it to mean absence of belief.

Sam,
But as harsh as "Deal with it" might sound, it's actually good advice. It is important to recognise the fuzziness inherent in labels. Arguing over labels is just semantics. The argument does nothing to enhance understanding of what actual people think... and isn't that what we should be trying to do here?

 

[S.A.M.]

Make your own poll

 

[Clown]

Cris:

I did, the belief that there is no God covers the cognitivist who rejects the existence of God.

An agnostic too has to accept the proposition to refuse to answer the cognitive belief in existence of God.

Is one that rejects the existence of flying pigs also included in this group?

 

[iceaura]

There is also the possibility of judgment, instead of belief.

Doesn't seem to be in the options.

But getting rid of arguments by conveniently redefining words so that their former concepts can no longer be introduced into the argument is worth trying, if one has run out of more reasonable approaches.

 

[S.A.M.]

Sam,
But as harsh as "Deal with it" might sound, it's actually good advice. It is important to recognise the fuzziness inherent in labels. Arguing over labels is just semantics. The argument does nothing to enhance understanding of what actual people think... and isn't that what we should be trying to do here?

Its a crisis of personality

http://typelogic.com/intp.html

 

[spidergoat]

That is a very interesting article. It restates some things I have always said about there being no clear definition about God. I'm atheist for the God that is commonly defined, the one that is omnipotent, omniscient, is interesting in people's lives, etc.... If you can define it, we can analyze it's precepts, otherwise to have a position about it is pointless. Additionally, there are ways to define God that even an atheist (for the orthodox God) could agree with.