To My ATHEIST Friends: Definitions Do Matter

[BroncoBuff]

After the lengthy thread/battle with the Bobs, orangeatheist and others, about how to define "atheist," "theist," "deity," etc ... I found this well-known story that undelines my insistence that each word be clearly defined.

Notice how the failure to properly define his terms causes this professor great embarrassment at the hands of his student:

The university professor challenged his students with the question, "Did God create the universe and all that exists?"

A student answered bravely, "Yes, he did."

The professor responded, "If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists, so God is evil too." The student couldn't respond to that statement, causing the professor to conclude that he had "proved" that "belief in God" was a fairy tale.

Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, "May I pose a question? " "Of course" answered the professor. The young student stood up and asked: "Professor does Cold exists?" The professor answered, "What kind of question is that?...Of course the cold exists... haven't you ever been cold?" The young student answered, "In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don't have body heat or we are not hot."

The student persisted, "does Dark exist?" The professor answered "Of course". This time the student responded, "again you're wrong, Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the! light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when there's lack of light." Finally, the student asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" The professor replied, "Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil."

The student responded, "Sir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God's presence in the hearts of man.

After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn't answer back.

The young man's name was ALBERT EINSTEIN.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I don't see how the analogy works.

(Sorry Albert.)

The two examples involving heat/cold and light/darkness refer to observable, measurable, empirical phenomena.

The evil/God dichotomy, on the other hand, juxtaposes a philosophical or ethical concept/construct (evil) with a metaphysical concept/construct (God.)

[yavoon]

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

einstein was a deist.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by yavoon

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

einstein was a deist.

yavoon, I'm proud of you. Thanks for the link showing this is yet another religious right BS story.

[BroncoBuff]

Well, the point I was making did not rely on Einstein ... in fact, I nearly removed that last sentence because it obscured my point. And Bronco Bob, I was NOT using this story to prove God exists - not in the slightest.

I was following up on the lengthy "angry atheist" thread in here a few weeks back, wherein I refused to continue discussing the existence/proof of a creator until we defined the terms we were using. What this story poved then and still proves now - despite the Snopes article (touche yavoon) - is that the mere definitions of terms can define the argument and decide the winner before it even begins. The term "atheist" was being used as a cyhallenge to believers that they "prove the existence" of God. My point was then (still is now) is that "atheist" is a belief all its own - an affirmative belief that NO creator exists. Therefore, the argument was flawed from the start.

Truth is, orangeatheist is an 'organized-religion' hater, not an atheist. In fact, atheism is, by definition, irrational and narrow-minded. "Agnosticism" is the most supportable position to take, and from that position one can demand proof from both theist believers and atheist believers.

Most atheists merely like the word "atheist" because the word itself provokes a reaction.

[mosca]

This all boils down to a battle of semantics ... to what kind of atheist we are talking about.

Strong (or explicit) atheism: The viewpoint that "God does not exist."
Weak (or implicit) atheism: The mere absence of belief in a particular God.

As you say, definitions do matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by mosca

Weak (or implicit) atheism: The mere absence of belief in a particular God.

Nope. What you quote there ↑↑↑ is actually the definition of "agnostic."

It's an interesting Wiki page though. If you hang out a few minutes, I'll show you a Wiki page defining "Strong Bronco Fan // Weak Bronco Fan," or even "Good mosca // Bad mosca."

I don't choose to muddle and overlap definitions ... I'll stick with Noah Webster and American Heritage. Agnostics like to conflate the term "atheist" to their agnostic ends because it's provocative... it pisses people off! And since most of these agnostics masqueradeing as atheists are themselves filled with anger, the word 'atheist' is a handy tool to provoke confrontation and put believers on the defensive. What they forget is that atheists themselves are arguing a proposition too: that NO God exists. It's not as fun that way, because believers and theists can challenge them right back.

So, to keep the hostile nature of the word "atheist," while keeping immune from challenges for proof, they bend, twist and overlap the definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic." It's a cute tactic, but it doesn't work with me. Even if you use Wikipedia to do it!

[BroncoBuff]

And thus, the thread: showing that the mere definitions of "light and dark," "cold" and "evil" can decide whether arguments are sound or not.

Just remember ... words are nothing more than tools. Even when you use the right tool for the right job, it might not fix the problem. The Iuit language has 19 words for snow, the Chinese symbol for danger is the same symbol as for opportunity .... get it?





(yavoon, I don't actually know Inuit or Chinese, so just get my point and leave Snopes outta this please ...?)

[mosca]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Nope. What you quote there ↑↑↑ is actually the definition of "agnostic."

Agnostics would actually probably fall into the category of weak (or implicit) atheism.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

ag·nos·tic (āg-nŏs'tĭk) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

It's an interesting Wiki page though. If you hang out a few minutes, I'll show you a Wiki page defining "Strong Bronco Fan // Weak Bronco Fan," or even "Good mosca // Bad mosca."

Haha ... I see what you're saying about Wikipedia. It was just the first link I could think of. There's other stuff out there regarding the different types of atheism though. About.com has a good page: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismq...trong_weak.htm

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

I don't choose to muddle and overlap definitions ... I'll stick with Noah Webster and American Heritage. Agnostics like to conflate the term "atheist" to their uses because it's provocative... it pisses people off. And since most of these agnostics masqueradeing as atheists are themselves filled with anger, the word 'atheist' is a handy tool to provoke confrontation and put believers on the defensive. What they forget is that atheists themselves are arguing a proposition too: that NO God exists. It's not as fun that way, because believers and theists can challenge them right back.

So, to keep the hostile nature of the word "atheist," while keeping immune from challenges for proof, they bend, twist and overlap the definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic." It's a cute tactic, but it doesn't work with me. Even if you use Wikipedia to do it!

Ha ... promise, I didn't create that Wikipedia page just to support my point! The way I see it, agnosticism is more of someone who says "I don't know whether or not God exists." It's not necessarily about their belief in God, absence of belief in God, or belief that God doesn't exist - which is what the definitions of the various types of theism and atheism center on.

[yavoon]

Originally Posted by mosca

Agnostics would actually probably fall into the category of weak (or implicit) atheism.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

ag·nos·tic (?g-n?s't?k) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

Haha ... I see what you're saying about Wikipedia. It was just the first link I could think of. There's other stuff out there regarding the different types of atheism though. About.com has a good page: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismq...trong_weak.htm

Ha ... promise, I didn't create that Wikipedia page just to support my point! The way I see it, agnosticism is more of someone who says "I don't know whether or not God exists." It's not necessarily about their belief in God, absence of belief in God, or belief that God doesn't exist - which is what the definitions of the various types of theism and atheism center on.

soft agnostics are useless pussies. the real future lies in agnostic fundamentalism.

[BroncoBuff]

Agnostic Fundamentalism!


yavoon you are a GENIUS! Where do I sign up?!

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by yavoon

soft agnostics are useless pussies. the real future lies in agnostic fundamentalism.

Militant agnostics will become the next suicide bombers, because if there
is a Allah, they want their bases covered.

[yavoon]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Agnostic Fundamentalism!


yavoon you are a GENIUS! Where do I sign up?!

anywhere you want! just remember the motto.

"I don't know, you don't know, and anyone who says otherwise is a dirty heathen."

[mosca]

Originally Posted by yavoon

soft agnostics are useless pussies. the real future lies in agnostic fundamentalism.

What exactly would you consider agnostic fundamentalism? Strong agnostism? The belief that no one knows, or will ever know, whether or not God(s) exist?

[yavoon]

Originally Posted by mosca

What exactly would you consider agnostic fundamentalism? Strong agnostism? The belief that no one knows, or will ever know, whether or not God(s) exist?

explained above w/ motto.

=D

[mosca]

Heard

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Well, the point I was making did not rely on Einstein ... in fact, I nearly removed that last sentence because it obscured my point. And Bronco Bob, I was NOT using this story to prove God exists - not in the slightest.
I was following up on the lengthy "angry atheist" thread in here a few weeks back, wherein I refused to continue discussing the existence/proof of a creator until we defined the terms we were using. What this story poved then and still proves now - despite the Snopes article (touche yavoon) - is that the mere definitions of terms can define the argument and decide the winner before it even begins. The term "atheist" was being used as a cyhallenge to believers that they "prove the existence" of God. My point was then (still is now) is that "atheist" is a belief all its own - an affirmative belief that NO creator exists. Therefore, the argument was flawed from the start.
Truth is, orangeatheist is an 'organized-religion' hater, not an atheist. In fact, atheism is, by definition, irrational and narrow-minded. "Agnosticism" is the most supportable position to take, and from that position one can demand proof from both theist believers and atheist believers.
Most atheists merely like the word "atheist" because the word itself provokes a reaction.

I dont think that we have a true atheist here on the board. Otherwise, I'm sure that they would be quite confident in admitting that atheism is a philosophical belief that has a specific definition that does not look anything at all like agnosticism.

The two are different, and easily discernable.

I really dont know why the agnostics here that claim atheism would try to hide the fact that they are not atheists. It's okay to admit that you dont know.

[bdv]

Quoting from a recently concluded debate:

Ed: Given your rationalistic tendencies I am quite surprised that you have taken an extraordinary leap of faith by calling yourself an atheist rather than the more pragmatic position of a soft agnostic! Do you have a reasonable explanation for this?

Me: Did you read my explanation and the definitions of "atheist" I sent you at the end of my last email? Yet you still use the popular definition of "atheist"? I wonder why this is? What do you think is the difference between a soft agnostic and a weak atheist? The "extraordinary leap of faith" you are likely referring to is with a "strong atheist." Are you aware of the two primary brands of atheism?

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnosticism

"Weak agnosticism often overlaps with, and is often confused with, weak atheism, as both are a lack of belief rather than a belief in lack (of either knowledge or existence, respectively)."

Formally, I am a weak atheist AND a soft/weak agnostic. I prefer the term "weak atheist" to define my worldview for a number of reasons, all of which are informal: 1) to the lay person "agnostic" may connote that I am a theist who has doubts, or that I conjecture the likelihood of theism vs. atheism to be on the same level, 2) "atheist" is a more narrowly defined word, always meaning, whether strong or weak, "not a theist," agnostic can mean I am a theist, or it can refer to many things secular, 3) there are an infinite number of unrestricted negatives, of these we don't ponder the technical possibility that each could be real, even though in theory they could be, instead we logically assume they are not real until shown otherwise.

http://about.com/religion/

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismq...denofproof.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist#Strong_vs._weak

http://atheism.about.com/od/definiti...eismBelief.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/definiti...kBeliefGod.htm

http://skepticx.myweb.uga.edu/atheism.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

However, the debate was actually on biblical slavery. Interesting, though I didn't ask, Ed kept telling me that evil should be defined as a "privation of good" (i.e. "a deficiency of good," or "lacking good"). The bible does not define it this way but neither does the bible say anything specifically about the trinity. I guess that's where the hundreds of doctrines and theologies come in. Theologians came up with this concept quite some time ago to try to insulate the Christian deity from "the problem of evil."

I pointed out that God can only be excused for the problem of evil if he passively allowed evil, not if he explicitly and actively allows evil as with slavery, and certainly not if he actively demanded evil as he did with infanticide/genocide - thus commanding the breaking of the 6th commandment. I then learned that the ten commandments don't apply when God tells you to break one of them.

Ed said that God was the ultimate ethical utilitarian, and that since we were (in biblical times) evil due to "the fall" it was necessary for God to use evil to deal with evil, in order to achieve the greater good. He said this after initially claiming that the slavery in the bible was not bad, then that it was bad, then that it was not bad, all the while insisting that his god was good.

More from the debate:

Me: Why do you believe "bad" or "evil" should be defined as "a privation of good?" Is your reason biblical or merely an extra-biblical theodicy? If biblical, what are the scriptures?

Ed:Evil is not a substance, but a corruption of the good substances God has made (Gen. 1:4, 12, 18, 21, 25 & 31; 3:14-19; 6:12; Rom. 8:19-23; Isa. 24:5-6; Jer. 14:1-6) As you can see from Jeremiah 14, when something is deprived of good (water) the results are considered bad. Another example might be a car missing a small chip of paint resulting in systemic rust. Additionally, I would not consider God’s curses as evil, only the results or natural consequences of the evil that brought it on.

The debate ended with a question I should've asked at the very begining:

Me: What would God have to do for you to conclude that he is bad, or for you to conclude that his goodness is deficient? In other words, is his goodness falsifiable?

-----------------------

Ed: Yes, its falsifiable but not on the same basis as the goodness of creation. Actually, it would be easier to falsify God's goodness because with Him it is tantamount to perfection.

Me: Good. This question should be an easy one to answer then: "what would God have to do for you to conclude that he is bad?" Are you able to offer specific hypothetical examples?

Ed: So, one would need to reasonably demonstrate imperfection in the essence of His nature while eliminating the possibility of human error in the demonstration.

Me: What method would one use to do this?

Ed: I am talking about the essence of God not His actions because His actions are subject to His unique utilitarian goals based on innate foreknowledge only He can posses.

Me: Hypothetically, how would you or I be able to demonstrate that God's "essence" is bad, or that his goodness is deficient (while not looking to his actions)?

-----------------------

Ed: All of your questions can be answered by addressing your last one. The answer is definitionally determined: the God of the Bible is defined as “good” (Mark 10:18), if it can be found that He is definitionally “evil’ then the “good” is negated and falsified. Hypothetically, if such a being, in fact, exists then it is not difficult to reasonably infer His goodness and occasional utilitarian means to achieve the greater good for the sake of mankind. This leads to a second way to falsify God’s goodness: if one could prove God’s non-existence then one has essentially falsified His goodness as well. I use the word “prove” here only because empirical falsifiability is based on proof.

Additionally, if any of these answers is unsatisfactory to you or anyone else who may be listening in, then I have no problem with the contention that the goodness of God is unfalsifiable. In which case I would say that it is verifiable, as demonstrated in the previous paragraph. The asymmetrical relationship between falsifiability and verifiability lends credibility to this argument. For example: I could verify a claim of immortality by consciously observing my own funeral but I could not falsify immortality if I didn’t consciously survive death.

Well there you have it. And it was here that I had had it... We'd spent miles of typing, him defending biblical slavery, defending God's actions; me demonstrating to him the evil of biblical slavery, the sanctioned beating of slaves in both the OT and NT... None of it mattered. The fix was in from the start. There was never even a hypothetical action Ed's god could take for Ed to conclude his god to be anything less than perfectly good.

Incidentally, he was rather indignant that I viewed our conscience as evolved, and neither bad nor good as real.

-Tim

[BroncoInferno]

OK, Buff, I addressed this issue on the other thread, but you never gave any sort of rebuttal, so here's another go:

You are trying to put language into a vacuum. It doesn't work that way. Most words have multiple connotations and applications; indeed, this is why the dictionary lists multiple definitons. If there were only one way to apply or understand a word, then only one definiton would be needed, no? But that isn't the case. Now, among the definitions listed for a given word, I'm allowed to apply the word using ANY one of the listed definitons, irrespective of other listed definitons. Now, here is the definiton of atheism from dictionary.com that defines atheism as I apply it towards myself:

a disbelief in the existence of a diety

Now, where in that definiton does it imply 100% certitude or affirmation? Where does it say that I can't leave a crack in the door for evidence provided by the theist to sway me? Where does it suggest an absolute, irrevocable belief? It isn't there. It just says "disbelief."

I presume you don't believe in unicorns. But, if someone presented you with a unicorn fossil, you might reconsider, right? You disbelieve in unicorns now, but you leave the door open for evidence to sway you, though you find the idea that evidence will be forthcoming extremely unlikely. Now, are you an agnostic or atheist about unicorns? Based on the definiton above, which requires only disbelief, not 100% affirmation, you would be an atheist towrds unicorns.

Now, show me where this analysis is wrong.

[Rohirrim]

Either there's a gas leak in Buff's basement, or he's a lawyer.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

OK, Buff, I addressed this issue on the other thread, but you never gave any sort of rebuttal, so here's another go:

You are trying to put language into a vacuum. It doesn't work that way. Most words have multiple connotations and applications; indeed, this is why the dictionary lists multiple definitons. If there were only one way to apply or understand a word, then only one definiton would be needed, no? But that isn't the case. Now, among the definitions listed for a given word, I'm allowed to apply the word using ANY one of the listed definitons, irrespective of other listed definitons. Now, here is the definiton of atheism from dictionary.com that defines atheism as I apply it towards myself:

a disbelief in the existence of a diety

Now, where in that definiton does it imply 100% certitude or affirmation? Where does it say that I can't leave a crack in the door for evidence provided by the theist to sway me? Where does it suggest an absolute, irrevocable belief? It isn't there. It just says "disbelief."

I presume you don't believe in unicorns. But, if someone presented you with a unicorn fossil, you might reconsider, right? You disbelieve in unicorns now, but you leave the door open for evidence to sway you, though you find the idea that evidence will be forthcoming extremely unlikely. Now, are you an agnostic or atheist about unicorns? Based on the definiton above, which requires only disbelief, not 100% affirmation, you would be an atheist towrds unicorns.

Now, show me where this analysis is wrong.

With the word "disbelief", man! lol

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by claviculasolomonis

With the word "disbelief", man! lol

Care to show me where it mentions positive affirmation and 100% certitude?

lol back atcha.

[BroncoInferno]

Actually, Josh, thank you posting the definitions of "disbelief." It brings me back to this point:

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

You are trying to put language into a vacuum. It doesn't work that way. Most words have multiple connotations and applications; indeed, this is why the dictionary lists multiple definitons. If there were only one way to apply or understand a word, then only one definiton would be needed, no? But that isn't the case. Now, among the definitions listed for a given word, I'm allowed to apply the word using ANY one of the listed definitons, irrespective of other listed definitons.

Of the definitons of the word "disbelief" listed in your link, here is the one I am applying:

noun
1. doubt about the truth of something

The key word here is "doubt." Now, back to the definition of atheism that I apply towards myself:

a disbelief in the existence of a diety

Substituting the previously mentioned application of "disbelief" for the word itself, we get this:

a doubt about the truth of the existence of a diety

Again, where is the 100% certitude or postitive affirmation in this understanding of "atheism," which is supported by the dictionary?

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Care to show me where it mentions positive affirmation and 100% certitude?

lol back atcha.

- I have. You just refuse to admit it. If you don't 'believe' in something 100% (Like "I Believe god doesn't exist"), then it's not a beleif, it's a suspicion, and thus you wouldn't be an atheist, you'd be an agnostic. Not to mention YOUR refusal for allowing anyone else to define words using "apt" applications - shows a bit of pomp. I mean you keep forgetting the defition of ATHEIST and AGNOSTIC.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by claviculasolomonis

- I have. You just refuse to admit it. If you don't 'believe' in something 100% (Like "I Believe god doesn't exist"), then it's not a beleif, it's a suspicion, and thus you wouldn't be an atheist, you'd be an agnostic.

On the contrary, as my post above demonstates, you've actually helped prove my point.