Objection to Precept #5
In this late morning, I have thought to myself- let us play with words! After all, words are seducing and all too malleable! Shall we?
Theism- Assertion of belief in god(s).
Atheism- Not belief in god(s).
-Strong atheism- Belief in lack of god(s), assertion that there is no god(s).
-Weak atheism- Lack of belief in god(s), no assertion made.
Agnosticism- No knowledge of god(s), or a god's attributes/mannerisms.
Agnosticism2- Middle ground, in which the person does not know which belief to choose.
Of course this last one may make some of you uneasy. You may open your dictionaries and say, oh no. Or you may, in your humble reading, open another browser and quickly reference the etymology of the word, "a-" and "gnostic." But in the end, I hope some of you will finally realize the meaning of words- to convey concepts- not to be concepts. So, I tell you, words are tools, and like any tool, how you use it may be different, but it gets the job done.
With that said, I cringe everytime I hear an atheist jump on a self-proclaiming agnostic as being a "closet atheist" or more commonly, "either theist or atheist." And then after they have their way with them, some of them are foolish enough to feel proud that they have converted this fool into a new atheist! How inconsistent! A contrario you dictionary artists, I show you the middle ground!
The middle ground is the position between two opposites in which both antipodal concepts are considered equal or valid, or in this case, both have the same probability of being correct- the middle grounder is indecisive.
This is the person who answers, when you ask of his beliefs, "I don't know." Or, "I'm split down the middle."
Many of you may already be infuriated by my colorful manner of speaking to you now, or perhaps of my condescending nature (ironically arrogant- hmm?), I hope not, rather you should be nodding your head, as I am about to agree with you, I implore you to read on.
Now you will consider this self-proclaimed agnostic, as being a weak atheist, for he does not proclaim a god, rather... half a god! This is simple to understand, one need only to look at where the middle-grounder answered, "I don't know." Any assertion of belief implies a decision. For example, I believe the earth is round, implies, I have decided to believe the earth is round. I can not believe the earth is round without deciding on believing it (unless through brainwashing - and this raises an interesting philosophical question to the empiricist, is not all knowledge just a form of brainwashing? This is another discussion). The middle grounder is indecisive. This implies a lack of assertion of belief.
So there you have it- every person is atheist or theist.
This is why: weak atheism is the blanket that covers everyone who does not even question a god (babies!), as well as everyone who does question a god, but does not say the positive assertion, "I believe in no god." So, weak atheism, in certain scenarios, can be the middle ground. - And as I have argued, any person who plants their feet on middle ground, is a weak atheist.
Now I implore you to look at this definition, and ask yourselves, whether this is enough to tell the middle grounder that he is an atheist - a term that is so loosely designed as to be a vague genus with species ranking below? Or is this Agnosticism2 term, the one that idiots, and consequently so, the majority, have adopted fair enough? Indecisive, are they, which is why they do not COMMIT themselves to the commonly viewed term of atheism - rather, their ideas are split.
Perhaps, naming their beliefs agnostic, rather than their knowledge agnostic, solves the problem. Maybe? you may say, "well, that is not fair to true agnostics who study their dictionaries and know that agnostic means not knowing." But to these agnostics, how can they be agnostics alone, and not be agnostic theists or agnostic atheists? A dichotomy void of the term the majority has used, and has termed, without the use of Latin roots.[/b]
I'm a dipshit.