Objection to Precept #5

Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
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]


Equilibrium
Equilibrium's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Objection to Precept #5

Theism - Belief in God, Assertion that there is a God

Not assertion of belief in God.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Objection to Precept #5

Funny that I should get a change in title but not a better reply? (I mean, not crticizing Equilibrium here for his careful observation, but considering that some of you have taken this fact to heart, I was hoping more for a "no way man"Eye-wink.

An assertion of god, is an assertion of the belief in god. How can you assert something without believing it is correct? I was favoring brevity. The theist asserts theism, and theism is the belief of god.

I'm a dipshit.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Objection to Precept #5

Gravity wrote:
Funny that I should get a change in title but not a better reply? (I mean, not crticizing Equilibrium here for his careful observation, but considering that some of you have taken this fact to heart, I was hoping more for a "no way man"Eye-wink.

I was planning on replying, but I'm too busy right now with people who will actually try to absorb what I'm saying to have time to deal with you. Changing the title was brief and easy. FYI: Whenever there are objections to precepts, that's how they will go down, I'm not treating you different than I would others.

These articles for your perusal, one of which you've seen MANY MANY times:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=5

http://www.rationalresponders.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=6

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Equilibrium
Equilibrium's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Objection to Precept #5

It's my 18th birthday today so you'll have to excuse me for spending my time more productively.

You can have belief in God, but not claim knowledge of his existence. I've seen a lot of Agnostic Theists.

"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Objection to Precept #5

Equilibrium wrote:
It's my 18th birthday today so you'll have to excuse me for spending my time more productively.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY MAN!!!

FYI: Plenty of people are discussing his post with him here: http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread&entryID=15311910&groupID=100002606&adTopicID=27&Mytoken=E0FF5A12-A0F5-8C5E-CBB8D031A7707D0D22419532

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Objection to Precept #5

Equilibrium wrote:

You can have belief in God, but not claim knowledge of his existence. I've seen a lot of Agnostic Theists.

Yes, I never disagreed, and happy adulthood.

I'm a dipshit.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Objection to Precept #5


Actually the articles I am inspired from, that I should see you post them so often (that is, their failures).

The actual spectrum as I see it now is:

Theism
-
|-Agnostic Theism
-
Middle Ground (agnosticism2 above)
-
|- Agnostic atheism -or- Weak atheism
-
Strong Atheism

And anyone who fails to fall on the spectrum:weak atheism

I'm a dipshit.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Objection to Precept #5

There is no spectrum of belief with agnosticism on it. What a false scale you have made.

(a)theism: pertains to belief
(a)gnosticism: pertains to knowledge

You can't put them on a scale the way you have. (not if you want it to be respected at least)

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Objection to Precept #5

Sapient wrote:
(not if you want it to be respected at least)

Do you threaten me with your lack of respect for me!? My god Sapient! I shall never desire to be irrespectable! Hehe.

Strong atheism, arguably gnostic atheism, is the furthest away from theism that you can be.

You are always so quick to profess your knowledge of the definition of agnostic- why are you so one-dimensional? Yes, agnosticism means not knowing, but have you actually thought about the implications of this? Agnosticism is claiming that one does not know whether a god exists, or a god's attributes. I will ignore the latter part for simplicity. The agnostic (not2) adheres to the position of not knowing, thus, they can not effectively assert something like theism or strong atheism, since not knowing implies the possibility of both being correct. Agnostic atheists lean towards atheism, since they believe god doesn't exist, but do not know. Agnostic theists lean to theism for the same reasons.

Please, oh dictator of respect, tell me how I am wrong, next time, will you?

I'm a dipshit.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Objection to Precept #5

Does a "Rook Hawkins" want to say something?


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Objection to Precept #5

Gravity wrote:
Does a "Rook Hawkins" want to say something?

Am I supposed to say you're an asshole...? Or...what? What exactly is the purpose of you quoting my name?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Objection to Precept #5

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Gravity wrote:
Does a "Rook Hawkins" want to say something?

Am I supposed to say you're an asshole...? Or...what? What exactly is the purpose of you quoting my name?

Are you going to defend your article?

I'm a dipshit.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Objection to Precept #5

Gravity wrote:

Are you going to defend your article?

He's too busy getting laid. You should try it sometime.

Are you going to keep addressing the same question months and months on end in spite of evidence that your argument is bunk? Isn't stupidity, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result? You have been taught the err in your ways on this topic no less than 100 times in 4 months, why should we waste our time?

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Objection to Precept #5

Sapient wrote:

Are you going to keep addressing the same question months and months on end in spite of evidence that your argument is bunk? Isn't stupidity, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result? You have been taught the err in your ways on this topic no less than 100 times in 4 months, why should we waste our time?

... you didn't even say anything? I know you know the dictionary, Sapient, but please, learn how to communicate a bit better? By defining agnosticism, that is the "agnostic" without the theist or atheist at the end, you can solve the whole problem of telling people they are atheist when they think atheist means something else.

Seriously, I think this is important. Whenever you argue with somebody about it, they are atheist, not strong atheist or weak atheist. They think they are agnostic, not agnostic atheist or agnostic theist. So you tell them they are atheist, ... did you actually tell them what "weak atheism" means? Did you take the time to explain to them why this is so, that "weak atheism" is a blanket term? Did you ask them, "What do you mean by 'agnostic.'" I guarantee, that is why you get pissed off so much about these people, because they do not know what weak atheism is, a relatively new term, and completely not common sense. Rather you convince yourselves, that they convince themselves they are closet atheists. So you bring the definition of atheist up to someone, "who thinks it is just as likely for god to exist as it isn't," and you call this atheism, so that they can not deny their new label and name, their new wool and herd. Yet in the end, you are still just as quick to return weak atheism to atheism, to tell them, "no, you do not believe in god, remember, you're an atheist. I have saved you, child."

You are merely trying to convince them they are in the same position as you. I remember one time hearing you convince somebody they are weak atheist, and then they became atheist, and then you said, "welcome to atheism, brother." You are a shepherd, and you seek a herd. This is why I "annoy" you that is, argue with you- because I see everything in your type of atheist that I see in the religious, and it is just as despisable. That is why I "annoy" you- because I tell you exactly what you do not want to hear. That is why there is no response here.

That is why your finger is on the ban button, that is why it is itching to click that mouse.

I'm a dipshit.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Objection to Precept #5

Fine you win! I'll waste 20 minutes on an issue you refuse to change your stance on, call me stupid I guess.

Gravity wrote:
Sapient wrote:

Are you going to keep addressing the same question months and months on end in spite of evidence that your argument is bunk? Isn't stupidity, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result? You have been taught the err in your ways on this topic no less than 100 times in 4 months, why should we waste our time?

... you didn't even say anything?

I've got a minimum of 100 posts in the atheists group on myspace discussing this issue with you and Patrick.

Quote:
I know you know the dictionary, Sapient, but please, learn how to communicate a bit better? By defining agnosticism, that is the "agnostic" without the theist or atheist at the end, you can solve the whole problem of telling people they are atheist when they think atheist means something else.

Look, atheism and theism have nothing to do with agnosticism. You can only be atheist or theist about god. Technically you can be agnostic about almost anything. Agnosticism pertains to knowledge, and atheism/theism pertain to belief. When you say "communicate better" what you should really be saying, is "define the words as gravity wants to define them, even if wrong."

Quote:
Seriously, I think this is important. Whenever you argue with somebody about it, they are atheist, not strong atheist or weak atheist.

Not true. Sometimes we discuss weak/strong, however that is something that is unimportant. Atheism encompasses all non-believers, it's the easiest way to refer to someone abstaining from belief. If I'm talking about cars, I don't specify the color and tint of windows all the time, I don't expect to do the same with theism/atheism.

Quote:
They think they are agnostic, not agnostic atheist or agnostic theist. So you tell them they are atheist, ... did you actually tell them what "weak atheism" means?

Sometimes, yes. You've seen me do it. This act is simply an attempt at wasting my time. I'm speaking only for the benefit of the other readers, not you.

Quote:
Did you ask them, "What do you mean by 'agnostic.'" I guarantee, that is why you get pissed off so much about these people, because they do not know what weak atheism is, a relatively new term, and completely not common sense.

You're the one that seems insistent on the term weak atheism. When I ask what they mean by agnostic, my lesson begins... of course I ask.

Quote:
Rather you convince yourselves, that they convince themselves they are closet atheists.

Nope. Those aren't my words. I never tell someone they're a closet atheist. This doesn't change the fact that all agnostics are either atheist or theist.

Quote:
So you bring the definition of atheist up to someone, "who thinks it is just as likely for god to exist as it isn't," and you call this atheism, so that they can not deny their new label and name, their new wool and herd.

Someones position on the likelihood of gods existence has nothing to do with whether they are an atheist or a theist. I know a guy who says it's more likely God doesn't exist, yet he believes in god. If someone has a positive belief in God, they are a theist. If they don't they are an atheist, it's rather simple.

Ironically I wonder if maybe it is you that is projecting. Maybe this argument is so important to you because you are the closet atheist you refer to, I can't tell. You say you're a theist whenever confronted with it, yet never present a God that anyone has ever heard of. It's simply a fantasy delusional god that you've made up to be able to say you're a theist, maybe?

Quote:
You are merely trying to convince them they are in the same position as you. I remember one time hearing you convince somebody they are weak atheist, and then they became atheist, and then you said, "welcome to atheism, brother."

The "brother" was an allusion to a previous statement about how we are all related whether God is real or evolution is true.

Quote:
You are a shepherd, and you seek a herd.

*yawn*

Quote:
This is why I "annoy" you that is, argue with you- because I see everything in your type of atheist that I see in the religious, and it is just as despisable.

You annoy me because you bring up the same arguments over and over and over, despite the evidence that you are wrong. You refuse to learn, and seek only to stick to your preconceived incorrect notions.

Quote:
That is why I "annoy" you- because I tell you exactly what you do not want to hear. That is why there is no response here.

Nope again. I told you already why I didn't seek the need to respond.

HERE:

Sapient wrote:

Isn't stupidity, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result? You have been taught the err in your ways on this topic no less than 100 times in 4 months, why should we waste our time?

AND HERE:

Sapient wrote:

I'm too busy right now with people who will actually try to absorb what I'm saying to have time to deal with you.

Quote:
That is why your finger is on the ban button, that is why it is itching to click that mouse.

Actually the thought of banning you hadn't even crossed my mind until you brought it up.

Someone call me stupid now, for doing the same thing over and over... oh wait, I don't expect a different result (maybe that makes me less stupid).

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Objection to Precept #5

Sigh. I know the dictionary Sapient. And this was not my argument you refuted- but my reason for arguing with you. Now, please, read my argument, or continue to blindly worship that little book of yours.

I will agree with you, weak atheist, strong atheist, and theist, are the only three lables of belief defined in the dictionary.

I've given you the benefit of the doubt. One only needs to look into a dictionary to see agnostic also means, "being doubtful or noncomittal about something." You feel the need to make this word atheist, very well, all in dictionary, sir. I don't even know who Patrick is, nor do I care, the fact that he is my "partner" in crime is dull.

You've convinced yourself. You've "proven" me wrong with "evidence" (evidence? What the hell is evidence, this isn't a study? This isn't a scientific discussion? Where the hell did you get "evidence" from anyways?), before you even read the argument.

Sigh, I really had high hopes on this one Sapient, thought you could prove me wrong. Maybe. Unfortunately, not. You still view me as an insolent idiot, this is your curse, that you do not know who your true enemies are. That is why you are in stasis, inactivity, that is why you are not becoming stronger, because you can not embrace your opponent.

P.S. Nice projection. Higher culture is necessarily misunderstood, I simply have more strings on my instrument than you do, and the only way you can play my music is if you make do with the less you have on yours. That is why my projection is so diseased.

I'm a dipshit.