Theism v. Non-Theism

Michael: You are genuinely obtuse. And I mean fundamentally obtuse, or at least as obtuse as any obtuse thing can be, and not merely contextually obtuse, i.e. obtuse only within the context of our perceptions.

Sheesh. For a hair-splitter, you have an immense difficulty in perceiving the difference between not believing God exists and believing positively that God does not exist. Two different things, two different camps of atheists. I don't understand why you think we should listen to you split hairs about the nature of reality when you can't seem to grasp such a simple concept as the word "atheist" not necessarily always meaning what you want it to mean.

Seriously.

ZenYen wrote:Michael: You are genuinely obtuse. And I mean fundamentally obtuse, or at least as obtuse as any obtuse thing can be, and not merely contextually obtuse, i.e. obtuse only within the context of our perceptions.

...Whatever you mean by that :-)

For a Buddhist, you're full of anger and discontent. Yes, only a seriously discontented person would display so much anger without provocation (I've never engaged in namecalling directed at you). Try to calm your anger.

Moderators and administrators: Is namecalling permitted at this website?

So, according to ZenYen, I'm obtuse if I post the standard definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism at an Atheism forum. At an Atheism forum, it's a "no-no" to comment on standard and universally accepted definitions of what an Atheist is?

Sheesh. For a hair-splitter, you have an immense difficulty in perceiving the difference between not believing God exists and believing positively that God does not exist.

The former is an Agnostic. The latter is an Atheist. You're the one who is missing the distinction when you want to call them all "Atheists".

The defintions that I posted clearly expressed that distrinction. An Atheist positively rejects, as a true statement, the statement "God exists", while an Agnostic merely withholds or suspends judgement on the matter. What you call an "Atheist" is an Agnostic by the standard and universally accepted definition.

As soon as I mentioned to friends how "Atheist" is defined at this forum, they said, "No, that's an Agnostic". General purpose dictionaries such as Simon & Schuster's New World Dictionary say the same thing. So does every authoritative philosophical reference source that I found.

I didn't find any authoritative philosophical source that doesn't contradict this forum's definition of "Atheist".
I didn't find any published source at all that doesn't contradict this forum's definition.
I didn't find any encyclopedia of philosophy or dictionary of philosophy that doesn't contradict this forum's definition.

Two different things, two different camps of atheists.

...one of which consists of Agnostics, not Atheists, by everyone else's definition.

I don't understand why you think we should listen to you split hairs about the nature of reality when you can't seem to grasp such a simple concept as the word "atheist" not necessarily always meaning what you want it to mean.

It's not a question of what I want it to mean. It's a matter of what every authoritative philosophical reference says, and, in fact, what every published source that I found, says. And what everyone else that I've spoken with says, too.

Try to understand this: If "Atheist" includes people who assert that there's no God, and also people who don't believe one way or the other, then why would there be a separate word "Agnostic"? You're the one who is missing that distinction.

gillyflower wrote:I am offended by you capitalizing the G in god. To me that means that you are trying to thrust your god on me, that you think your god is better than my own.

(I know that you weren't talking to me, but you've commented on my capitalizing "God", and so I'll comment on your statement)

No, it merely means that (at least in that usage) I'm writing with correct standard usage. We capitalize names. I apologize if you don't like that. We capitalize Gilly. We capitalize Michael. We capitalize Joe. God is a name. We capitalize the names of hundreds of gods that we don't believe in too, including those of ancient civilizations and modern non-western cultures. The person with incorrect usage is the person who doesn't capiatalize God.

As for your gods, you're not naming them. If you give them names, and we refer to them by their names, then I'll capitalize their names too, just as I capitalize all names. When you speak of gods, you're not using "god" as a name, but merely as a noun. Correct usage doesn't call for capitalizing the word "god" when it isn't being used as a name, but only as a noun.

By the way, you sometimes quote an Old Testament Hebrew name for God, and imply that that is really the proper name by which to refer to God. Forgive me, but no one is entitled to tell someone else what name they should use. There are a number of monotheistic religions, and they refer to their one god by different names. We needn't get into the issue of whether they all really speak of the same god. I don't think they do; they tend to have drastically different conceptions about their god, believing in drastically different characteristics for their god.

But even if it were the same god, that wouldn't mean that we all have to call that god by the same name.

I really wish people could understand that it really isn't important what other people believe. They can believe different things than you do and can be a good person.

...Yes, but can they express their disagreement politely and without anger? A lot of people here have difficultly with that. Do you think that we can work on that?

I'm not angry, Michael. I'm amused. And pointing out that you are obtuse isn't calling you names ... it's pointing out that you are obtuse. I cite, as evidence for that observation, all of your posts.

It's a living language, Michael, or at least it was until you got your hands on it.

An agnostic claims neither faith nor disbelief. If asked, "Does God exist," an agnostic answers, "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" or the equivalent.

One who answers that question with "I don't believe God exists" is an atheist. One who answers that question with "God does not exist" is an atheist. Neither is agnostic, having taken a position on whether God exists or not.

It's pretty simple, Michael. How many times does this have to be explained to you?

I suggest that we refer to Michael's mode of expression as obtuse which I certainly agree it is.

Perhaps he himself is as well, but I'm too polite to say so.

ZenYen wrote:I'm not angry, Michael. I'm amused. And pointing out that you are obtuse isn't calling you names ... it's pointing out that you are obtuse. I cite, as evidence for that observation, all of your posts.

That's vague, unsupported, and referentless. To justify that claim, you'd need to say specifically what I said that makes you think that I'm obtuse, and then tell us why you think so. So far all that you've offered us is a confused claim about which of us is failing to understand the distinction between not believing in God's existence, and believing in God's nonexistence.

Try to express your amusement without namecalling.

You angry, ZenYen? I'd have described your mode of expression as wryly amused and perhaps demonstrating mild irritation. Hardly angry.

You can't be a genuine Buddhist apparently if you appear to Michael to be expressing anger. Hmmmm...I must add that to the lexicon I'm compiling, except it's not really a definition. I may have to establish a new category altogether for some of Michael's pronouncements.

Ooops...forgot discontented. Hmmmm...wonder where that one goes in my lexicon.

Specifically, Michael, all of your posts employ an obtuse mode of communication.

ZenYen wrote:It's a living language, Michael, or at least it was until you got your hands on it.

A living language needs agreed-upon definitions. If you'll remember, I said that you're free to make up your own. I merely pointed out that yours is different from the one that is universally accepted, by authoritative philosophical sources, ordinary dictionaries, and by everyone.

An agnostic claims neither faith nor disbelief. If asked, "Does God exist," an agnostic answers, "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" or the equivalent.

...as does your "Atheist", who says that he doesn't believe one way or the other, in the absence of proof.

One who answers that question with "I don't believe God exists" is an atheist.

Wrong. You're confusing not believing in His existence with believing in His nonexistence.

Even by the consensus at this forum, in this thread, not believing one way or the other is entirely, qualitatively, different from believing that God doesn't exist.

One who answers that question with "God does not exist" is an atheist. Neither is agnostic, having taken a position on whether God exists or not.

Wrong. The person who doesn't believe that God exists, but also doesn't believe that He doesn't exist, has not taken a position regarding God's existence.


[quotge]It's pretty simple, Michael. How many times does this have to be explained to you?[/quote]

:-)

Dot: I'm as prone to anger as anyone else -- I'm Buddhist, but I never said I was good at it!

Seriously, though, nothing Michael has posted has angered me.

Michael: How was my claim about your obtuse behavior "referentless" when I specifically cited all of your posts? Seriously. All one has to do is read your posts -- any of them -- and the evidence is right there.

Michael, do you comprehend what the phrase "living language" means? With your insistence upon our regarding dictionary and reference work definitions as authorities which must govern how we mean and understand words, I don't think you do at all.

DotNotInOz wrote:
You can't be a genuine Buddhist apparently if you appear to Michael to be expressing anger.

Dot, effective communication requires that we not reply to what wasn't said. I didn't say that ZenYen isn't a Buddhist, genuine or otherwise. I merely said that, for a Buddhist, he has much anger and discontent.

I may have to establish a new category altogether for some of Michael's pronouncements.

Try "polite" or "civil". In fact, you might want to give politenes and civility a try.

It is true that Michael did not claim I wasn't a Buddhist. He simply mistook my questions and comments as being the result of anger. And, apparently, he thinks all Buddhists are supposed to be like Spock.

ZenYen wrote:Michael: How was my claim about your obtuse behavior "referentless" when I specifically cited all of your posts?

That's your notion of "specific"? Citing, collectively, all of my posts? :-)

Seriously. All one has to do is read your posts -- any of them -- and the evidence is right there.

That's vague and referentless because you aren't citing any one specific statement.

But I'm not singling you out--That's common behavior on the Internet, along with lousy manners. And I'm not trying to imply that you're the only person here who has displayed lousy manners.

ZenYen wrote:And, apparently, he thinks all Buddhists are supposed to be like Spock.

That was my implication which I didn't express particularly clearly. Thanks for that explanation, ZY.

Yes, I collectively cite all of your posts, Michael. It is my position that anyone of sound mind could pick any one of your comments in this thread at random, and there is a 99.98 percent probability that he or she will conclude that you employ an obtuse mode of communication.

DotNotInOz wrote:

ZenYen wrote:And, apparently, he thinks all Buddhists are supposed to be like Spock.

That was my implication which I didn't express particularly clearly. Thanks for that explanation, ZY.

You are welcome, Dot.

Michael5810 wrote:And I'm not trying to imply that you're the only person here who has displayed lousy manners.

Good, because I'd say we've all gotten rather snarky of late, so I certainly hope you're not exempting yourself.

DotNotInOz wrote:Michael, do you comprehend what the phrase "living language" means? With your insistence upon our regarding dictionary and reference work definitions as authorities which must govern how we mean and understand words, I don't think you do at all.

I said that anyone can define anything as they please. I merely pointed out that all of the authoritative philosophical references, and general purpose dictionaries, and individuals I've spoken with agree that your "Atheist" is an Agnostic. One person I spoke to commented immediately that that is an Agnostic, not an Atheist.

Anyway, there's the matter of language being useful for communication: Distinctions are needed. If an Atheist can be someone who says that God doesn't exist, or can be someone who says that, lacking proof, he doesn't believe one way or the other, then the word "Atheist" doesn't tell us a lot about that person. It's much more useful to distinguish between not believing, versus believing-against, as do all the philosophical references, dictionaries, and everyone I've spoken with. Is "everyone out of step but Charlie"?

Michael5810 wrote: If an Atheist can be someone who says that God doesn't exist, or can be someone who says that, lacking proof, he doesn't believe one way or the other, then the word "Atheist" doesn't tell us a lot about that person.

Your dichotomy is off, Michael. The two positions weren't "God doesn't exist" and "Don't believe one way or another" (the latter IS agnostic, as you say.) The positions were "God doesn't exist" (as a positive, authoritative statement) and "I don't believe God exists" (which is different from "Don't believe one way or another" and from "God doesn't exist.")

And your decision to switch out definitions is, I believe, further evidence of your obtuse mode of communication.

ZenYen wrote:It is true that Michael did not claim I wasn't a Buddhist. He simply mistook my questions and comments as being the result of anger. And, apparently, he thinks all Buddhists are supposed to be like Spock.

Ok, I thought that Buddhists were calm and unaggressive, and not unprovkedly rude. Maybe I was mistaken.

One who says "I don't believe God exists" has taken a position on the question, but has at least left room for future evidence to change his or her opinion. The position as expressed, however, is atheist, not agnostic.

Yes, Michael, you are mistaken. My "rudeness" was not unprovoked.