Scorpjazz
Well-Known Member
Example...Harry Reid
The Morman hypothetical
- Thread starter VINYLONE
- Start date
Example...Harry Reid
Agnosticism: actually a catch-all for two different position (that there is evidence, and that there can not be evidence)
Strong atheism: Positive belief that gods don't exist
Weak atheism: Lack of any belief in any particular god
Is my "belief" that there is not flying spaghetti monster a positive claim and representative of a religious affiliation? How about my "claim" that there are not invisible unicorns amongst us?
Hold onto your seat, I also don't believe that leprechauns exist.
I belong to a whole bunch or religions, I guess.
Hold onto your seat, I also don't believe that leprechauns exist.
I belong to a whole bunch or religions, I guess.
Hopper
Banned
OK, Eric. Just to keep our terminology straight, when I say "atheist" I simply mean what you want to call "strong atheism." At least you make the distinction, as I do, between a mere lack of belief and a postive disbelief.
I guess I'm still a little confused about your position. Are you a "weak atheist," or a "strong atheist?"
I would classify myself as a weak atheist. I'm open to the existence of God/a god/gods if I see some sort of proof that strikes me as reliable, something stronger or more objective than can be explained by confirmation bias.
Hopper
Banned
OK, that's what I thought you were trying to convey, but the way you were phrasing it made it hard to be sure.
Anyway, understanding that by atheism I simply mean "strong atheism," do we have any substantial disagreement about whether atheists have a belief system?
Hopper
Banned
repost:
You kinda seem to be all over the lot with your assertions, definitions, comments, and conclusions, Game. Do you now wish to debate the meaning of religion, that the idea? Before you do, are you now asserting that you are an unqualified atheist (what Eric wants to call a "strong atheist"), rather than some "shade of grey." If so, ya coulda just said that from the beginnin, rather than try to imply that all agnostics are atheists, and vice versa (notwithstanding the contrary propaganda of "highly biased" religious people who "control" dictionaries)
You kinda seem to be all over the lot with your assertions, definitions, comments, and conclusions, Game. Do you now wish to debate the meaning of religion, that the idea? Before you do, are you now asserting that you are an unqualified atheist (what Eric wants to call a "strong atheist"), rather than some "shade of grey." If so, ya coulda just said that from the beginnin, rather than try to imply that all agnostics are atheists, and vice versa (notwithstanding the contrary propaganda of "highly biased" religious people who "control" dictionaries)
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
And around and around we go.
It's like people arguing Mormonism is a cult and not a religion and then all discussion is about what a cult is.
It's like people arguing Mormonism is a cult and not a religion and then all discussion is about what a cult is.
Hopper
Banned
Yeah, who cares about that, eh, Dark?
Hopper
Banned
On the other hand, Dark, there's a point where, just to have any semblance of comprehensibility, ya gotta ax what some other guy even means. Like, for example, when you flatly stated that no atheist would ever make the claim that God does not exist, I have to wonder if we're even in the same ballpark when tryin to "play ball."
In other words, I blame it all on you.
In other words, I blame it all on you.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Who cares about what?
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
If that's what you want, why are you in this conversation?
Hopper
Banned
Who cares about lengthy discussions about what a given word, such as "cult," means. If you think a cult implies certain things, and if you think those things are embodied in a certain group, then you don't have to rely on the word "cult" to "completely sum up" what you intend to say. Just say what you mean, and leave the definitions to others.
In my experience, notwithstanding dictionaries or any other "authoritative" reference, most people will simply define words to mean what they want them to mean.
P.S. Which is OK, to an extent, but, next thing you know, they are claimin that their personal definition is the one and ONLY TRUE objective meaning and that anyone disagreeing is a fool. Then the stupid semantic arguing starts--all a waste of time.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Using the "common" meaning for a word to challenge someone's meaning gets you nowhere. Would you complain to a scientist that he isn't using the common use of the word, "theory?"
Hopper
Banned
I would actually expect a scientist to have a more refined sense of what a "theory" is than non-scientific people. Unfortunately, those expectations are often disappointed.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
No, not refined, a definition that is different from what the common definition is.
2 : abstract thought : speculation
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonyms see hypothesis
These three common definitions fly in the face of how scientists use "theory."
Hopper
Banned
Well, a couple of observations, Dark:
1. A "scientific theory" is a particular form of theory, so if that's the kinda theory you wanna refer to, you should say so.
2. Probably very few words have one, and only one, meaning. It doesn't mean that any of the different meanings are "wrong."