Quote :

"I think the best bet is to let people go on calling themselves by whatever term they want"

The problem with this is the fact that other people will call me by whatever term they want as pretext for all sorts of things.

Areligious is a broad term, sure. I suppose somebody could be purely areligious (undecided, doesn't care, whatever), and then get into the finer categories by adding more words (areligious theist, areligious agnostic etc).

4/11/2006 11:12:08 AM

After pointing out how they are bad terms descriptively (for reasons like most everyone who in the real world calls themself an atheist is infact in the same category as several theists) even if they are correct technically I said:

"I think the best bet is to let people go on calling themselves by whatever term they want, since for many of them there are no specific terms that capture what they believe... and then they can qualify it with an explanation. And if in your head you have to file them under a different name than the category they picked, well thats alright, since they still qualified it with an explanation."

you've seen all the confusion in a college educated crowd where everyone’s words are trapped in text... i wasn't suggesting my route as a compromise idea. i was saying do it that way for your own sanity, b/c you'll never get the majority of people to understand the terms the same way you do.

"The problem with this is the fact that other people will call me by whatever term they want as pretext for all sorts of things."

people who would do this anyways are even less likely to care about knowing or using the right term.

4/11/2006 11:20:20 AM

What we're arguing for here isn't terms people will like or enjoy, but terms that are accurate in nature.

You can classify atheists and some types of theists into the same group because they're areligious. I don't see this as a huge dilemma.

4/11/2006 11:22:23 AM

I like Supplanter's logic. Let's all just burn the dictionaries. There's no use in keeping them anyway.

4/11/2006 11:38:42 AM

No real world atheist goes by the definition as mcdanger understands it, and his concern that people will "call me by whatever term they want as pretext for all sorts of things" will happen regardless of how much he tries to educates tdub about it. Suggesting that you just ask for qualifiers or explanations instead of obsessing over the terms is hardly saying the same thing as burn all dictionaries and it would be stupid to interpret it that way.

4/11/2006 11:48:41 AM

Quote :

"No real world atheist goes by the definition as mcdanger understands it"

I know plenty of real atheists, people who believe in the nonexistence of god.

Quote :

"his concern that people will "call me by whatever term they want as pretext for all sorts of things" will happen regardless of how much he tries to educates tdub about it"

I'm not trying to save the world, I'm trying to present a reasonable set of classifications based on the definitions of the actual words we're using. People like to say "I'm an atheist lol" because it has impact and shock value. Little do some of these idiots know, they're not actually atheists.

4/11/2006 7:12:02 PM

Quote :

"What's an agnostic?"

Kyrptonite to your mind.

4/11/2006 7:12:43 PM

I have no idea why people suddenly become so retarded when agnosticism comes up.

It's really not that hard.

4/11/2006 7:14:14 PM

you're wrong

4/11/2006 7:14:54 PM

I'm not wrong. I'm a Zionist. I control all.

4/11/2006 7:16:13 PM

Socrates defines the Agnostic philosophy very well.

"I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing."

Agnostics follow the same philosophical idea in regards to religion.

[Edited on April 11, 2006 at 7:30 PM. Reason : -]

4/11/2006 7:28:21 PM

Yeah but Socrates takes that way further than most agnostics.

Agnostics don't fundamentally doubt their senses per se (it's not essential to the belief), but they use falsifiability as a criterion for whether to take a stance on an issue.

4/11/2006 7:45:53 PM

McD:"I know plenty of real atheists, people who believe in the nonexistence of god."

You said the kind of person I just described is an areligious, not an atheist.

Sup:"okay? whats the appropriate term for someone who doesn't believe in god, just like they don't believe in ghosts, but would start believing in god if presented with evidence?"

Whats the difference, unless you think the atheists have "faith" in atheism or something radical like that?

4/11/2006 7:57:26 PM

If someone believes in the nonexistence of God or any gods, is that somehow not based on a degree of faith?

4/11/2006 8:04:30 PM

i don't believe in ghosts because i haven't seen enough evidence to. its not a case of binary opposites where you have to have some degree of faith in one option. its just with the supernatural i don't commit to believe in it until i see evidence.

i don't believe in ghosts b/c i haven't been convinced they do exist, thats not to be confused for me making claims that ghosts don't exist, or that i can prove it, or that i have faith ghosts don't exist. its just that i'm not going to commit to believing in something supernatural until i see good evidence - so by default i don't believe in ghosts - not because i think they are an impossibility, just b/c i've not seen any reason to believe in the supernatural. to say that i'm having faith in the fact that ghosts don't exist would be a mischaracterization.

[Edited on April 11, 2006 at 8:11 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2006 8:10:35 PM

what's the big deal about ghosts. I see no reason it is necessary to even mention ghosts. Let the idea that you don't believe something be on its own.

I believe in God, just like I believe in a strong America.

4/11/2006 8:55:02 PM

1)it was an example of the supernatural... i just used that b/c with the supernatural the burden of proof is on the one claiming the supernatural. if its a question where there is a burden of proof on a specific party then not believing isn't a case of faith. here you default to only believing in the natural unless you get more proof.

2)vs a question like is it raining right now asked in a class room with no windows. here you default to the question is unanswerable.

Since asking if there are gods or not is a question like the first type then an atheist is someone who just defaults into believing only in the natural without further evidence. but someone who misunderstands the question as one of the 2nd type is inclined to say both the atheist & theist require faith. To say someone who doesn't believe in ghosts does so out of faith is to misunderstand their position... believing in the natural is just the default unless good evidence for the supernatural is supplied.

[Edited on April 11, 2006 at 9:14 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2006 9:11:39 PM

so why was it necessary to mention the ghosts?

I submit it was not.

4/11/2006 9:21:10 PM

Why is it necessary to mention Doritos when talking about chips? It’s not entirely. But sometimes concrete examples help or at the very least they add flavor.

4/11/2006 9:27:20 PM

I think big bang or string theory are just as good examples.
Doesn't have the same comedic value of ghosts or unicorns though.

4/11/2006 9:48:40 PM

It wasn't intended to cause anyone to laugh. It was just an example. Using ghosts or spirits seemed like an acceptable example to use when talking about spiritual matters.

I'll grant that no specific examples were required though; my point could have been made solely in the abstract. But I didn't see any harm to also using a specific example, and I saw some potential gain in getting by point across with a concrete example. I didn't want to be in the situation of trying to decide what color shirt to wear, but since no specific color had any benefits over others, deciding to go without a shirt at all.

4/11/2006 11:18:50 PM

after seeing the shirt analogy, I guess ghost example isn't that bad.

4/11/2006 11:31:29 PM

Quote :

"Using ghosts or spirits seemed like an acceptable example to use when talking about spiritual matters. "

Only because Cartesian Dualism has been so ingrained in you.

Theism has nothing to do with ghosts and spirits. The ideas can go hand in hand, but theism simply deals with belief in a god or gods, and belief in one or many of these as being the creative force in the Universe.

4/12/2006 7:35:28 AM