Post by Bob CasanovaOn Mon, 29 Feb 2016 03:53:45 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer
Post by Christopher A. LeeOn Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:32 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
<snip>
Post by Christopher A. LeePost by Bob OfficerA belief is dogma, something held to be true without supporting evidence or
even in the the face of contradictory evidence. Faith is religion based in
dogmatic beliefs.
An atheist is not faith in no gods, it isn't that he doesn't believe in
gods, he thinks rationally and see no evidence of the claimed gods, ergo no
gods exist. There is no need to make up something which has not supporting
evidence.
Yep.
Post by Christopher A. LeeFor most of us, it's not even that.
Most theists (American theists, anyway) can't grasp the idea that
everybody else doesn't necessarily see their god in the same light.
Exactly; it's a blind spot they don't even know exists: "Of
*course* (my) God exists and you know He does; if you deny
him it proves you hate Him!", and similar tripe.
It's actually Catholic doctrine.
Post by Bob CasanovaPost by Christopher A. LeeSo it never occurs to them that outside Christianity, it could be
"just part of somebody else's religion".
Not something to "believe doesn't exist" _or_ to "not know whether or
not it does".
Every time they attempt to "define" us, it is from the presumption
that their god is real but we believe it isn't (or don't know whether
or not it is, for agnostics).
Pedant point: Agnosticism traditionally (and as coined by
Huxley) has a somewhat different meaning. From
I know.
But the theists who determine common usage have redefined it as a
mid-point between their beliefs and their misrepresentation of
atheists.
Again, it's because of the same blind spot.
Unfortunately, too many atheists have fallen for the Christian
redefinitions and call themselves agnostics to avoid the perceived
opprobrium that goes along with the term "atheist".
And others accept it as a least-bad fit because they don't know that
[something] doesn't exist, when that [something] is actually
irrelevant and unimportant to them.
But either way, stupid theists imagine their redefinition is an
accurate description of their position.
In short, they force-fit people to labels which are a false dichotomy
and then insist that they are accurate descriptions, rather than
addressing their actual positions.
Post by Bob Casanova"Agnosticism is the view that, the truth values of certain
claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such
as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are
unknown and perhaps unknowable."
And from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm (yeah, I
know, but it's a good and balanced discussion about the
"The word Agnostic (Greek a, privative + gnostikós
"knowing") was coined by Professor Huxley in 1869 to
describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile
all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our
ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas."
IOW, it's not about "indecision", but about the perceived
limits of knowledge and the belief that no one can ever know
for sure; there are both religious and non-religious
agnostics, both believers and non-believers.
And it doesn't apply to the majority of atheists, because they
wouldn't normally give a thought to Christianity's Zeus-equivalent.
Post by Bob CasanovaAnd I realize that it's come to mean, to many, "unable to
decide"; I simply think its original meaning has more
utility. Just my 20 mills...
Yes. But it still doesn't apply to the majority of atheists.
Huxley had fallen for the Christian redefinition of the word
"atheist".
Whenever we try to explain ourselves, Christians always filter it
through their ignorance - eg strong and weak atheism describe the
strength of responses to theist claims, but this is seen as different
levels of some non-existent "atheist faith".
Again, it's because of the same blind spot.
“A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be
accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into
something he can understand.”
- Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy
