Please present to me another instance of where one is presented an idea and magically does not form a belief.
What color socks am I wearing right now?
If I were pressed to answer...
I'd guess that you WERE wearing socks... and I'd guess they were colored.
In order, I thought: purple, pink, blue. Then I thought they were perhaps striped... but I don't know your sense of style well enough to know if you'd adopt a striped sock... so I figured I's stick with a simple solid color.
I'm pretty sure you WERE in fact wearing socks when you asked that question.
Of course I don't know... but I did in fact form a belief. I was forced to.
If someone held a gun to my face and screamed "ANSWER! Was she, or was she not wearing socks! YES or NO! If you say anything else I will shoot you in the face!" I would have to guess based on the belief I formed. I'd say yes.
Of course I don't KNOW if you were wearing socks, and I certainly don't know the color... but guesses come to mind immediately. Those guesses, are beliefs. A rational person does not choose their guesses. Just as I choose not to believe either in the image of an old bearded white man controlling the universe any more than I choose to believe my own notion of a non-corporeal onmiprecient fate. I instead choose to opt to say I don't know, and even lean towards those things NOT existing. The mind creates many fantasies, but we live within our minds... everything we perceive by our 5 senses is in fact interpretted by our brains. Sure you COULD be actually experiencing your reality... (and I know I certainly choose to believe that) or you COULD be a brain in a jar somewhere (
That was just for you ZF ) All of your beliefs though, most certainly, are a choice.
When presented with the Idea of a GOD -
You either
a. Believe in the idea.
b. disbelieve the idea
c. claim to not have enough knowledge.
Right, and many people who admit to not having enough knowledge therefore lack belief. Those who choose not to do this are instead appealing to faith, where belief is a matter of morality (or perhaps, secretly, arrogance) rather than evidence.
and lacking knowledge is of course... agnosticism. As we have already discussed above the word Atheist implies to most people that you have an active DISBELIEF. Many words are not defined by their literal definitions, but by what society has come to accept.
Your option of simply lacking belief can only exist in someone who has never even heard the concept of a god.
Surely you've heard of socks, yet you have no idea what color my socks are. You don't even know if I'm wearing socks. So how can you have a belief regarding my socks?
The brain takes guesses, and it does not wait to ask whether you want it to. The longer you discuss it, the more options it will explore.
Atheism as you decribe it does not exist. What you are decribing is Agnosticism.
Atheism and agnosticism are terms relating to two different realms: belief and (presumed) knowledge, respectively (go back to the etymology of the words). An atheism is a person who does not believe in gods. An agnostic is a person who does not know whether gods exist or not. Therefore, it is entirely possible to be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time, which is what I am. For that matter, it is also possible to be a gnostic ("strong") atheist (one who claims to know that no gods exist), a gnostic ("strong") theist, or an agnostic ("weak") theist.
The thing is, you can find definitions which say whatever you want...and often disagree with each other. But you need terms in order to convey this difference between believing yourself to know (or not know) about the existence or non-existence of God or gods vs. just believing (or lacking belief) about their existence or non-existence.
I entirely agree with what you've said here on principle. Where I don't agree is with your choice to shorten Agnostic Atheist down to Atheist.
I'll let your next comment back up my point...
I've said this before: Definitions are not right or wrong. They are a matter of consensus, they can be useful or not useful.
Consensus implies that atheist means a DISbeliever. Consensus also IMPLIES that all agnostics are also athiests. To use the words in a manner that is contrary to consensus simply makes for a longer conversation where you waste time explaining all of this to the religious fellow who doesn't really care. (when you could be spending the same time have a conversation about something meaningful)
I think these definitions are more useful than the ones you're going with. I've been in and seen so many arguments about what an atheist is and what a theist is that it simply isn't worth going on about, because it goes nowhere.
Probably due to wasting a lot of time ignoring the standard societal meanings of things.
However, I do think a good argument can be made for trying to be as clear as possible. I almost never tell somebody I'm an atheist without explaining exactly what I mean by that (assuming they don't ask, which they usually do).
I'd be all for using the longer term, Agnostic Atheist, with an explanation if you really feel that people need to be educated that not all atheists are strong atheists, and in fact weak atheism can exist. Seems easier to me to call yourself agnostic and let it be implied that you are athiest.
I'm sorry if you feel it's a dirty word
I don't feel it's a dirty word; I feel it's inaccurate for what you're trying to describe.
Again, as has been discussed. In principle.. true. In the reality of society, and definition by consensus, false.
I for one, am proud to say "I don't know"
Me too. It's the only intellectually honest position.
I should add, just becuase you don't know something, doesn't mean you don't have a best guess. Especially if we bring in the - which guess would you say if you were forced - argument.
The Free Talk Live BBS
Poll
Author
Topic: Mark is a Nihilist, What are you? (Read 39384 times)