3 Feb 12, 9:15 PM
Elan2007
UK(B), 5 yrs
 |
AnEnglishMaster wrote:
emark wrote:
Someone call Etymology-Man! |
Nice one. Do I have to wear my underpants outside my trousers if I apply for the post?
Thanks for a balanced and well-argued response, first of all. I will pick up on a couple of points here, and others in another post replying to other contributors.
emark wrote:
AnEnglishMaster wrote:
It is also interesting that, even with the quotation you use, you seem to have missed the fact that the definition is also given as "disbelief", not just lack of belief. The two are different, are they not? |
You seem to have missed the "or"  Yes, it can mean both. |
I didn't miss it - Tuv had highlighted one, I redressed the balance
emark wrote:
But what does disbelief mean? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disbelief says "Refusal or reluctance to believe" and "a rejection of belief" - that's still "not believing in X" rather than "believing not X".
In fact there are three classifications one can make:
1. Lack of belief (sometimes called implicit atheism)
2. Rejection of belief or disbelief (sometimes called explicit weak atheism).
3. Believing there are no gods (sometimes called strong atheism).
(The distinction between 1 and 2 is that 2 is a conscious rejection - someone who is aware of the concept of God, considers the question, and decides he doesn't believe. But it's still a "not believe" rather than a positive belief. Where as 1 can also include babies/people who have never heard of the concept of god/people who don't give a damn.)
(The terms implicit and explicit can be used to distinguish between 1 and 2/3; the terms weak and strong can be used to distinguish between 1/2 and 3.) |
That is really interesting and helpful.
Actually, I am reasonably content with it. Except that there is an important distinction between 1 and 2&3.
2&3 differ from 1 in two important ways. They are conscious, and they are a rejection. It is there that the crux seems to lie, in my view. That to me is what atheism is.
I also find it hard by any stretch of the meaning of words to consider a baby as being in any way "an atheist" - however "implicit" the first grouping may be (and which perhaps shows the limitations of such terminology). Nor does it seem appropriate to push together artificially those who "don't give a damn" with infants.
emark wrote:
The OED gives definitions 1 and 2. You are telling us it only means 3? |
Not at all. I consider that 2 AND 3 have much in common - and they agree at the fundamental level. That is atheism encapsulated. You may have a more virulent strain in 3, but the position adopted is consistent. So, to me 2&3 are two parts of a whole. That is where the meaning lies. In any case, even though 1 seems remarkably limp, it is clearly NOT Tuv's position - yet he claims a mere "lack of belief" - which is how position 1 is defined. But it patently is a very different animal from what Tuv espouses.
emark wrote:
AnEnglishMaster wrote:
Compact: "the belief that God does not exist".
New Shorter: "disbelief in, or the denial of, the existence of God or gods" |
Again, note the "or". So that's definitions 2 and 3. So we have various dictionaries covering all three definitions, yet you insist it can *only* mean the third? |
As I said above, I don't insist on that.
emark wrote:
| Let me be clear: denial or disbelief are NOT the same as a mere "lack" of belief. |
No, but denial and disbelief are not the same thing either. |
If you had said denial and "UNbelief" were not the same thing, I would agree entirely. Disbelief is not the same as unbelief. Unbelief is the lack of belief. Disbelief indicates a position has been adopted, something considered and rejected. Something denied, in fact.
emark wrote:
| If you are unsure, or not bothered, or perhaps feel you do not know - maybe can never know - you are an agnostic. |
Since you're keen on etymology, you should look up what agnostic means - it means "without knowledge", and can either mean someone who doesn't know if there's a god, or someone who claims we can't know. It isn't simply being "unsure" or aren't bothered. |
Of course, I didn't say it was "simply" that. I specifically pointed out the word can apply to those who feel "they do not know" or may never be able to know. Which is what you say too. Don't disagree when we agree!
emark wrote:
AnEnglishMaster wrote:
The fact remains that a (if you like, "positive negative") belief that God does not exist IS a belief system. However much you dislike that - it's what the words mean |
Well it's a belief. I think "system" implies more than one belief. Is my belief that the sun will rise tomorrow a whole "belief system" in itself? What about my belief that there are probably no teapots orbiting Jupiter? Do I have millions of these belief systems?
This doesn't apply to all atheists anyway.
|
I am content to lose the word "system" if you like. However, all I have been trying to demonstrate is that a belief that God does not exist IS a belief.
English
|
You have failed. It is not a belief - It is an evidence informed conclusion. Scientists are open minded until the evidence confirms the position. From the Big Bang to Evolution, there are very few gaps left for zeus to hide in. Asking for the evidence would perhaps permit you to see clear sighted through the fog of your own wish fulfillment in sophistry - 'And Lo You would behold no jehova'! 
Elan
|
3 Feb 12, 11:02 PM
AnEnglishMaster
UK(ME), 5 yrs
|
TuvaOrBust wrote:
AnEnglishMaster wrote:
It is interesting that you twist my aside about "even" by dictionary definition into my being "keen" on them. However, let's press on. |
Since dictionary definitions of the word differ from one to the next - some giving the correct definition, and some not - I personally don't see how anyone can rely too heavily on them for these definitions, but since you mentioned that 'even' the dictionary definition supported what you believed the word to mean, I thought it relevant to point out that the most respected one does not. |
Except I quoted the most respected one too - and in a much fuller and comprehensive version than yours, it would appear. By all means say "another" version differs, but don't make untrue statements. Since it WAS the "most respected" one which I too quoted, it clearly CANNOT fail to support what I said.
TuvaOrBust wrote:
Instead of referring to dictionaries, isn't it better to try to understand how atheists actually define the word? Definitions are only important, after all, so that misunderstandings can be kept to a minimum when people communicate with each other. I'm sure there are atheists who use the word the way you do, but I can assure you that they are in the minority. |
Can you? What evidence do you have that YOUR interpretation is the majority one? After all, if you are relying on your own anecdotal experience, I too have seen plenty of such evidence to support what I stated - even on these boards from your fellow atheists.
Moreover, if we are debating in the theological/philosophical world, we must use the terminology as defined in that arena . In just the same way as "sugar" means different things on a shopping list and in a chemistry laboratory, words in the metaphysical world have different textures from how they may be used in an everyday context.
TuvaOrBust wrote:
AnEnglishMaster wrote:
It is also interesting that, even with the quotation you use, you seem to have missed the fact that the definition is also given as "disbelief", not just lack of belief. The two are different, are they not? |
No, they are the same. |
No, they are not. Shock horror - now what do we do? Your move.
Actually, I will try to show below why they are not the same, to help us out of this impasse.
TuvaOrBust wrote:
The OED gives two definitions for 'disbelief', of which the following is clearly the most relevant: |
Ah. I see. The one you prefer is "clearly the most relevant". On what impartial basis is that, please?
You see, I prefer the other one. Shock horror, impasse again.
TuvaOrBust wrote:
"lack of faith"
AnEnglishMaster wrote:
Oh, and within a few posts after yours, two other atheists are content (bless them - oops, sorry ) to say honestly that they DO regard their atheism as a belief that there is no God. So why do you claim it should not be viewed that way by me? After all, if it is good enough for them, it ought to be for me, even if only as a matter of courtesy. |
I don't know which two atheists you are referring to, and I can't and won't speak for anyone else even if I did. Perhaps they believe there is no god in addition to being an atheist? |
And people (well, one or two anyway) accuse ME of sophistry and semantics?
TuvaOrBust wrote:
Or perhaps they really do use the definition as you do, but I can assure you they would then be amongst a small minority of atheists. |
Again - evidence please, that they are the "small minority". By the way, if your "evidence" is as dispassionately in line with your unilateral declaration, as above, of what is "clearly" the most relevant, don't bother.
TuvaOrBust wrote:
If courtesy is important to you, I would suggest you use the definition that the majority use. More importantly: if you continue to use your definition, then you will continue to misunderstand the position of many, many people (including Richard Dawkins). |
Dawkins doesn't seem to understand that the God he claims not to believe in is not a God Whom Christians believe in either. He invents ways of telling everyone what Christians think - when they don't - and then demolishes his own fictions. Impartial? Certainly not. Rational? Not in any way. Scientific, even? Epic fail there too. If he doesn't understand the basics, I am not sure we can trust him to understand what he thinks he thinks either.
TuvaOrBust wrote:
AnEnglishMaster wrote:
I am uncertain which OED you are using. I have two to hand: the Compact (over 187,000 definitions) and my beloved two-volume New Shorter (heading towards 4000 pages, and with over 83,000 quotations alone in reference to the definitions).
Compact: "the belief that God does not exist". |
You know which version of the OED I used; I gave you the link! |
I didn't follow the link - I trusted you to have quoted from a version accurately. I didn't say I couldn't know, I said I was uncertain. It was not germane.
TuvaOrBust wrote:
Many versions of the OED use historical definitions, whereas the online version (ODO) that I referred to uses the most commonly used definitions today. |
Hmmmm.
Perhaps so.
However, the fact that it is online suggests it is free. Now, tell me - which version of the OED is likely to be the most comprehensive, accurate and detailed - one they offer for free, or one like my two-volume Shorter Oxford, for which they can demand over £100? Just asking.
TuvaOrBust wrote:
AnEnglishMaster wrote:
New Shorter: "disbelief in, or the denial of, the existence of God or gods" |
Which is the same as lack of belief, as I commented above. |
Which, as above, we continue to differ over.
TuvaOrBust wrote:
AnEnglishMaster wrote:
Both point out the roots of the word (which is important), in coming from the Greek a-theos - "without God or denying God"
Even a cursory view of etymology and the technical meaning of words in the field of theology and philosophy should suffice. |
Again, 'without god' is not the same as belief in the non-existence. |
Which, of course, I did not claim.
I pointed out the ROOTS of the word. The roots of the word and the word itself are clearly different - otherwise there would BE no word.
However, again as I pointed out, the roots of the word demonstrate the way in which the word has developed, and its nuances of meaning.
TuvaOrBust wrote:
Let me be clear: denial or disbelief IS the same as a mere "lack" of belief, no matter how much you wish it wasn't. |
Again, no.
TuvaOrBust wrote:
All your 'analogy' does is demonstrate your lack of understanding.
Agnosticism is not some hazy patch in between two extremes - it is the lack of knowledge. Lack of knowledge is not the same as being apathetic, though either can lead to the other. |
I am unclear as to whom you are addressing this remark. I have not said that lack of knowledge is the same as being apathetic. I have said that agnostics include a variety of positions (as indeed emark has also confirmed).
TuvaOrBust wrote:
Atheism is not the opposite of theism |
But the dictionary confirmed it is.
And the simplest of consideration of how words are constructed show the same. Tonal - atonal. Hydrous - anhydrous. Symmetrical - asymmetrical.
TuvaOrBust wrote:
AnEnglishMaster wrote:
And (sorry about this), your reaction and comments give more than enough substance to show my point was truthful. Tell me, why DO you get so het up about being shown you have a belief system about God? |
I don't get het up, and nor have I been show to have a belief system in god.
AnEnglishMaster wrote:
And the casual sniping about "hundreds of years etc" - which you bring up more than once - really reinforces the scientific objectivity you claim to bring to the matter. |
I've no need to snipe |
Then why do you?
TuvaOrBust wrote:
I'm really not sure what you mean by that. |
Just what I said. I thought that part of your post was more helpful.
TuvaOrBust wrote:
AnEnglishMaster wrote:
However. Is a "reason", or a "need" to believe, the arbiter which determines whether or not something is real (ie, the FACTS, which is what science, quite rightly, claims to be interested in?). At one time, people never had a "reason" to believe that the whole world was made up of more than the Four Essences - Fire, Earth, Air, Water. The truth was different, whether they had a reason or not to think otherwise.
I have no "reason" to bother about the reality of, let's say, Tristan da Cunha. I will never visit it. It impacts on my life in no way whatsoever, as far as I can see. If it sank into the ocean tomorrow, I doubt whether I would have any reason to know or care. But it is still real.
Moreover, there MAY be reasons why I SHOULD be concerned about the reality of something, but I am just unaware of those facts. Suppose I have - without yet knowing it - a life-threatening disease, and the only cure comes from a plant which grows, uniquely, on Tristan da Cunha. I may SEE no reason to be concerned about the island, but the fact remains that there IS a reason why I should be. My ignorance does not change the reality. |
No, reason or need is not the arbiter which determines whether something is real or not. However, lack of reason or need is an important factor in whether or not I personally consider it worth being considered as being real. |
But, as I pointed out, you may not perceive a reason, but one may still be there, and very important. It is only if you claim omniscience (which of course, would make you God, and then you would have to disappear, as you would not believe in yourself) that you could say that you could be sure that other reasons don't exist (than the ones you know about).
TuvaOrBust wrote:
So, again I ask: how old do you believe the Earth to be? |
It is particularly irrelevant to this thread - after all, before we got lost in the quagmire of etymology, I posted initially because Attenborough says (and I concur) that you can believe the world is over 4 billion years old, and still believe in God. Which is what was actually the point, and what we have strayed from.
I do not believe the world as seen now is 6000 years old. And it is NOT the teaching of the Bible that it is. You do not have to think that to be a Christian.
TuvaOrBust wrote:
And are you going to respond to my last post? |
I thought I had responded to most of your points. In fact, I am far LESS aware of your responding to my questions.
Oh yes.
The other illustrations of how the words stack up.
If I ask you "is it your belief that there is no God?" do you answer "yes" or "no"?
If you answer "yes" - fine. You are an atheist.
If you answer "no" - you are not an atheist.
The fact remains that it is your BELIEF about God which determines your position.
And as for "lack of belief" and "disbelief" being the same.
If you give a policeman an account of how you happen to have £1000 in cash on you, he may react to your telling him that you just found it in your pocket, in a number of ways.
He may believe you.
He may DISbelieve you.
He may have a lack of belief in what you tell him.
DISbelieving means he actively thinks you are lying. A lack of belief means you have not convinced him. Disbelief and a lack of belief ARE different.
English "It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others" - Anon
"A true Dominant wants to lift his submissive up, not do her down" - AnEnglishMaster
|
4 Feb 12, 1:00 PM
emark
UK, 9 yrs |
AnEnglishMaster wrote:
emark wrote:
Someone call Etymology-Man! |
Nice one. Do I have to wear my underpants outside my trousers if I apply for the post? |
Reference to http://xkcd.com/1010/ btw
emark wrote:
But what does disbelief mean? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disbelief says "Refusal or reluctance to believe" and "a rejection of belief" - that's still "not believing in X" rather than "believing not X".
In fact there are three classifications one can make:
1. Lack of belief (sometimes called implicit atheism)
2. Rejection of belief or disbelief (sometimes called explicit weak atheism).
3. Believing there are no gods (sometimes called strong atheism).
(The distinction between 1 and 2 is that 2 is a conscious rejection - someone who is aware of the concept of God, considers the question, and decides he doesn't believe. But it's still a "not believe" rather than a positive belief. Where as 1 can also include babies/people who have never heard of the concept of god/people who don't give a damn.)
(The terms implicit and explicit can be used to distinguish between 1 and 2/3; the terms weak and strong can be used to distinguish between 1/2 and 3.) |
That is really interesting and helpful.
Actually, I am reasonably content with it. Except that there is an important distinction between 1 and 2&3.
2&3 differ from 1 in two important ways. They are conscious, and they are a rejection. It is there that the crux seems to lie, in my view. That to me is what atheism is.
I also find it hard by any stretch of the meaning of words to consider a baby as being in any way "an atheist" - however "implicit" the first grouping may be (and which perhaps shows the limitations of such terminology). Nor does it seem appropriate to push together artificially those who "don't give a damn" with infants. |
Okay, I'm fine with only considering 2 and 3 - and certainly anyone who self-identifies as an atheist must be in 2 or 3, so if we're talking about that group of people, this is what we mean.
There is some argument that the distinction between "not believe in X" and "believe in not X" is meaningless. But to me, that's all the more reason why the "Aha, you do have a belief too" isn't sound.
Not believing in something isn't a belief by definition. Unless you would say that people have all kinds of beliefs, such as "not believing in elves", "not believing in invisible tulips", "not believing in orbital tea cups" and an infinite number of other possible conceivable things that they don't believe in?
The other problem is, if you argue that not believing requires evidence too (I forget if you had, but it's something often demanded of atheists), then what is the "default" position? I can't both not "believe" and not "not believe"! Well, I suppose you might say people who haven't decided if they believe or not, but what is their state of mind until they have made up their mind? Maybe my mind works a bit differently to theirs, but even if I'm considering the possibility of whether some thing is true or not, I know that my state of mind until I'm convinced is "not having the belief that it is true".
Note that "reject" is merely meant to mean rejection of belief. It's not the same thing as rejecting any possibility that it could ever be true. Most atheists would be happy to believe if actually convinced by evidence and reason. Also:
| If you had said denial and "UNbelief" were not the same thing, I would agree entirely. Disbelief is not the same as unbelief. Unbelief is the lack of belief. Disbelief indicates a position has been adopted, something considered and rejected. Something denied, in fact. |
It's a rejection of *belief*.
So it means I've taken the view that I don't believe. That isn't the same thing as saying, I've rejected the existence itself (i.e., I haven't declared it to be false).
| In any case, even though 1 seems remarkably limp, it is clearly NOT Tuv's position - yet he claims a mere "lack of belief" - which is how position 1 is defined. But it patently is a very different animal from what Tuv espouses. |
A lot of people confuse categories 1 and 2 - which leads to some people not liking the definition altogether because they think it would include babies/people who don't care/etc, but they end up dismissing category 2 also. Would TuvaOrBust object to saying he fits into category 2, I wonder?
| Of course, I didn't say it was "simply" that. I specifically pointed out the word can apply to those who feel "they do not know" or may never be able to know. Which is what you say too. Don't disagree when we agree! |
I guess I'm an agnostic, but I'm also an atheist.
If you asked me if I believed in ghosts, I would answer "No". I wouldn't expect someone to say "Aha, so you have a belief!" I wouldn't sidestep the question and say "I don't know if ghosts exist", even though that is technically true also.
| I am content to lose the word "system" if you like. However, all I have been trying to demonstrate is that a belief that God does not exist IS a belief. |
That is, yes. But saying not believing in God (even if you explicitly state this) is a belief in itself, I'm not so sure on.Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement
Edited 4 Feb 12, 1:02 PM by emark
|
