Christian faith in TrekLit?

[ST-One]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Great, so most of here are number 2 - do you need pictures or something?

You should ask that about yourself:

I'm using 'atheism' in a narrower sense.

You're using 'atheism' in its most inclusive sense - and interestingly, with this sense, the concept of 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' overlap - or near overlap(this, only if you come with some serious hair-splitting).

To divide atheism into agnosticism and atheism is the very split-hair.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Great, so most of here are number 2 - do you need pictures or something?

You should ask that about yourself:

I'm using 'atheism' in a narrower sense.

You're using 'atheism' in its most inclusive sense - and interestingly, with this sense, the concept of 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' overlap - or near overlap(this, only if you come with some serious hair-splitting).

To divide atheism into agnosticism and atheism is the very split-hair.

Not if it is so established in the 'Urban Dictionary' - and any other place where you care to look for the definitions of the concepts of 'Atheism' and 'Agnosticism'.

As it turns out, it is so established - as you yourself proved in your previous post.

 

[JoeZhang]

Not if it it established in the 'Urban Dictionary'

The Urban Dictionary is edited by any spanner, one of it's definitions of 'Priest' is "A profession that has come to be associated with acts of sodomy and depravity towards children".

So you are OK with me using the Urban Dictionary to say that Priest is simply another term for child-rapist?

 

[ST-One]

You should ask that about yourself:

I'm using 'atheism' in a narrower sense.

You're using 'atheism' in its most inclusive sense - and interestingly, with this sense, the concept of 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' overlap - or near overlap(this, only if you come with some serious hair-splitting).

To divide atheism into agnosticism and atheism is the very split-hair.

Not if it it established in the 'Urban Dictionary' - and any other place where you care to look for the definitions of the concepts of 'Atheism' and 'Agnosticism'.

As it turns out, it is so established - as you yourself proved in your previous post.

Why are you having such difficulty accepting that I am an atheist - someone who doesn't believe in your god nor any other god?

 

[ST-One]

Not if it it established in the 'Urban Dictionary'

The Urban Dictionary is edited by any spanner, one of it's definitions of 'Priest' is "A profession that has come to be associated with acts of sodomy and depravity towards children".

So you are OK with me using the Urban Dictionary to say that Priest is simply another term for child-rapist?

To be fair, I used it first.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

To divide atheism into agnosticism and atheism is the very split-hair.

Not if it it established in the 'Urban Dictionary' - and any other place where you care to look for the definitions of the concepts of 'Atheism' and 'Agnosticism'.

As it turns out, it is so established - as you yourself proved in your previous post.

Why are you having such difficulty accepting that I am an atheist - someone who doesn't believe in your god nor any other god?

I have no trouble accepting you are an atheist - in the more inclusive sense, that is.

Why do you have trouble accepting the fact that the notion of 'atheism' in its larger sense is synonymous to the notion of 'agnosticism' - which has been my point these last few posts?

PS - You are also assuming I believe in God.

 

[Gepard]

PS - You are also assuming I believe in God.

You're sure coming across like someone who does – or, at least, as someone who is very upset by people who don't believe.

 

[ST-One]

Why do you have trouble accepting the fact that the notion of 'atheism' in its larger sense is synonymous to the notion of 'agnosticism' - which has been my point these last few posts?

Atheist works just fine for me.
I don't think we need this division of atheism into subgroups - it's pointless.

Atheism describes the absence of believe in god(s). The rest is just... hot air, mental gymnastics of people who, perhaps, are afraid to be branded as an atheist.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

PS - You are also assuming I believe in God.

You're sure coming across like someone who does – or, at least, as someone who is very upset by people who don't believe.

Really?
From my POV, you seem upset that I called you 'agnostics'. And you kept negating this despite clear evidence to the contrary (the meaning of the concept).

 

[JoeZhang]

PS - You are also assuming I believe in God.

You're sure coming across like someone who does – or, at least, as someone who is very upset by people who don't believe.

Really?
From my POV, you seem upset that I called you 'agnostics'. And you kept negating this despite clear evidence to the contrary (the meaning of the concept).

I thought you were a creationist to be honest, your moves are straight out of that playbook.

 

[ST-One]

PS - You are also assuming I believe in God.

You're sure coming across like someone who does – or, at least, as someone who is very upset by people who don't believe.

Really?
From my POV, you seem upset that I called you 'agnostics'. And you kept negating this despite clear evidence to the contrary (the meaning of the concept).

No, it's because you get the definition of 'atheist' wrong; you actually turn it onto its head and make it out to be a belief-system of its own - which it most certainly isn't.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

You're sure coming across like someone who does – or, at least, as someone who is very upset by people who don't believe.

Really?
From my POV, you seem upset that I called you 'agnostics'. And you kept negating this despite clear evidence to the contrary (the meaning of the concept).

No, it's because you get the definition of 'atheist' wrong; you actually turn it onto its head and make it out to be a belief-system of its own - which it most certainly isn't.

And here it goes again.

Any way I look at it, you're afraid "to be branded as an" agnostic. And you seem willing to deny the meaning of the concept of 'agnostic' to do it.

My point is not about religion/faith or anything else 'delicate'.

It's a simple semantic matter. And you seem unwilling to accept it.

Most likely, you interpreted my mounting frustration with this situation as me being 'upset'.

PS - About 'agnosticism' or 'atheism' in its inclusive sense - yes, they do NOT require faith.
But 'atheism' in its more strict sense - positive atheism - does require faith.

 

[ST-One]

Really?
From my POV, you seem upset that I called you 'agnostics'. And you kept negating this despite clear evidence to the contrary (the meaning of the concept).

No, it's because you get the definition of 'atheist' wrong; you actually turn it onto its head and make it out to be a belief-system of its own - which it most certainly isn't.

And here it goes again.

Any way I look at it, you're afraid "to be branded as an" agnostic. And you seem willing to deny the meaning of the concept of 'agnostic' to do it.

My point is not about religion/faith or anything else 'delicate'.

It's a simple semantic matter. And you seem unwilling to accept it.

Yes, because agnosticism is a distinction that's not necessary. It needlessly complicates things.

 

[ST-One]

Really?
From my POV, you seem upset that I called you 'agnostics'. And you kept negating this despite clear evidence to the contrary (the meaning of the concept).

No, it's because you get the definition of 'atheist' wrong; you actually turn it onto its head and make it out to be a belief-system of its own - which it most certainly isn't.

And here it goes again.

Any way I look at it, you're afraid "to be branded as an" agnostic. And you seem willing to deny the meaning of the concept of 'agnostic' to do it.

My point is not about religion/faith or anything else 'delicate'.

It's a simple semantic matter. And you seem unwilling to accept it.

Most likely, you interpreted my mounting frustration with this situation as me being 'upset'.

PS - About 'agnosticism' or 'atheism' in its inclusive sense - yes, they do NOT require faith.
But 'atheism' in its more strict sense - positive atheism - does require faith.

That is simply not true.
To make a claim for which there is no evidence has nothing to do with atheism, but a lot to do with stupidity.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

ST-One

As per the definition of 'atheism' from the Urban Dictionnary/Wikipedia/etc - there are two meanings of the word 'atheist':

A negative atheist (such as yourself) - does not make any claim for which there is no proof; and yes, it does NOT require faith.

But a positive atheist - the one convinced that God doesn't exist - DOES make a claim for which there is no proof; meaning this positive atheist DOES require faith.


If you want to more clearly separate yourself from a 'positive atheist', I suggest you accept to call yourself an 'agnostic'.

 

[ST-One]

St-One

As per the definition of 'atheism' from the urban Dictionnary/Wikipedia/etc - there are two meanings of the word 'atheist':

A negative atheist (such as yourself) - does not make any claim for which there is no proof; and yes, it does NOT require faith.

But a positive atheist - the one convinced that God doesn't exist - DOES make a claim for which there is no proof; meaning this positive atheist DOES require faith.


If you want to more clearly separate yourself from a 'positive atheist', I suggest you accept to call yourself an 'agnostic'.

Why would I want to do that?
Atheists aren't a homogeneous group.
That I'm, with my lack of belief, defined as an atheist is perfectly okay and correct.

 

[Capt_Pickirk]

Damn, this thread is so off topic it's in the Delta quadrant

 

[Smitty]

Damn, this thread is so off topic it's in the Delta quadrant

LOL, i was thinking the same thing. Words of wisdom that I have heard are "You cannot argue an atheist into heaven" and also something about throwing your pearls before swine. I am sure there are many more on both sides of the issue.

 

[neozeks]

I'm sorry for continuing the OT, but I want to interject here. I think both ProtoAvatar and ST-One are partially correct and partially incorrect.

It is true ProtoAvatar originally made the mistake of limiting the term atheist only to positive atheists. But it is also true ST-One said this:

Sorry, but I find this wishy-washy, fence-sitting agnosticism-stuff quite pointless.

I think of myself as agnostic, amongst other things, so I find such dismissals of agnosticism as cowardly vaguely insulting. Especially since I think it's based on a misunderstanding of the concept and because the very same people who say such things actually believe the same things as me.

Agnosticism is not a pointless term. It represents something that can overlap with atheism but is not the same. Atheism/theism is based on the presence or lack of belief in God. Agnosticism is based on whether you think that the truth value of some claim/belief (like belief in God) is unknown/unknowable. One can be an agnostic atheist (from wiki: "Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist") but one can also be an agnostic theist (wiki: "The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence"). Plus lots of other subcategories, like strong/weak agnosticism (whether it's 'unknowable' or just 'unknown') etc. Combine that with different subcategories of atheist/theist and it's no wonder misunderstandings arise when people use such terms without further specification.

In light of all that, I consider myself an agnostic atheist and I have a strong suspicion all the people having an argument about terminology here also fall in that category.

 

[ST-One]

I'm sorry for continuing the OT, but I want to interject here. I think both ProtoAvatar and ST-One are partially correct and partially incorrect.

It is true ProtoAvatar originally made the mistake of limiting the term atheist only to positive atheists. But it is also true ST-One said this:

Sorry, but I find this wishy-washy, fence-sitting agnosticism-stuff quite pointless.

I think of myself as agnostic, amongst other things, so I find such dismissals of agnosticism as cowardly vaguely insulting. Especially since I think it's based on a misunderstanding of the concept and because the very same people who say such things actually believe the same things as me.

Agnosticism is not a pointless term. It represents something that can overlap with atheism but is not the same. Atheism/theism is based on the presence or lack of belief in God. Agnosticism is based on whether you think that the truth value of some claim/belief (like belief in God) is unknown/unknowable. One can be an agnostic atheist (from wiki: "Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist") but one can also be an agnostic theist (wiki: "The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence"). Plus lots of other subcategories, like strong/weak agnosticism (whether it's 'unknowable' or just 'unknown') etc. Combine that with different subcategories of atheist/theist and it's no wonder misunderstandings arise when people use such terms without further specification.

In light of all that, I consider myself an agnostic atheist and I have a strong suspicion all the people having an argument about terminology here also fall in that category.

Sure, using that definition I too would fall under it.

But, personally, I don't want to put myself in these nice, neat philosophical drawers.
The general term 'atheist' is fully sufficient for me... the rest (being open to new information; that just because we don't know about something now doesn't mean we can't ever know anything about it) is just... common sense.