@JEL625 Agreed. I think it's a more reasonable way of quantifying these philosophical perspectives. It might be interesting to construct a test which actually plots you on a graph with those factors.
Don't overthink it. Atheists don't believe in gods or do believe that there are no gods. You seem to think that the latter group claim "absolute knowledge that there is no god." But the belief that there are no gods (strong atheism) needn't rest on absolute certainty of any kind. Just reason. Some ppl don't believe in Bigfoot. Some ppl deny Bigfoot. You say the denyers must prove a negative. But they only need to give a good reason like "nobody's ever seen one." Negative proved.
Atheists "don't believe in gods" or "do believe there are no gods." That's a pretty significant difference. One is the lack of belief, the other is a statement about a distinct belief. This may seem inconsequential when you don't really think that out, but isn't when you're evaluating something on epistemological terms. The attempt to find a better set of descriptors by the community is an attempt to achieve philosophical consistency.
What's interesting to me is how you characterize agnostics (or anyone) that doesn't agree with how you prefer to define "agnostic" and "atheist" as "misunderstanding". And how you offer the "accurate" labels. I understand what your saying. There is nothing more accurate about the definitions you prefer to use. In fact , the reason you have to make videos like this is that your definitions are not main-stream. "agnostic/atheist etal are terms I've only heard used by You-Tube atheists.
You can make arguments for why your nomenclature and primary definitions are superior, but there's nothing authoritative about your opinion. In the end colloquial usage IS the authority on what words mean, imo.
Colloquial usage is important to understand, but I don't know if I would say it is the authority on what words mean. For example, it doesn't matter that a great number of people think 'eschew' means 'to favor.' Eschew still means 'to ignore.' But that's not really my point here. The fact of the matter is that the colloquial terms that are used are incapable of properly categorizing the differences of opinion on the matter. They are overly simplistic.
@owheydusoapsk We appear to disagree on the colloquial definition of atheist. As I understand it, most people seem to think it is "one who claims they know there is no god," which basically describes no one I have ever met. But yes, I suspect we will disagree. You seem very dug in to your usage of these terms and seem to define yourself by them much more rigidly than myself. I am transient to the terminology which best describes the variety of people I meet, not popular usage really.
Oh, I'm amenable to using your nomenclature if it ever becomes daily coinage and not "church-talk" only heard amongst atheists on U-Tube or the monthly meeting of Atheists of America.
"one who claims they know there is no god,". Well there's your problem. I don't know anyone (w/the exception of dicks like Lane Craig raising a straw-man in debate) who define atheists like that.
I live in the Bible belt and I've observed that to be the dominant usage of the term by agnostics and theists alike. I'm sure it differs, but people I speak to on the internet typically use it to this effect as well. I think YOU are making up your own perception of its popular usage like anyone else. I suppose this is just another flaw in using terminology just because it's popular.
I agree with you on the 4 terms. I think of them as different qualities to measure similar to a mathematics graph
x= Gnostic-agnostic
y=theist-atheist
they measure different things, one is knowledge the other belief
JEL625 4 months ago
@JEL625 Agreed. I think it's a more reasonable way of quantifying these philosophical perspectives. It might be interesting to construct a test which actually plots you on a graph with those factors.
Solthiel 3 months ago
@Solthiel the only difficulty i see with that is what to set as 0 for the grid. sounds like a fun project tho
JEL625 3 months ago
@JEL625 On the knowledge scale, zero would be the utter ignorance of a babe.
On the belief scale, Zero would be undefined. One cannot believe and disbelieve simultaneously.
L00NGB00W 1 month ago
Don't overthink it. Atheists don't believe in gods or do believe that there are no gods. You seem to think that the latter group claim "absolute knowledge that there is no god." But the belief that there are no gods (strong atheism) needn't rest on absolute certainty of any kind. Just reason. Some ppl don't believe in Bigfoot. Some ppl deny Bigfoot. You say the denyers must prove a negative. But they only need to give a good reason like "nobody's ever seen one." Negative proved.
DeaconVerter 6 months ago
@DeaconVerter
Yeah, I don't get the "absolute certainty" atheists claim to be charged with. I don't believe big foot exists and I'm not agnostic about it.
owheydusoapsk 6 months ago
@DeaconVerter
Atheists "don't believe in gods" or "do believe there are no gods." That's a pretty significant difference. One is the lack of belief, the other is a statement about a distinct belief. This may seem inconsequential when you don't really think that out, but isn't when you're evaluating something on epistemological terms. The attempt to find a better set of descriptors by the community is an attempt to achieve philosophical consistency.
Solthiel 5 months ago
What's interesting to me is how you characterize agnostics (or anyone) that doesn't agree with how you prefer to define "agnostic" and "atheist" as "misunderstanding". And how you offer the "accurate" labels. I understand what your saying. There is nothing more accurate about the definitions you prefer to use. In fact , the reason you have to make videos like this is that your definitions are not main-stream. "agnostic/atheist etal are terms I've only heard used by You-Tube atheists.
owheydusoapsk 6 months ago
@owheydusoapsk
cont>>
You can make arguments for why your nomenclature and primary definitions are superior, but there's nothing authoritative about your opinion. In the end colloquial usage IS the authority on what words mean, imo.
owheydusoapsk 6 months ago
@owheydusoapsk
Colloquial usage is important to understand, but I don't know if I would say it is the authority on what words mean. For example, it doesn't matter that a great number of people think 'eschew' means 'to favor.' Eschew still means 'to ignore.' But that's not really my point here. The fact of the matter is that the colloquial terms that are used are incapable of properly categorizing the differences of opinion on the matter. They are overly simplistic.
Solthiel 6 months ago
@Solthiel
The colloquial definition of atheist (one who denies deity) unlike your example, is an accepted definition of the word.
"The fact of the matter is that the colloquial terms that are used are incapable..." I guess we'll just have to disagree on the fact of the matter.
owheydusoapsk 6 months ago
@owheydusoapsk We appear to disagree on the colloquial definition of atheist. As I understand it, most people seem to think it is "one who claims they know there is no god," which basically describes no one I have ever met. But yes, I suspect we will disagree. You seem very dug in to your usage of these terms and seem to define yourself by them much more rigidly than myself. I am transient to the terminology which best describes the variety of people I meet, not popular usage really.
Solthiel 6 months ago
@Solthiel
Oh, I'm amenable to using your nomenclature if it ever becomes daily coinage and not "church-talk" only heard amongst atheists on U-Tube or the monthly meeting of Atheists of America.
"one who claims they know there is no god,". Well there's your problem. I don't know anyone (w/the exception of dicks like Lane Craig raising a straw-man in debate) who define atheists like that.
owheydusoapsk 6 months ago
@owheydusoapsk
I live in the Bible belt and I've observed that to be the dominant usage of the term by agnostics and theists alike. I'm sure it differs, but people I speak to on the internet typically use it to this effect as well. I think YOU are making up your own perception of its popular usage like anyone else. I suppose this is just another flaw in using terminology just because it's popular.
Solthiel 6 months ago