DrTerwillikerDrTerwilliker's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2007-08-06

Damn it, the whole thing drives me crazy.

I just got in a whole, long, drawn-out debate, on the IMDb "The Dark Knight" board, of all things, on the definitions of agnosticism and atheism and whether the two can coexist in one person or not. I was, obviously, on the side that they surely could. This guy was insisting that atheism is absolutely an assertion that there is NO god, and that agnosticism is a "maybe" on the question of whether god exists or not. I'm so sick of that shit. Pulling out wikipedia articles and dictionary definitions wouldn't even convince this guy. Actually, dictionaries don't help much with the whole "atheism" argument, since most of them use only the definition of strong atheism. Anyway, the guy kept insisting that my belief is "nontheism," which is actually the exact same thing since non=a, but whatever. I gave up at that point, because it was becoming clearer and clearer that I'd engaged in a debate with one of those "I'm always right" pricks who will never budge an inch, regardless of how well an opponent argues. My brother's one of them. Seems to be a lot among men between the ages of 14-60.

Anyway, why do people still confuse these definitions so frequently? This was a learned guy, and he apparently had no clue that atheism is the lack of a belief, and not a firm doctrine. Arrgh.

Okay, I'm done.


‹ Caesar wrote extensively about Jesus.... A young earth creationist in logic class ›
Bookmark/Search this post with:
delicious | digg | reddit | magnoliacom | newsvine | furl | google | yahoo
Technorati Tags: Freethinking Anonymous
Submitted by DrTerwilliker on December 5, 2007 - 5:29am. login or register to post comments

V1per41V1per41's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-09
That can be pretty


That can be pretty annoying. Most people I talk to think that atheism is the assertion that a god(s) doesn't exist and agnostic means that you believe there is "something" you just don't know what it is.

I don't understand how someone could argue with you when you present dictionary definitions of the terms... that just makes no sense.


"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
December 5, 2007 - 11:54am login or register to post comments

ParanoidAgnosticParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 359
Joined: 2007-05-20
The a- prefix I think is a


The a- prefix I think is a bit tricky. It can mean without.

This means very little because the the words atheist and agnostic are incorporated into english and english is a living language. The words mean what they are currently used to mean, not what they meant centuries ago in the root language.

These arguments are essentially unwinnable due to the fluid nature of the english language. A dictionary will only give you what the author felt were the correct meanings of the word at the time and place it was written. A dictionary only documents the current usage it doesn't create it.

Personally I think that "atheism" has both meanings. We differentiate by using the term "strong atheism" to describe atheism as a positive assertion rather than the rejection of other positive assertions. The problem is that "strong atheism" only has meaning in small pockets like this site where we have discussed the difference. It's not a term that's in widespread use.

It's probably best not to allow yourself to be defined by a one word label anyway.


...but, if after you calmly explained the distinction and pointed to the evidence he put his hands over his ears and sang "lalala I'm not listening" then yes, he's a jerk.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
December 11, 2007 - 2:57am login or register to post comments

EbioniteEbionite's picture
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-12-03
ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

These arguments are essentially unwinnable due to the fluid nature of the english language. A dictionary will only give you what the author felt were the correct meanings of the word at the time and place it was written. A dictionary only documents the current usage it doesn't create it.


People love to wave dictionary entries at you when you try to explain what "atheism" and "agnosticism" actually mean. I always respond by pointing out that dictionaries indicated usage, not technical definitions. That means if a word is widely misused (as these two are) the dictionary will list the inaccurate definition.

I also find that by the time you get to the point that you're explaining you can be both an atheist and an agnostic their eyes cross and they stop listening.

"Any fool can make history, but it takes a genius to write it."
Oscar Wilde
December 11, 2007 - 3:39am login or register to post comments

I AM GOD AS YOU
Posts: 395
Joined: 2007-09-29
... don't forget the

... don't forget the Diests, god of abe is dead, no reveleation .... we are on our own .....
December 11, 2007 - 4:29am login or register to post comments

marcusfishModerator
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-11
ParanoidAgnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
This means very little because the the words atheist and agnostic are incorporated into english and english is a living language. The words mean what they are currently used to mean, not what they meant centuries ago in the root language.


Once I find myself in an argument of semantics I assume the argument has lost all hope of validity. I know there is a famous quote about using words for what they actually mean and I agree that it is an admirable thing, in theory. In practice though there is no consensus on meaning of words and the dictionary does nothing but muddy the waters.

It is my experience that the theist, or reluctant atheist (who calls himself an agnostic), would much rather discuss semantic particulars than to talk about the subject at hand. There is a great deal of safety in avoiding topics like “who on earth would believe the twaddle of superstition?” Nothing is more effective in this regard than to spin off onto semantic topics or Bible errancy.

My opinion, who cares which words mean what? I would prefer to just set agreed upon definitions for relevant words at the onset of a conversation and just move on. We will never agree on exactly what a word means unless we just decide to.

vexed wrote:
Your ideas without evidence are about as useful as a PhD in Bowling.
December 11, 2007 - 10:48am login or register to post comments

ronin-dogronin-dog's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2007-10-18
Dawkins has a sliding scale


Dawkins has a sliding scale in the God Delusion that I like.

I love discussing, but when they don't listen I can't be bothered spending the energy. It isn't worth it.

I was a bit agnostic for a while, while I was considering the possibilities. But now I am 100% a-theist.

I always knew that Christianity was rediculous though.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51

The three "I"s of religion: Ignorance, Intollerance, Irrationality.
December 12, 2007 - 4:10am login or register to post comments

ArianeBArianeB's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-09-24
I try to think in reverse


I try to think in reverse on this issue.

What is a theist?
A theist God must have the following attributes:

1) Must be a seperate personage from humanity.

2) Must have human qualities (God made man in his own image)

3) Must have some active involvement in human affairs

A Strong Atheist rejects even the concept of a God.

Take away #1 and you have a Gnostic/Budhist conception of "All is God", most Budhists consider themselves atheists since #2 and #3 make no sense without #1

Take away #2 and you have an Agnostic view. Since #3 makes no sense without #2. It really does not matter if there is a God or not. Therefore from a pragmatical view, Atheists and Agnostics are the same.

Take away just #3 and you have a Deist. Its the "I believe in God, but God is a mystery" point of view. Without a God playing an active role in humanity, things like "prayer", "worship", and "scripture" are worthless, thus so is Religion as well. Therefore they share many qualities of Agnostics.

December 13, 2007 - 8:43pm login or register to post comments

ZombieHigh Level Moderator
Zombie's picture
Posts: 398
Joined: 2007-01-28
Once again this proves a

Once again this proves a point of mine, one of the worst things about being an atheist is hearing the same things over and over again from people. If i had a dollar for everytime I have had this debate with someone. /me sighs


Morte alla tyrannus et dei


December 15, 2007 - 3:34am login or register to post comments

I AM GOD AS YOU
Posts: 395
Joined: 2007-09-29
ArianeB wrote, I try to


ArianeB wrote,

I try to think in reverse on this issue.

What is a theist?
A theist God must have the following attributes:

1) Must be a seperate personage from humanity.

2) Must have human qualities (God made man in his own image)

3) Must have some active involvement in human affairs

A Strong Atheist rejects even the concept of a God.

Take away #1 and you have a Gnostic/Budhist conception of "All is God", most Budhists consider themselves atheists since #2 and #3 make no sense without #1

Take away #2 and you have an Agnostic view. Since #3 makes no sense without #2. It really does not matter if there is a God or not. Therefore from a pragmatical view, Atheists and Agnostics are the same.

Take away just #3 and you have a Deist. Its the "I believe in God, but God is a mystery" point of view. Without a God playing an active role in humanity, things like "prayer", "worship", and "scripture" are worthless, thus so is Religion as well. Therefore they share many qualities of Agnostics.

THAT'S so COOL ..... ArianeB bumping ya ! umm feels good ......
December 15, 2007 - 3:49am login or register to post comments