[004]
66Scorpio
Current Version
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
But this is the problem that I wanted to address: the way atheists describe themselves and classify others is not supportable semantically nor philosophically. There may be some political motivation (I recall reading a libertarian website where they claimed that some unreasonable percentage of the population were libertarians based on their own survey). There might also be personal issues to redefine terms so that 20% rather than 1% of the rest of humanity are in the same boat. The term \
to:
But this is the problem that I wanted to address: the way atheists describe themselves and classify others is not supportable semantically nor philosophically. There may be some political motivation (I recall reading a libertarian website where they claimed that some unreasonable percentage of the population were libertarians based on their own survey). There might also be personal issues to redefine terms so that 20% rather than 1% of the rest of humanity are in the same boat. The term \\\"agnostic\\\" can be taken in terms of any lack of knowledge on any subject. An \\\"agnostic theist\\\" believes in gods but doesn\\\'t have their issues sorted out about which gods they believe in. And the term \\\"gnostic\\\" has a whole new set of meanings that we have not touched on.
Yes, technically, you have theists and atheists, monotheists and polytheists, and then guys like Buddhists in contrast to those who describe themselves as atheists. The taxonomy is intricately related to the semantics. For me it is more important to respect how terms are used - or misused - in everyday language. I find that self-described atheists tend to misuse language for collateral purposes.
Regarding \\\"evidence\\\" and such, you seem to miss the point. There is a massive body of evidence for the supernatural, but none that is accepted by \\\"science\\\". Law, for instance, is not scientific at its core. It relies primarily on the evience of people and their observations. It is not \\\"obscenely arrogant\\\" to say that \\\"something is beyond the reach of science\\\" but rather the reverse: it is rather arrogant to think that science can answer all questions.
I am agnostic rather than \\\"anominal\\\" regarding your middle name. I have no opinon regading your middle name, but I have no rational basis to say that middle names do not exist. The same rules should apply with gods and people should be honest in that they are agnostic rather than atheist.
There is the universe and then there is reality. What is subject to scientific inquiry might - but probably not - encompass the universe but it certainly does not encompasss all of reality.
BTW: MERRY CHRISTMAS!
PS: I\\\'m not religious
Yes, technically, you have theists and atheists, monotheists and polytheists, and then guys like Buddhists in contrast to those who describe themselves as atheists. The taxonomy is intricately related to the semantics. For me it is more important to respect how terms are used - or misused - in everyday language. I find that self-described atheists tend to misuse language for collateral purposes.
Regarding \\\"evidence\\\" and such, you seem to miss the point. There is a massive body of evidence for the supernatural, but none that is accepted by \\\"science\\\". Law, for instance, is not scientific at its core. It relies primarily on the evience of people and their observations. It is not \\\"obscenely arrogant\\\" to say that \\\"something is beyond the reach of science\\\" but rather the reverse: it is rather arrogant to think that science can answer all questions.
I am agnostic rather than \\\"anominal\\\" regarding your middle name. I have no opinon regading your middle name, but I have no rational basis to say that middle names do not exist. The same rules should apply with gods and people should be honest in that they are agnostic rather than atheist.
There is the universe and then there is reality. What is subject to scientific inquiry might - but probably not - encompass the universe but it certainly does not encompasss all of reality.
BTW: MERRY CHRISTMAS!
PS: I\\\'m not religious
Changed line(s) 0 from:
to:
The edit is good but the primary thrust of my post was to point out that many self-described atheists and many described by self-described atheists are agnostic rather than atheists.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
But this is the problem that I wanted to address: the way atheists describe themselves and classify others is not supportable semantically nor philosophically. There may be some political motivation (I recall reading a libertarian website where they claimed that some unreasonable percentage of the population were libertarians based on their own survey). There might also be personal issues to redefine terms so that 20% rather than 1% of the rest of humanity are in the same boat. The term \
to:
But this is the problem that I wanted to address: the way atheists describe themselves and classify others is not supportable semantically nor philosophically. There may be some political motivation (I recall reading a libertarian website where they claimed that some unreasonable percentage of the population were libertarians based on their own survey). There might also be personal issues to redefine terms so that 20% rather than 1% of the rest of humanity are in the same boat. The term \\\"agnostic\\\" can be taken in terms of any lack of knowledge on any subject. An \\\"agnostic theist\\\" believes in gods but doesn\\\'t have their issues sorted out about which gods they believe in. And the term \\\"gnostic\\\" has a whole new set of meanings that we have not touched on.
Yes, technically, you have theists and atheists, monotheists and polytheists, and then guys like Buddhists in contrast to those who describe themselves as atheists. The taxonomy is intricately related to the semantics. For me it is more important to respect how terms are used - or misused - in everyday language. I find that self-described atheists tend to misuse language for collateral purposes.
Regarding \\\"evidence\\\" and such, you seem to miss the point. There is a massive body of evidence for the supernatural, but none that is accepted by \\\"science\\\". Law, for instance, is not scientific at its core. It relies primarily on the evience of people and their observations. It is not \\\"obscenely arrogant\\\" to say that \\\"something is beyond the reach of science\\\" but rather the reverse: it is rather arrogant to think that science can answer all questions.
I am agnostic rather than \\\"anominal\\\" regarding your middle name. I have no opinon regading your middle name, but I have no rational basis to say that middle names do not exist. The same rules should apply with gods and people should be honest in that they are agnostic rather than atheist.
There is the universe and then there is reality. What is subject to scientific inquiry might - but probably not - encompass the universe but it certainly does not encompasss all of reality.
BTW: MERRY CHRISTMAS!
PS: I\\\'m not religious
Yes, technically, you have theists and atheists, monotheists and polytheists, and then guys like Buddhists in contrast to those who describe themselves as atheists. The taxonomy is intricately related to the semantics. For me it is more important to respect how terms are used - or misused - in everyday language. I find that self-described atheists tend to misuse language for collateral purposes.
Regarding \\\"evidence\\\" and such, you seem to miss the point. There is a massive body of evidence for the supernatural, but none that is accepted by \\\"science\\\". Law, for instance, is not scientific at its core. It relies primarily on the evience of people and their observations. It is not \\\"obscenely arrogant\\\" to say that \\\"something is beyond the reach of science\\\" but rather the reverse: it is rather arrogant to think that science can answer all questions.
I am agnostic rather than \\\"anominal\\\" regarding your middle name. I have no opinon regading your middle name, but I have no rational basis to say that middle names do not exist. The same rules should apply with gods and people should be honest in that they are agnostic rather than atheist.
There is the universe and then there is reality. What is subject to scientific inquiry might - but probably not - encompass the universe but it certainly does not encompasss all of reality.
BTW: MERRY CHRISTMAS!
PS: I\\\'m not religious
