A Gutsy Preacher

[Josiah]

A Catholic and an atheist walked into a bar in rural NE Florida...yeah, we might have some fancy footwork to do.

If I chose to STRIP both words of their historic, obvious meaning...... and I choose to define "Catholic" as one who rejects all things Catholic - they actually could be in full agreement. But then we could add that BOTH actually hold to no positions at all WHILE being Catholics or Atheist. Funny what can be done when we "strip" words.....

There MUST be some reason a few recently have had this felt need to "strip" the words "Theist, Atheist and Agnostic" of meaning so as to apply any or all or none of them to self and others - I just can't image what that would be (I think Tigger had a good possibility). I just question the honesty, helpfulness and value of that.

Someday, Mark, you may convey to me your position. We've had this discussion a few times..... it never gets anywhere, and I'm now confident why: all we have here are words. And if words are striped of their meaning, we don't have that. But we COULD work that out (I'm not sure we HAVE to, lol).....

I'm just thinking of all those threads where Atheists (I now realize they could have been Theists) DUMPTED on me because I said I was a Theist (and they assumed I mean I affirm God even though evidently that's NOT what the word means to Atheist anymore) - DEMANDING evidence to prove my position - evidence that could not be supernatural because the supernatural does not exist, only natural can be used because THEIR faith is that only natural exists).... slamming me, ridiculing me for being a THEIST (when evidently these words have nothing to do anymore with whether God is or is not). You know..... these discussions are hard enough without KNOWINGLY using words that the writer has striped of meaning and given opposite redefinitions to.

See.... I read Mark's opening post and THOUGHT it was going to be about philosophical absolute PROOF/certainty vs. faith..... but instead, it was just about how words should be stripped of meaning in order to make for clearer communication and understanding.

Just too frustrating for me..... And I give up trying to understand the reason for the stripping. I'll just run with Tiger's theory above while not applying it personally to Mark





.

 

[Rens]

A Catholic Priest, a Rabbi, and an Atheist walk into a bar. The bartender says, "Oh no! We don't like jokes in here and if you guys are a part of one, you're gonna have to leave right now!" So the catholic priest, rabbi, and atheist leave the bar and a chicken walks in. The bartender says, "OH COME ON! We don't serve CHICKENS in here!" The chicken says, "Do you know somewhere that does?" The bartender says, "Yeah.." The chicken asks, "Well, where is it?" The bartender says, "It's across the road

 

[Josiah]

Mark -


Let's see if this helps at all.....


I've suspected - almost upon "meeting" you that you are an Agnostic and not an Atheist. The first thing that convinced me of that is.... well...... every Atheist known to me is filled with hate, with a PASSION to drive all people away from their faith in God. irrational, egotistical, nonsensical folk. You clearly are the antithesis of that. Besides, I don't recall any point (much less the endless RANTS that describe most Atheists, in my admittedly limited experience) about how God AIN'T. I've gathered (with considerable effort!!!) that you basically hold that you CONCLUDE (I'd use a different word) that there is not sufficient reason to hold that God is or is not - and therefore, it seems most prudent to you to not believe in the divine. To use a silly and absurd illustration, let's say I concluded that I can't prove or disprove Santa Clause (not that I'm ANGRY, HATEFUL of him and all who show their low IQ by thinking he does exist).... and therefore, don't send him my wish list anymore. THAT, my friend, is Agnosticism. Classic, the-word-actually-means-something Agnosticism (actually, it would still be Agnosticism is I DID still send him my wish list). In juxtiposition to any proposition, "Agnosticism" is a stance of neutrality (not only in religion or philosophy) - a stance that says the final verdict on that is out. So, I'm NOT dogmatically declaring Santa AIN'T or IS - only that there's a (perhaps enormous) lack of evidence/proof. BELIEF is not a position (pro or con)..... not a proposition AT ALL..... but likely (NOT ALWAYS!) flows from that. I stopped sending my Santa list when I stopped being a Santaist (lol). Classic Agnosticism. And I THINK that's probably at least generally where you are. I have a lot of intellectual and personal respect for Agnosticism and Agnostics: generally thoughtful, honest folk. Never met a mean, hateful one.

The problem - I've tried to indicate for some time now - is when you ALSO insist on the proposition, the position, the petition that you are a Atheist. ALSO. Concurrently. Atheism (and it's antithesis Theism) are, by definition, NOT neutrality, those are dogmatic positions. You may "strip" them of any significance or meaning - making the use of them useless at best, dishonest perhaps - but they make a position. Perhaps only in the pure, historic, general, "strong" sense (before the recent STRIPPING) but I rather suspect you know that (but just choose to evade that). It just doesn't work to say "Santa is NOT but I'm nutural on that issue (and thus don't have to defend it)." And it doesn't help to CHANGE the subject entirely to "I Don't Send Wish Lists to Santa Anymore - but I'm NEUTRAL on that issue and therefore I can dodge the accountability/proof issue that I'm always ranting about for everyone else."

Frankly, this juxtaposition of Atheist AND Agnostic not only is WEIRD, confusing, illogical .... (and yeah, would require ALL the words be STRIPPED) but I don't know WHY you want to identify yourself as denouncing the Divine when it seems to me that's neither your belief or thought - you just find it rather baseless, an ENTIRELY different issue fully, completely, wholly "covered" under the Agnostic claim.

Now where I THOUGHT ( so wrongly )- you were going with this thread was .... IF (and this isn't the case)..... IF you were trying to say "We're ultimately really ALL Agnostics at least in the purely uber-philosophical sense of absolutism - we just "lean" more one way than the other, just act in accord with one or the other.... well.... THAT I agreed with a long, long time ago. You ignored that because that's NOT your point, your point is that you are BOTH - EQUALLY - CONCURRENTLY an Agnostic and an Atheist. I've tried - I honestly have - and I don't think I'm stupid - but I'm still going WHAT?!?!? AT BEST, we have word games.... but Tiggers post rings loud in my mind/heart.


Well, sorry neither of us seems to have made any progress.... and it seems everyone else has stopped reading our exchange (although not necessary exiting from the thread)..... so if I've accomplished nothing in this final post, well.... that's the way it's been going, lol. I think we are both worthy posters, but.....



- Josiah




.

 

[tango]

Yes, if I could capture it, and bring it to a zoologist for study.

So even if you'd seen the unicorn up close, seen the horn and seen it wasn't something stuck onto a regular horse, maybe got close enough to touch the unicorn, but didn't capture it for study you'd still assume you had a brain chemistry issue?

 

[Rens]

If I chose to STRIP both words of their historic, obvious meaning...... and I choose to define "Catholic" as one who rejects all things Catholic - they actually could be in full agreement. But then we could add that BOTH actually hold to no positions at all WHILE being Catholics or Atheist. Funny what can be done when we "strip" words.....

There MUST be some reason a few recently have had this felt need to "strip" the words "Theist, Atheist and Agnostic" of meaning so as to apply any or all or none of them to self and others - I just can't image what that would be (I think Tigger had a good possibility). I just question the honesty, helpfulness and value of that.

Someday, Mark, you may convey to me your position. We've had this discussion a few times..... it never gets anywhere, and I'm now confident why: all we have here are words. And if words are striped of their meaning, we don't have that. But we COULD work that out (I'm not sure we HAVE to, lol).....

I'm just thinking of all those threads where Atheists (I now realize they could have been Theists) DUMPTED on me because I said I was a Theist (and they assumed I mean I affirm God even though evidently that's NOT what the word means to Atheist anymore) - DEMANDING evidence to prove my position - evidence that could not be supernatural because the supernatural does not exist, only natural can be used because THEIR faith is that only natural exists).... slamming me, ridiculing me for being a THEIST (when evidently these words have nothing to do anymore with whether God is or is not). You know..... these discussions are hard enough without KNOWINGLY using words that the writer has striped of meaning and given opposite redefinitions to.

See.... I read Mark's opening post and THOUGHT it was going to be about philosophical absolute PROOF/certainty vs. faith..... but instead, it was just about how words should be stripped of meaning in order to make for clearer communication and understanding.

Just too frustrating for me..... And I give up trying to understand the reason for the stripping. I'll just run with Tiger's theory above while not applying it personally to Mark





.

See where you're coming from.
I call those antitheists. My dad used to ridicule God and believing in God a lot, me too by the way, but that wasn't that bad. It was a sign of interest looking back, telling everyone they're nuts for believing in God, so if now someone does that to me I don't care, I used to be just like that. Some though are really aggressive. My dad wouldn't let us go to my granddad for years for this reason. He really tried to pull people from their faith and my dad saw that faith was really good for my brother and he didn't want his dad to pull him from his faith. He got saved in the end, prayed for 20 years for that man. My mom got hit by my dad when she told grandpa the gospel, but she did anyway. Agnostics are much more friendly than die hard antitheists. He used to be a Freemason, so that kind of atheism or those aggressive ones who use the Bible the whole day to prove God is evil and thus doesn't exist, I wonder if that isn't a sort of religion, they use texts to convince themselves and others that He doesn't exist and it's only some extreme ex christians that do that, not normal atheists.

 

[tango]

Atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism (the antithesis of it) which is the belief that at least one deity exists.


Atheism:
A = not, no.
Theism = God.
Atheism = is no God.


Theism:
Theos = God
Theism = God is.

Another way to look at it is that "theism" is the belief that God exists and therefore "atheism" is a lack of belief that God exists. Just as "amoral" refers to a lack of moral values rather than an opposition to moral values, so "atheism" can be the lack of belief in God rather than an active belief in the non-existence of God.

Some people refer to agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism, one to refer to a lack of belief in God paired with an acceptance of uncertainty and the other to refer to an active belief in the non-existence of God. There's a substantial difference between the statements "I do not believe God exists" and "I believe God does not exist".

 

[tango]

The bible defines faith very well, it is the substance iof things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen

Sure, but there has to be a basis for the things hoped for. I don't suppose we get any divine credit for having a blind faith in the existence of unicorns in the woods merely because they are "things hoped for" and "things not seen". There's a big difference between faith in something specific that is given for a reason (even if we don't fully understand everything) and blind faith that just accepts something is true without even stopping to think about it.

It's the difference between you believing in my promise to give you $200 if you work for me for the day, and you having the blind faith that you can just show up at my house and I'll give you $200. When you start working for me you can't see the $200 but you hope I'll keep my promise. If you just show up at my house you still can't see the $200 but you'd have to have a totally blind faith to hope for it, the kind of blind faith that will leave you disappointed.

 

[Rens]

Sure, but there has to be a basis for the things hoped for. I don't suppose we get any divine credit for having a blind faith in the existence of unicorns in the woods merely because they are "things hoped for" and "things not seen". There's a big difference between faith in something specific that is given for a reason (even if we don't fully understand everything) and blind faith that just accepts something is true without even stopping to think about it.

It's the difference between you believing in my promise to give you $200 if you work for me for the day, and you having the blind faith that you can just show up at my house and I'll give you $200. When you start working for me you can't see the $200 but you hope I'll keep my promise. If you just show up at my house you still can't see the $200 but you'd have to have a totally blind faith to hope for it, the kind of blind faith that will leave you disappointed.

Yes I suppose the text means based on God's Word and His will.
But if my dad says he will put money on the bank for me I believe it. I'm not gonna think: oh it isn't there yet, did he do it? It can take a day or less nowadays, but it used to take more days, yet I never doubted about it, so if God says it you can also believe you have received it although you don't see it yet.

 

[MarkFL]

Another way to look at it is that "theism" is the belief that God exists and therefore "atheism" is a lack of belief that God exists. Just as "amoral" refers to a lack of moral values rather than an opposition to moral values, so "atheism" can be the lack of belief in God rather than an active belief in the non-existence of God.

Some people refer to agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism, one to refer to a lack of belief in God paired with an acceptance of uncertainty and the other to refer to an active belief in the non-existence of God. There's a substantial difference between the statements "I do not believe God exists" and "I believe God does not exist".

Yes, that's the way it is meant. The older usage held by some of atheism referring only to a claim there is/are no god/gods has fallen by the wayside as atheists have become more vocal about the label imposed upon us by a theist majority regarding what we aren't. I have seen labels such as "weak," "soft" or "agnostic" for the type of atheist I am, and "strong," "hard" or "gnositc" for the atheist who makes a claim that there is/are no god/gods.

Perhaps someday we will progress to a point where no label is needed for those not making a claim.

 

[Rens]

In Holland we have a lot of atheists and ietsists.
Although ‘iets’ can be translated as ‘something’, in the context of ietsism the better translation would be ‘might be something’.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-ietsist-beliefs-about-How-would-they-defend-them

 

[MarkFL]

In Holland we have a lot of atheists and ietsists.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-ietsist-beliefs-about-How-would-they-defend-them

That's a new one for me. Another I just learned very recently is ignosticism:

The idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence.

Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism, whereas others have considered it to be distinct.

 

[tango]

Yes I suppose the text means based on God's Word and His will.
But if my dad says he will put money on the bank for me I believe it. I'm not gonna think: oh it isn't there yet, did he do it? It can take a day or less nowadays, but it used to take more days, yet I never doubted about it, so if God says it you can also believe you have received it although you don't see it yet.

That's it exactly. If God promises something we can have faith that he will deliver. We can't go making up promises, or slicing and dicing the Bible and turning it into some kind of ransom note, and then have faith that God will deliver on the promise we rather wished he would make.

As you say, if your father says he's going to send you some money you believe it's coming. You don't believe that he's going to send you all the money you could ever spend just because, well, you have faith that he will. That's only going to bankrupt you once you run out of money and he didn't deliver on the promise he never made.

 

[tango]

Yes, that's the way it is meant. The older usage held by some of atheism referring only to a claim there is/are no god/gods has fallen by the wayside as atheists have become more vocal about the label imposed upon us by a theist majority regarding what we aren't. I have seen labels such as "weak," "soft" or "agnostic" for the type of atheist I am, and "strong," "hard" or "gnositc" for the atheist who makes a claim that there is/are no god/gods.

Perhaps someday we will progress to a point where no label is needed for those not making a claim.

Sometimes labels seem unhelpful but it's usually worthwhile taking a little time to figure out just where someone is before assuming what they believe. You can't meet someone where they are unless, well, you know where they are.

It's sad these days that so many people look to just stick a convenient label on people so they can be lumped into a group of "that sort" who, because they are all "that sort", must therefore act the same, think the same, want the same things etc. Whether "that sort" are a particular race, gender, religion, political persuasion, whatever, it's an easier option than actually listening to someone with a view to maybe learning something.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The gutsy preacher might be chuckling if he read this thread

 

[Lamb]

The gutsy preacher might be chuckling if he read this thread

Of course he would be! I've read a lot of his blog posts and he writes for controversy and to get reactions from people. He's accomplished his goals that for sure. But really doesn't preach Christ crucified for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Of course he would be! I've read a lot of his blog posts and he writes for controversy and to get reactions from people. He's accomplished his goals that for sure. But really doesn't preach Christ crucified for the forgiveness of sins.

I got a chuckle or two from the to-and-fro in this thread.

 

[Josiah]

Another way to look at it is that "theism" is the belief that God exists and therefore "atheism" is a lack of belief that God exists. Just as "amoral" refers to a lack of moral values rather than an opposition to moral values, so "atheism" can be the lack of belief in God rather than an active belief in the non-existence of God.

Well, the news that has just been shared is that some folks have "STRIPPED" the words Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism of their meaning..... there's an implication that these 3 terms HAD meaning, referring to actual positions but some have felt a need (and now an ability) to STRIP them of that meaning. What's left seems pretty meaningless. Thus: the problem. And thus: the question of why, what is the purpose of this stripping, this purposeful using of terms that have been stripped of meaning, reinvented, secretry redifined - it seems to the opposite? What is the PURPOSE in doing that? And what RESULT is there (other than confusion, misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty)? I think Tigger has the best response to that. See post 110.


But friend, I disagree on one point: Fundamentally, Atheism and Theism (and Agnosticism) are not beliefs although such USUALLY -(although not always) flows from such. There's no such thing as just belief - Belief MUST have an object, there's no such thing as isolated "belief" that has no object. Propositions are not beliefs, they are propositions. Theism is a position, a proposition, a declaration: God IS. When the Greek "A" is placed in front, it negates it, it makes it the opposite, thus as everyone but Mark has indicated, A-Theism means God is NOT or NO God. Mark seems to admit this is what the word USED to mean before a few recently chose to "strip" it (as he termed it). See post 143

IMO, philosophical discussions are hard enough without purposely, persistently using misleading, nonsensical language, purposely and persistently using terms which the user has admittedly "STRIPPED" of meaning..... And again, it begs the question: WHY? What is the purpose if insisting equally on two positions that are incompatible - Atheism AND also concurrently Agnosticism - why? What is the purpose of that very odd, very weird, nonsensical position? (Even if all the words have to be 'STRIPPED" to do so)? Why would anyone INSIST on labeling self as an Atheist/Agnostic (but eventually admit both terms have been "stripped" of their meaning)? Again, I refer you to our freind Tigger (a former Atheist), I suspect he has a great insight on this.

God knows I tried, lol....



- Josiah



.

 

[MarkFL]

I got a chuckle or two from the to-and-fro in this thread.

This thread has changed my mind about everyone being agnostic though. I now would posit that one need only claim knowledge to be gnostic, rather than having to back a claim with evidence before being gnostic. Your only need for evidence is when trying to convince others that what you claim as knowledge is compelling to them. If you truly have knowledge, you will be able to meet your burden of proof, but you need not meet this burden simply to claim knowledge.

 

[MoreCoffee]

All I have to say, Mark, is Hail Mary ...

 

[Josiah]

This thread has changed my mind about everyone being agnostic though. I now would posit that one need only claim knowledge to be gnostic, rather than having to back a claim with evidence before being gnostic. Your only need for evidence is when trying to convince others that what you claim as knowledge is compelling to them. If you truly have knowledge, you will be able to meet your burden of proof, but you need not meet this burden simply to claim knowledge.

Have you thus changed your mind about declaring your position as AGNOSTIC/ATHEIST? Both words "stripped" of meaning?

As I posted to you above (you likely missed it), I am at a complete loss to know why you have that "Atheist" part at all..... you have said nothing that indicates to me that you are an Atheist (of course, I'm using the word in its pre-stripped form, the form with meaning)..... everything you've posted is classic Agnosticism (again, in its pre-stripped form, the one with meaning). I - and several others here - ATTEMPTED to address that...... even state that ultimately, in the uber-philosophical sense, in the extreme absolute - EVERYONE is probably Agnostic (typically Theists never claim absolute proof for the position); I even tried to agree with what I wrongly thought was your whole point in this thread: utimately, we all walk by faith since in ALL things, ultimately we're ALL agnostic.

That said (again), there's GOT to be some enormous reason behind your very, very persistent insistence to couple this, entwine this Agnosticism with ATHEISM (albeit, stripped of meaning). It seems critical to you to use THAT specific term and entirely intertwine and combine it with Agnosticism. I can't image way. Tigger offering the only possible reason that makes sense to me.


See posts 116 and 143.

Perhaps someday we will progress to a point where no label is needed for those not making a claim

There was a term: Agnostic. Until a few (of whom you seem to associate) felt a need to strip it too of meaning. And the term works perfectly - as long as it is not contradicted by terms such as Theist and its antithesis Atheist.





- Josiah




.