bigbossmatt
22nd September 2007, 02:40 AM
This thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=93474&page=17) inspired this current thread.
I do not know yet, if it is even possible to have a system of labels/names/categories (call it what you will) that every one could agree on. That is, can every possible perspective be sufficiently labeled under one system of definitions, or are we forever doomed to have disagreements about what exactly constitutes an agnostic or an atheist? Is this problem even important at all?
Please help me correct if, if you have suggestions, we can discuss it. As I said, I don't even know if it is possible to have a system of categories that satisfies all perspectives; I just hope that if this attempt at such a system has an error, we don't throw the attempt to find such a system away. If we decide that it is not possible to create such a system system, then we should discard this idea.
I want others to point out where I have neglected any point of view on this question (do any gods exist?), because certainly I would have - even though I spent lots of time on this.
Here is some explanations (clarifications of it):
According to this system, if some one is an agnostic, they could have answered any of the three possible ways to end at this general label. If some one arrived at an atheist label, they must have answered in one of the two possible ways to land on this general label.
According to this, weak agnostic is equivalent to a weak atheist, and is equivalent to an agnostic atheist. Note that agnostic atheist implies a weak agnostic (which is equivalent to a weak atheist), which implies an atheist, but atheist does not imply an agnostic.
Another example of this is, strong agnostic implies agnostic, but agnostic does not imply strong agnostic.
According to this, only if some one is certain in their belief that there is or isn't a god, do they avoid instantly being labeled as an agnostic, which can then be refined to a more specific label. Therefore, most categories offered here are a type of agnosticism; only extreme beliefs in or against a god avoid being assigned an agnostic label at all.
Theist are defined as those who 100% believe that there is a god and those who are going to assume that the likelihood of a god is almost 100%.
This system says nothing about whether people who would are theists would agree to any particular religious claim more specific than the question in question (do any gods exist?). That means that extremely convinced Muslims would get the same label as extremely convinced Christians, by this system. This system is therefore religion neutral.
And I'll just say this again:
As I said, I don't even know if it is possible to have a system of categories that satisfies all perspectives; I just hope that if this attempt at such a system has an error, we don't throw the attempt to find such a system away. If we decide that it is not possible to create a system, then we should discard this.
I do not know yet, if it is even possible to have a system of labels/names/categories (call it what you will) that every one could agree on. That is, can every possible perspective be sufficiently labeled under one system of definitions, or are we forever doomed to have disagreements about what exactly constitutes an agnostic or an atheist? Is this problem even important at all?
Please help me correct if, if you have suggestions, we can discuss it. As I said, I don't even know if it is possible to have a system of categories that satisfies all perspectives; I just hope that if this attempt at such a system has an error, we don't throw the attempt to find such a system away. If we decide that it is not possible to create such a system system, then we should discard this idea.
I want others to point out where I have neglected any point of view on this question (do any gods exist?), because certainly I would have - even though I spent lots of time on this.
Here is some explanations (clarifications of it):
According to this system, if some one is an agnostic, they could have answered any of the three possible ways to end at this general label. If some one arrived at an atheist label, they must have answered in one of the two possible ways to land on this general label.
According to this, weak agnostic is equivalent to a weak atheist, and is equivalent to an agnostic atheist. Note that agnostic atheist implies a weak agnostic (which is equivalent to a weak atheist), which implies an atheist, but atheist does not imply an agnostic.
Another example of this is, strong agnostic implies agnostic, but agnostic does not imply strong agnostic.
According to this, only if some one is certain in their belief that there is or isn't a god, do they avoid instantly being labeled as an agnostic, which can then be refined to a more specific label. Therefore, most categories offered here are a type of agnosticism; only extreme beliefs in or against a god avoid being assigned an agnostic label at all.
Theist are defined as those who 100% believe that there is a god and those who are going to assume that the likelihood of a god is almost 100%.
This system says nothing about whether people who would are theists would agree to any particular religious claim more specific than the question in question (do any gods exist?). That means that extremely convinced Muslims would get the same label as extremely convinced Christians, by this system. This system is therefore religion neutral.
And I'll just say this again:
As I said, I don't even know if it is possible to have a system of categories that satisfies all perspectives; I just hope that if this attempt at such a system has an error, we don't throw the attempt to find such a system away. If we decide that it is not possible to create a system, then we should discard this.