Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

Okay, revised. This one is better. Sizes of various circles not meant to represent importance or anything else about the beliefs they represent, they're just that size so I could fit everything easily.

I'm sticking with the seemingly more widely accepted definition (and the one suggested by its etymology, for that matter) of Atheism, so Agnosticism is technically a subgroup. In the same way that a pizza is technically a pie, or a Double Down is technically a sandwich (is it? I'd hate for my analogy to be incorrect). Any other problems that would require changing the structure of the diagram (not just which words appear where)?

EDIT: Incidentally, I'm going to sleep now, so I'll continue with this in the morning. It becomes Official Thread Rules once we've got no more substantial changes to make, and will be edited into the OP and ALSO the Arguments People Have Already Made post, just to make it clear. Speaking of that, if anybody wants to mention any, please do (and refer to the post in which it was made earlier, of course). We're getting long enough here that I think we've probably gone over a few things repeatedly. Please don't have a flamewar while I'm gone.

[fqllve]

I mean, distinctions are useful and all, but it's kind of cumbersome. Especially when almost everyone is going to be an explicit weak atheist, and if not, an explicit strong atheist. There are very few implicit atheists, and they don't stay that way once they join the debate. So I figure we might as well drop the distinction between whether or not they know of theism.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's not a very widely used distinction, yes. I just wanted to not leave anything out.

[Bauglir]

I mean, distinctions are useful and all, but it's kind of cumbersome. Especially when almost everyone is going to be an explicit weak atheist, and if not, an explicit strong atheist. There are very few implicit atheists, and they don't stay that way once they join the debate. So I figure we might as well drop the distinction between whether or not they know of theism.

This is true. Right now, I think, we're establishing technical definitions so that people will not be nitpicking each other for the next thousand pages. Once that's done, we can say, "Okay, these 5 categories don't actually matter, so really we only need to worry about explicit strong atheists and agnostics".

[Oakenshield]

Do Nihilism or Existentialism fit into this thread in any way shape form or fashion? Assume that I mean both political and non-political.

If they don't I can't say much more than I already have, since I never really studied any atheist-specific philosophers besides F.W. N. and Some of the early 20th cent. existentialists.

[G-Flex]

Would you prefer if the general heading was changed to nontheists?

As long as irreligious, Agnostic, and Atheist groups had zero overlap, I'd be happy with it.  You could group all of these three into the subgroup of non-Theists.

That's wonderful. Unfortunately, that's not what the words mean. If some subsets of "atheism" annoy you, who cares? That doesn't mean you aren't part of the subgroup that doesn't.

Also, the implication that "irreligious" can't overlap with "atheist" or "agnostic" is pretty astonishing. How can you never have agnostics/atheists who aren't religious? That doesn't make any damned sense.

[fqllve]

This is true. Right now, I think, we're establishing technical definitions so that people will not be nitpicking each other for the next thousand pages. Once that's done, we can say, "Okay, these 5 categories don't actually matter, so really we only need to worry about explicit strong atheists and agnostics".

Well, yeah, it's good to have your base definitions as clear as possible. So, then I guess we're all agreed on that.

That's wonderful. Unfortunately, that's not what the words mean. If some subsets of "atheism" annoy you, who cares? That doesn't mean you aren't part of the subgroup that doesn't.

Also, the implication that "irreligious" can't overlap with "atheist" or "agnostic" is pretty astonishing. How can you never have agnostics/atheists who aren't religious? That doesn't make any damned sense.

He's using a different definition of irreligious. One roughly equivalent to theological noncognitivist, ignostic, or apatheist.

[G-Flex]

He's using a different definition of irreligious. One roughly equivalent to theological noncognitivist, ignostic, or apatheist.

Unfortunately, we don't get to make up our own definitions for words whenever we please just because we have hang-ups about some connotations they have, or associations we have with them.

[fqllve]

Agreed. And I think it's a mistake to conflate theism and religion, something which that term suggests in that usage.

[Farmerbob]

As long as irreligious, Agnostic, and Atheist groups had zero overlap, I'd be happy with it.

But they do have overlap, in both your definition and mine. In yours, Agnostics and Atheists are both also qualified as irreligious because they lack religious practices. In mine, the same is true with the addition that there exists an overlap between agnostics and atheists.

Irreligious people simply don't know or care about religion

Agnostics care - prove it to us one way or the other and we'll believe, but we won't believe without proof

Atheists care - they disbelieve

Using real definitions, not Wiki weirdness, irreligious people, Agnostics, and Atheists have zero overlap.

[Oakenshield]

You sound dangerously close to a medieval inquisitor in tone, Farmerbob. I'm aware that text is a soundless medium but its terribly easy to imagine you burning someone at the stake or torturing them in various horrible ways.

I'd be doing it because their bastards who have screwed up my whole situation badly and because I want to be rid of them.

You'd be doing it because their heretics.

This is the conclusion your responses lead me to.

[Farmerbob]

He's using a different definition of irreligious. One roughly equivalent to theological noncognitivist, ignostic, or apatheist.

Unfortunately, we don't get to make up our own definitions for words whenever we please just because we have hang-ups about some connotations they have, or associations we have with them.

From a real source, not Wiki.

Definition of IRRELIGIOUS
1: neglectful of religion : lacking religious emotions, doctrines, or practices <so irreligious that they exploit popular religion for professional purposes — G. B. Shaw>
2: indicating lack of religion


Please stop referring to Wiki definitions of religious terms like as if they have any meaning.

**Edit**

The real source is www.m-w.com - the Merriam-Webster dictionary online.

Additionally, to help clarify, here is more data from that entry:

Synonyms: godless, nonreligious, religionless
Antonyms: religious

[Shambling Zombie]

My head hurts, and I say we go with Bauglir's list of definitions, since it's pointless to be shouting "OVERLAP!" "NO OVERLAP!" At each other ad infinitum.

[Oakenshield]

I'd rather be an atheist than be mad as hell and miserable, i.e. you, Farmerbob.

No, not sorry.

I'm guessing the answer to my question regarding whether or not nihilism and existentialism have any bearing in this threads intended direction is either negative or simply being ignored.

[fqllve]

He's using a different definition of irreligious. One roughly equivalent to theological noncognitivist, ignostic, or apatheist.

Unfortunately, we don't get to make up our own definitions for words whenever we please just because we have hang-ups about some connotations they have, or associations we have with them.

From a real source, not Wiki.

Definition of IRRELIGIOUS
1: neglectful of religion : lacking religious emotions, doctrines, or practices <so irreligious that they exploit popular religion for professional purposes — G. B. Shaw>
2: indicating lack of religion


Please stop referring to Wiki definitions of religious terms like as if they have any meaning.

**Edit**

The real source is www.m-w.com - the Merriam-Webster dictionary online.

Additionally, to help clarify, here is more data from that entry:

Synonyms: godless, nonreligious, religionless
Antonyms: religious

Accusing people of getting their information from Wikipedia is not a good debate practice.

What that definition says is that the person is not religious. It does not indicate their theological positions whatsoever. One can be an atheistic Christian, go to church, follow Jesus' teachings, and believe that he was a mortal man and was not divinely born or inspired. That would make that person a religious atheist.

One can also be a irreligious theist. Deists are a perfect example of this. They believe in a deity but in no way worship or follow him. They simply think he exists.

Religiousness says nothing about a person's theistic beliefs.