Allow me to repeat my advice from the post you were responding to there: please check the dictionary before criticising others' usage.

According to the dictionary, "agnosticism" has four definitions, two of which fall into the first definition I mentioned, the others falling into the second.

As for "atheism," it has three relevant definitions. I was following the strict sense: the belief that no deities exist (the belief that there is no god/divine; your "strong atheism" ), which is typically how I've seen it used. The definition you gave was the broad sense (a lack of belief in deities). Further complicating the matter, according to one of the dictionaries I looked at, there is also a strict-yet-broad sense (absence of belief regarding deities). However, I've rarely seen "atheism" used outside of the strict sense; I've mostly seen the broad sense when religion and such beliefs were not the topic at hand (the technical term for the broad category including all three senses is, as far as I can find, "irreligion" ). But as far as definitions are concerned, we're both correct. Furthermore, several of these words have senses which overlap — an individual who is uncertain about whether there is any such thing as the divine, may correctly be referred to as "agnostic" or "atheist" — this is why context is important and why philosophers and other thinkers spend a lot of time defining basic terms. And a poll doesn't exactly give much in the way of context.

Regarding the bit about whether atheism is a religion/religious belief: that's more of a semantical bone we differ on, albeit one largely determined by the sense of "atheism." Atheism can be considered "areligion," "not-religion," "unreligion" (although that potentially excludes nontheism/"spirituality," from religion… potentially). This is where you seem to place it (please correct me if I'm wrong). Alternatively, it can be considered a belief in the absence of any divine existence and thus a religious belief, which is where I place it, since it is a belief regarding spiritual/metaphysical reality — that being the very subject of religion. ("Religion," like "atheism" and "agnosticism," having more than one sense. Not the impossible "stretch of the imagination" you thought, huh?) That's semantical, and neither of us can be considered altogether right or wrong — this is the sort of distinction philosophers work with, where there is no one right answer.

Edit: replaced the Latin terms.

Last edited by blackluna at 10:21 am, Dec 31 2023

How so?

A baseless ad hominem, and well poisoning, eh?
That goes against the forum rules. "No flaming, name calling, yelling (caps), etc."
Why have you gotten so upset?
I have certainly not attacked you, or anyone else.

Yes. And as you did so, I clarified.

In what possible way, did I say anything, that would so much as hint at such a thing?

If it really was phrased in such a manner (and it wasn't just that you chose to interpret it in a bad way, like what you have done with my comment), then I'd agree. And in either case, he should have been scolded, for being an ignorant fool. Of course there are plenty of people who believe in heaven and hell! (and let's not forget those who believe in heaven, but not hell)

Ah. That explains your outrage: You're projecting. (see meaning 6, here)

Well... it's a form of attempting to do so. When it is a universal ban.
When it is purely a ban at school, whilst letting you practice your religion freely, outside of school... Not so much.
Still bad and unacceptable, but clearly not an attempt at stamping out belief.

...except that there is no hint, of any such connection, anywhere in my comment, so...
How about you re-read the relevant comments?

Condemning?
I strongly criticized, your baseless accusation, but to call it condemnation, is ludicrous.

At the bear minimum, you claimed that I had said things, that was close to being interpreted in a problematic manner
...when I had not done any such thing.
You told me to tread carefully ...when I absolutely had.
Thus, it is undeniably true, that you were accusing me of things, that I wasn't even faintly guilty of.
Baseless accusations, irrationality, and blatant falsehoods, are not things I allow to be unquestioned (unless I deem that the person/comment is best left completely ignored, due to being hopeless, of course)

I fail to see, what the problematic thing could be, about stating an and undeniable obvious fact.
And no, it wasn't mainly about christians. It's about all believers.
There are some who actually have read their own scriptures, of course, but they are rare, exceptions.
If you want someone who has actually read their scriptures, you're far more likely to find one, among atheists in places where the relevant religion is dominant.

Oh really? How/why, would it be impossible to test/investigate?
Why do you claim, that there is no statistics? This is nothing other than wilful ignorance, on your part.
...and if it is impossible, then your claims that most have read their scriptures, is equally invalid, meaning that you're shooting your own foot, in making that statement.

...
Only in the sense, that any statement about "most people", or "X% or people" is, knowingly and intentionally, a generalization.

...based purely on your personal, subjective and biased, experience...
You present "evidence", that is no more valid, than what you claim about the basis for my statements.
...
People in glass houses...
Or, for a more appropriate statement, given the context:
"For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?"
Matthew 7:2-4

Which only ever gives you a select few bits, taken out of their context, and overshadowed by the rest of the sermon, and the story that the priest tells in it.
...and that's only for those who actually go to church, which most don't.
...and only regarding those, among those who go to church, who actually listen to the sermon, rather than suffer through it, whilst being bored.

Contemplation, among those who actually do so, is almost always, in regards to the sermon. Not the bible quote.

...which mostly doesn't happens. Even when it does, there are the issues mentioned above.

Such as...?

That is irrelevant.

...
By "alarming number", I take it that there are a rare few, who are actually like that ...which, granted, is an alarming number, even if it were the number 1, but...
A couple of nutcase exceptions, are irrelevant.

Tossing aside, and being ignorant of, are two separate things ...but regardless, I fail to see any problem.
Modern astronomers don't study the astronomy of Ptolemy, nor do modern chemists study medieval alchemy.
This is perfectly sensible, and right.
...and I note that you mention medieval philosophy, but not the bible.
Because you can't claim, that he wasn't familiar with it, of course.

Why not?
...and how is it any worse, than reading the bible, with the fervent conviction that it is the true and objective, and infallible, word of a perfect god? Surely you can't call that, an objective viewpoint, or reading it with an open mind, now can you?

I seriously doubt you have. I have every reason to believe, that you are completely misrepresenting those atheists, and that you have simply made countless baseless assumptions, about them. As you have, with me.
(even without the evidence, of your assumptions here, it is extremely common. People's accounts of how random people they've met have behaved/spoken or what those people believe, are generally highly unreliable)

...
You really love to make baseless assumptions. ("when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me" )
Such as the utterly false assumption, that I am only speaking from personal experience, when I say that most believers, haven't really read any more than a select few passages, of their scriptures.

And how do you presume to do that?

Baseless speculation, eh... 🙄

...
About your behaviour and attitude, yes.

There is no "the" dictionary.
Also, dictionaries are meant to describe common usage. Not dictate what is correct.
...and dictionaries are far from infallible.
Actual usage. i.e. the thing that dictionaries are meant to describe (what they are supposed to be based on), supersedes dictionaries.

First off, that is only true of that specific dictionary you mentioned ...or rather, according to your biased interpretation, of said dictionary. At least according to you claim, about it. (no mention of which dictionary, any link, or anything)
Secondly you admit, even assuming that what you say is perfectly true and perfect, that there are other definitions of agnosticism.

I.e. that you were wrong, and that my correction was 100% correct.

I.e. that you were wrong, and that my correction was 100% correct.

I don't believe that, for a second.
It may be, how you have chosen to interpret most (filtered through selection bias, so not necessarily most, at all) uses you've heard/read, but...
No.
Almost all uses by atheists (except from those who call themselves agnostic), and the vast majority of uses by the religious, use atheist/atheism, in regards to any non-belief in god(s).

...
What is the point, of using "sensu X", rather than strict/broad sense/definition/meaning?
How about you read the scientific paper "Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly"

How is that different to the wider sense?

Your basis for calling this the "technical term" is, of course, nothing whatsoever.
And as I've said: Atheism and theism are purely about belief in god(s), which is a separate issue, to that of having a religion or not:
You can have a religion, without a belief in any deity, and you can have a belief in god(s) that is completely devoid of any religion.
Also: Irreligion=nonreligion=areligion ...and most who are irreligious/nonreligious/areligious, are also atheist.

...and yes, you can refer to someone as an "agnostic atheist" ...depending on the definition of agnostic.
But as I've said: the term agnostic has no agreed upon definition, and the meanings that are used, are many and quite significantly different, such that the word is nothing but misleading, confusing, and fails to properly communicate anything.

Thus it is worse than useless, and only serves to confuse.

Here we agree.

...which is one of the reasons, for why it shouldn't have had any separation by denominations, and the like.

Nope.
It's just a thing, where you are making a 100% completely baseless and ignorant claim, and are just simply wrong, and refuse to back it up.

As I've said:
In no way, shape, or form, can a belief in the absence of any divine existence (which isn't atheism, but rather strong atheism), be regarded as a religious belief.
That is utterly absurd.

Religion involves beliefs regarding spiritual/metaphysical reality
...but it isn't just beliefs regarding spiritual/metaphysical reality. Not in ANY sense of the word.

No.
You can call it semantic, but that doesn't mean that there can be no right or wrong:
If there are some universally used senses of the word, or at least some bits that essentially everyone agrees are fundamental and required
...and yours completely goes against all of that... (as is the case, here)
Then you're just plain wrong.
Period.

Edit: I reeeaaaally hate, how this forum turns every ) that is preceded by any punctuation, into a smilie...

Last edited by zarlan at 1:01 am, Oct 28 2023

Next time, re-read the entire exchange AGAIN before replying. (Try the threaded view of the conversation, it'll help.)

How about you take a look at how you're criticising someone you simply disagree with — before you bother with me any further. I mean, look:

You're pulling all of my statements out of context and completely ignoring every single point I've made — which is evidently how you came to the conclusions which so confused me to begin with. That and projecting other peoples comments and statements into my own (not sure whose, but it certainly isn't anything I've said here).

You've also twisted some of my statements, mostly based on nit-picking (the term "the dictionary," for one — it does not mean what you've assumed it to mean). (Also, I used the "sensu x" because I figured it'd be less confusing and more precise than "strict sense," "broad sense," etc. — evidently, I was wrong. Still, no need to get your pants in a knot over it — that's highly uncalled for. )

Rather than ask for what my sources are, you have jumped to the conclusion that must be using biased interpretations, without holding yourself to the same standards. (And no, I can't provide links, since I'm using print sources — namely the Webster's 2nd and the Oxford English — and I'm not going any further than paraphrasing. )

You're also claiming that I'm making assumptions when I deliberately use words such as "seem," "appear," "guessing that," and so on (which mean that I'm less than certain about the conclusions listed)… and proceed to make your own assumptions as solid fact about me. And then you extrapolate, a lot.

You are going after me for mentioning that some of my information comes from personal experience, assume that that means all of my information is from that one source (it doesn't), and conveniently ignore that you and everyone else is doing the same (it's how conversation works; this isn't an academic paper).

You even add insults. Thanks for the rudeness.

All of this is why I came to the conclusion that you're most likely bitter, and you sure sound it. Very much so. Be that the reality or not, that's your tone in your responses to me.

If I'm making assumptions about you, you're doing that and then some. I have been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you're making it very hard.

Look, if you're not going to bother to actually read, then why do bother replying? (While we're talking about actually reading. )

(And, yes, the "smile" default drives me nuts too. I keep having to edit all of my comments to have a space in between punctuation and " ) " — case and point. )

Last edited by blackluna at 1:15 am, Oct 29 2023

Baseless and transparent lies.
I have no reason to respond to your trolling.
If you refuse to actually back up your claims, or make real points, but instead just make ad hominems, and baseless claims, completely lying about what has been said, then all you do, is to embarrass yourself.

A laughable excuse.

You can't complain about a little rudeness, when it is in response to you being extremely rude.

Last edited by zarlan at 4:02 am, Oct 29 2023

Could someone other than zarlan moderate this?! I'd like a third party — someone impartial.

As it is, I'm starting to wonder if I really did somehow insult them without realizing it. And if my posts could be considered trolling.