An Atheist Is An Agnostic Is An Atheist Is An Agnostic! Why Every Agnostic Should Become An Atheist

[rug]

An Atheist Is An Agnostic Is An Atheist Is An Agnostic! Why Every Agnostic Should Become An Atheist

By John Loftus at 9/26/2016

We need a consistent definition of agnosticism that makes sense, so in what follows I offer one. We also need to recognize that all religion is localized religion, and as such, there is no such thing as religion but religions, just as there is no such thing as Christianity but Christianities.

Thomas Huxley invented the word "agnosticism" who defined it like this:

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

But Bertrand Russell suggested a different definition:

An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism.

On Huxley's view all atheists are agnostics. On Russell's view no atheist is an agnostic, for upon becoming an atheist one is no longer an agnostic.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2016/09/an-atheist-is-agnostic-is-atheist-is.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FypxUn+%28Debunking+Christianity%29

Where is Duns Scotus when you need him?

[BSdetect]

1. Meanwhile

can wed drop the constant references to god by politicians?

And stop adding the word god to pledges?

Where is the separation of church and state?

Its a secular republic.

[jonno99]

2. Why don't we let a person's conscience dictate which words they use?

can wed drop the constant references to god by politicians?

I'm fine if a "believing" politician appeals to God, just as I am fine if the non-believer chooses to omit god when reciting a pledge.

And sorry, there is no guarantee of freedom from religion. We are a nation inhabited by many faiths & creeds, and as such, demanding that every nuance of public life be secular is unreasonable.

Embrace our pluralism - you'll have a much more peaceful existence.

[Jim__]

3. Isn't Loftus contradicting his own opinion at the link he provides to his 10/19/2010 column?

From the OP:

We need a consistent definition of agnosticism that makes sense ...

And, from his 2010 column:

I object to someone defining the words I use. The people who seek to define my words for me have power over me. They basically are claiming I cannot use a word the way I want to use the word. I can use any word I want to, so long as it communicates.

Can't we all just get along here and ask the person using a word what s/he means if it's used differently than the dictionary definition? You see, dictionaries don't attempt to tell us what a word should mean. They tell us how most people use the word.

I somewhat agree with his 2010 column - usage determines meaning. Given that, you can't really demand consistent usage, especially for words that have been around for a long time and have been used differently over that time. Loftus is free to clarify his meaning whenever he uses the word - which seems to have been his point in 2010. Now he seems to be demanding the right to determine how other people should use the word. Language is complex, and no one can really control the meaning of a word.

[rug]

4. Looks like it.

He's been erratic lately imo.

[Leontius]

5. This will really piss off the revisionist word salad experts.