tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post6156469889677177587..comments2024-03-01T07:35:49.740-08:00Comments on Come Reason's Apologetics Notes: The Intellectual Cowardice behind 'Agnostic Atheists'Lenny Espositohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04064209669748618955noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-53022533780272968132017-12-09T19:06:38.933-08:002017-12-09T19:06:38.933-08:00Nope. Read his scenario again. And by the way it’s...Nope. Read his scenario again. And by the way it’s not hypothetical, it happens regularly. Asking for evidence to justify the atheist UN or DIS belief and getting a I don’t have to response is cowardice. It’s a meaningless rejection, not a refutation which is required once you assert that something is false. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05438724080444643494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-65672557425878314612017-04-08T03:34:39.899-07:002017-04-08T03:34:39.899-07:00If you honestly think we call ourselves "Weak...If you honestly think we call ourselves "Weak Atheists" just to make it harder for you to debate us, it's because all your arguments are based on bashing a single aspect of what you think Atheism is and you're too stupid to think of new arguments.<br /><br />We're not as narrow-minded as you think. And if you can't comprehend that, it's because you're projecting your own narrow-minded stupidity onto us. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13630047639388608058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-90024795223261621102016-12-04T14:06:54.657-08:002016-12-04T14:06:54.657-08:00Sure, I agree that we should be careful with langu...Sure, I agree that we should be careful with language, and not re-define words on a whim. But that's not what is happening here.<br /><br />Moreover, let's not forget that the cat is already out of the bag, so to speak. It might be nice if everyone shared the same definition of atheism, but unfortunately that is just not the case anymore. I'm not sure if it ever was. And if uniformity is your chief goal, why not try to get people agree on the unbelief definition rather than the disbelief one? After all, at this point it's hard to say which is most popular. It may very well be the case that nowadays the unbelief definition is most common!<br /><br />Now, as for your hypothetical scenario, I don't see why you find it "confused." Maybe it's frustrating for you because you want to seek out strong atheists, and to do that you have to wade through a lot of weak atheists. But in that case, you can just ask people whether their atheism is of the weak or strong variety. Problem solved, right?Ben Wallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00131358613835119782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-74504520651278955852016-12-04T13:52:00.028-08:002016-12-04T13:52:00.028-08:00But certainly you can see the problems with words ...But certainly you can see the problems with words being redefined to whatever tickles one's fancy! Forget about any kind of accurate polling where people are asked their religious position. However, more importantly (and the only reason I bring the issue up again and again) is I continually run into the following scenario:<br />PERSON: I don't believe in God. I am an atheist!<br />ME: Can you provide reasonable evidence for your atheism?<br />PERSON: I don't have to. I don't know whether there is a god out there. I'm agnostic.<br /><br />That's confused.<br />Lenny Espositohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04064209669748618955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-59896379559115729272016-12-04T13:45:13.730-08:002016-12-04T13:45:13.730-08:00Well, let me say first that I don't see it as ...Well, let me say first that I don't see it as being all that radical of a change: <i>un</i>belief in a deity, rather than <i>dis</i>belief.<br /><br />That said, I agree that the disbelief definition of atheism is older than the unbelief definition. I also agree that the disbelief definition is the one used by most professional philosophers even nowadays (although there have been some notable exceptions, e.g. Antony Flew). But neither of these facts strikes me as a good reason to reject the newer and surprisingly popular unbelief definition of atheism.<br /><br />Moreover, nobody is forcing you to use the unbelief definition. If you want to stick to the older, disbelief definition, that's fine with me. Frankly, I prefer that one too. But the freedom goes both ways---people are also free to use the unbelief definition. Neither definition is "incorrect" or "wrong"---it's just a matter of personal preference which you want to use.Ben Wallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00131358613835119782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-23125287464657906092016-12-04T12:19:33.343-08:002016-12-04T12:19:33.343-08:00It isn't that I don't like the definition....It isn't that I don't like the definition. It is that a well understood definition had been established and used by philosophers, atheists, and agnostics very well. THe SEP makse the distinction as does the OED and top thinkers like Roderick Chisholm. Why then should I accept a radical change to the definition proposed by a few atheists on the Internet? Again, its like someone claiming to be a vegan who also enjoys a T-bone steak once a week. It isn't that I don't like his definition of what a vegan is; it's that he;s being misleading in using it in that way.Lenny Espositohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04064209669748618955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-86865598767166208572016-12-04T06:43:48.292-08:002016-12-04T06:43:48.292-08:00Thank you for the blog post. Permit me to make a ...Thank you for the blog post. Permit me to make a couple comments:<br /><br />First, I fail to see how it is self-contradictory to describe oneself as an agnostic atheist. You may not *like* the definitions sometimes used by skeptics, and you may want to argue that they are confusing or unpopular; but that doesn't make them self-contradictory.<br /><br />Second, I am not at all convinced that these definitions are very often (if ever) used to dodge having to support or justify strong atheism. Your charge of intellectual dishonesty/cowardice may be plausible-sounding on the surface, but, in my experience, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. If, for instance, you actually ask people who use these definitions why they do so, you may get a variety of answers but almost never will it be "because it makes it easier to avoid defending strong atheism." In fact, a lot of people who use the weak atheism definition actually *reject* strong atheism outright! So, it doesn't look like your charge of intellectual dishonesty/cowardice will stick.Ben Wallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00131358613835119782noreply@blogger.com