Playing Around With Words...

[jamesatracy]

One thing that I have found interesting, but ultimately frustrating, is the endless debates over what words like atheism and agnosticism really mean. Some people have tried to sidestep these debates by coining new terms to replace them, such as nontheist or bright, or using terms like rationalist or freethinker. Well, according to a Canadian news release Christopher DiCarlo of the University of Ontario has just added a new term to the mix: agtheist.

Yes, that’s right. Here’s some excerpts from the news article:

Religion has led to violence, ‘agtheist’ says

Live and let let live. All the way up to and including the unlikely eventuality of an afterlife, God willing.

That sums up the humanist approach of self-described “agtheist” Christopher DiCarlo, a philosophy of science professor at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology in Oshawa. Responding to the views of three University of Windsor scientists, who recently came out on the side of God, DiCarlo begs to differ, respectfully.

DiCarlo coined the term “agtheist” to describe his position: essentially atheist, but with a strong steak of agnosticism â€" willing to concede that there just might be a supernatural explanation for the origins of the universe. And, if ultimately there proves to be a God, DiCarlo hopes a good life, assisting others when he can and contributing to society, raising his own children properly while doing no harm to others, will be enough to assuage the deity’s concerns about letting a non-believer into heaven.

Elsewhere it reads:

He acknowledged atheists can be just as dogmatic when insisting on how the universe came into existence. He said some show “less and less tolerance” because “they feel they have to” due to the intransigence coming from fundamentalists and creationists on the other side.

Story continues here: http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=162a6fed-e458-4930-a4e3-572b81ba19ad

As far as I can tell, the term “agtheist” seems to be nothing more than a shortening of “agnostic atheist,” which is simply an atheist who accepts the possibility that a god or gods might exist, because he or she doesn’t know that none do. Maybe “agnostic atheist” is too much of a mouthful, but at the same time, maybe “agtheist” just sounds a bit weird.

Personally, I think that a proliferation of new terms only adds to the confusion.

What do you think? Do you think we need a new term?

[Kylyssa]

I think the term atheist is just fine.  To me, agnostic has the implication that the possibility of god's existence is equal to his non-existence to the agnostic.

[joeactor]

I think the term atheist is just fine.  To me, agnostic has the implication that the possibility of god's existence is equal to his non-existence to the agnostic.

Yes, please... no new trendy words.
Especially ones that confuse two separate realms.

Gnostic/Agnostic - With Knowledge/Without Knowledge (of god)

Theist/Atheist - With Belief/Without Belief (in god)

... and I have to disagree with Kylyssa.  Agnostic means that I don't konw.  Assigning a probability of existence would assume I have some knowledge or evidence.

For whatever reason, humanity doesn't seem comfortable with the unknown.  In my opinion, the only honest answer in many cases is "I don't know", and god falls within that domain.

My 2 cents (adjusted for inflation),
JoeActor

[curiosityandthecat]

essentially atheist, but with a strong steak of agnosticism

Man, I want a strong steak... I love steak.

I agree. Isn't he just describing a weak atheistic agnostic? New words could help, but not this one. It reminds me of the snobbish feeling surrounding the word "Bright."

For whatever reason, humanity doesn't seem comfortable with the unknown.  In my opinion, the only honest answer in many cases is "I don't know", and god falls within that domain.

That's essentially the foundation of every religion, isn't it? The need to explain something which we do not understand. Lightning. Fire. Death. "I don't understand that. I can't do that. Guess it must be someone or something more powerful than me. Must be a god!"

Humans are funny animals.

[susangail]

I personally hate labels. I wouldn't use one if it wasn't insisted by other people. We don't need to new labels. I think one of the reasons people come up with new ones is because the "old" ones gain stereotypes that they don't like. I think we should keep things simple. But call yourself what you will  

[rlrose328]

Gnostic/Agnostic - With Knowledge/Without Knowledge (of god)

Theist/Atheist - With Belief/Without Belief (in god)

[/quote]

JoeActor, I've always wanted to ask you about your designation... it's curious to me.

According to what you wrote, you have a belief in god without knowledge of god, correct?  To me, that makes no sense.  I agree with Kylyssa that agnostic does mean I don't know because I have no proof one way or the other but there does exist the possibility that god exists.  They're the fence sitters, the ones who have no proof one way or the other and do not wish to make a choice either way.

How can one be an agnostic (without knowledge of god) theist (belief in god)?  It seems contradictory to me.

[jamesatracy]

How can one be an agnostic (without knowledge of god) theist (belief in god)? It seems contradictory to me.

Why, it isn't that what faith is? Believing in something that you have no knowledge of?

[rlrose328]

How can one be an agnostic (without knowledge of god) theist (belief in god)? It seems contradictory to me.

Why, it isn't that what faith is? Believing in something that you have no knowledge of?

So true... I have faith in a few earthly concepts, but I can prove them nicely, so does that mean I don't have faith in them?  It's too late for this discussion!  LOL!

[joeactor]

How can one be an agnostic (without knowledge of god) theist (belief in god)? It seems contradictory to me.

Why, it isn't that what faith is? Believing in something that you have no knowledge of?

Thanks James - you took the words right out of my mouth!

As to the question: can you have faith in something that you have evidence for?

Sure.  Why not?

I have knowledge of evolution, and I believe in it too.

I can also choose to not have faith in something that may have an abundance of evidence.

For example, I can't believe that Chimpy McFlightSuit is our president...

JoeActor

[rlrose328]

For example, I can't believe that Chimpy McFlightSuit is our president...

JoeActor

I LOVE THIS!!!

And thanks for the explanation... I still struggle with all of these labels.  I HATE them.  I'm a person, I have no god belief.  Period.  I wish it weren't so damned important in this world to have so many labels.  I like Mom and Wife... other than those, Self is the one I stick with.  

[nikkixsugar]

One thing that I have found interesting, but ultimately frustrating, is the endless debates over what words like atheism and agnosticism really mean. Some people have tried to sidestep these debates by coining new terms to replace them, such as nontheist or bright, or using terms like rationalist or freethinker. Well, according to a Canadian news release Christopher DiCarlo of the University of Ontario has just added a new term to the mix: agtheist.

Yes, that’s right. Here’s some excerpts from the news article:

Religion has led to violence, ‘agtheist’ says

Live and let let live. All the way up to and including the unlikely eventuality of an afterlife, God willing.

That sums up the humanist approach of self-described “agtheist” Christopher DiCarlo, a philosophy of science professor at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology in Oshawa. Responding to the views of three University of Windsor scientists, who recently came out on the side of God, DiCarlo begs to differ, respectfully.

DiCarlo coined the term “agtheist” to describe his position: essentially atheist, but with a strong steak of agnosticism â€" willing to concede that there just might be a supernatural explanation for the origins of the universe. And, if ultimately there proves to be a God, DiCarlo hopes a good life, assisting others when he can and contributing to society, raising his own children properly while doing no harm to others, will be enough to assuage the deity’s concerns about letting a non-believer into heaven.

Elsewhere it reads:

He acknowledged atheists can be just as dogmatic when insisting on how the universe came into existence. He said some show “less and less tolerance” because “they feel they have to” due to the intransigence coming from fundamentalists and creationists on the other side.

Story continues here: http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=162a6fed-e458-4930-a4e3-572b81ba19ad

As far as I can tell, the term “agtheist” seems to be nothing more than a shortening of “agnostic atheist,” which is simply an atheist who accepts the possibility that a god or gods might exist, because he or she doesn’t know that none do. Maybe “agnostic atheist” is too much of a mouthful, but at the same time, maybe “agtheist” just sounds a bit weird.

Personally, I think that a proliferation of new terms only adds to the confusion.

What do you think? Do you think we need a new term?

Jesus Christ! (no pun intended. Puns are always tasteless.) Just call yourself an atheist an call it a day!