Tip #48 I Define My Position, Not You
Jan. 24th, 2016 06:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wingedbeastI mentioned, last tip, about the demand that I prove that God does not exist. In part, this comes from the notion that my position, since I self-identify as an atheist, must be that I have absolute, incontrovertible knowledge that God does not exist. That's not my position.
Despite the fact that that is not my position, I am not an agnostic. Rather, I don't self-identify with that label. Yet, many an apologist, professionals in their books on how to talk to non-believers and people just trying to convert me, will tell me that I am an agnostic and that an agnostic is someone who hasn't taken a position on whether or not God exists.
This gets into a complicated area of labels that you can apply to people, labels people can apply for themselves, and descriptors; all of that, of course, magnified by the fluid and ever-changing nature of language in the first place.
Some people say "atheist" to mean "someone who claims a perfect knowledge that there is no such thing as any god in any form ever". Very few self-identified atheists actually use that definition. We use the definition of someone who does not believe that a god or gods exist, and who can, in fact, believe that they don't. Even that latter element tends not to come with a claim to absolute knowledge.
This could be a matter of just two people using homonyms unknowingly, but it tends to go beyond that.
The definition of "atheist" as used by apologists tends to be strategic. If I do make that claim, I'm easily defeated in that claim. If I don't, then I must be a step closer to them than I claim. But, neither is the case.
If you are going to deal with me, you have to deal with me. When I say that I am an atheist, you have to deal with what I mean by that word. If you are going to deal with an agnostic, you are going to have to deal with what they mean by that word, oftentimes being someone who claims that it is impossible to know whether or not a god or gods exist.
Considering that, with some definitions, agnostic and atheist are mutually compatible, you might wonder why, if not for being closer to you, someone might choose to self identify as an agnostic or why, if not for being farther from you, someone might choose to self-identify as an atheist.
The reasons vary. Atheists are often subject to crueler treatment by theists and/or the culture at large. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris both make the word associated with some pretty stark failures to respect women and/or Muslims. So, there are social reasons.
Or, they might find that a statement of belief is too much certainty to claim when the possibility remains, however slim.
Whoever you're dealing with, you don't get to decide their position for them. They have to do that. Chances are, they already have done that. And if you, like so many others, demand that they fit into pre-defined pigeon-holes, you only show that you're not ready to talk to them.
Despite the fact that that is not my position, I am not an agnostic. Rather, I don't self-identify with that label. Yet, many an apologist, professionals in their books on how to talk to non-believers and people just trying to convert me, will tell me that I am an agnostic and that an agnostic is someone who hasn't taken a position on whether or not God exists.
This gets into a complicated area of labels that you can apply to people, labels people can apply for themselves, and descriptors; all of that, of course, magnified by the fluid and ever-changing nature of language in the first place.
Some people say "atheist" to mean "someone who claims a perfect knowledge that there is no such thing as any god in any form ever". Very few self-identified atheists actually use that definition. We use the definition of someone who does not believe that a god or gods exist, and who can, in fact, believe that they don't. Even that latter element tends not to come with a claim to absolute knowledge.
This could be a matter of just two people using homonyms unknowingly, but it tends to go beyond that.
The definition of "atheist" as used by apologists tends to be strategic. If I do make that claim, I'm easily defeated in that claim. If I don't, then I must be a step closer to them than I claim. But, neither is the case.
If you are going to deal with me, you have to deal with me. When I say that I am an atheist, you have to deal with what I mean by that word. If you are going to deal with an agnostic, you are going to have to deal with what they mean by that word, oftentimes being someone who claims that it is impossible to know whether or not a god or gods exist.
Considering that, with some definitions, agnostic and atheist are mutually compatible, you might wonder why, if not for being closer to you, someone might choose to self identify as an agnostic or why, if not for being farther from you, someone might choose to self-identify as an atheist.
The reasons vary. Atheists are often subject to crueler treatment by theists and/or the culture at large. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris both make the word associated with some pretty stark failures to respect women and/or Muslims. So, there are social reasons.
Or, they might find that a statement of belief is too much certainty to claim when the possibility remains, however slim.
Whoever you're dealing with, you don't get to decide their position for them. They have to do that. Chances are, they already have done that. And if you, like so many others, demand that they fit into pre-defined pigeon-holes, you only show that you're not ready to talk to them.
no subject
Date: 2017-03-15 05:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-03-15 05:31 am (UTC)That no more puts me in a position of claiming to be able to prove that the Abrahamic God doesn't exist (or any other deities) than I am in a position of claiming to be able to prove that there isn't a winged, fire-breathing, invisible and intangible lobster currently residing in my bedroom.