For popular or very good threads
Thanks--atheists and theists often commit this fallacy labeling the terms: Atheist, theist, and agnostic--https://www.thoughtco.com/etymological-fallacy-words-1690613
(y)(y)

My favorite parts from your source regarding the 'etymological fallacy':
"One thing to remember when you read or hear someone insisting that an English word must have a certain meaning because of its Latin or Greek roots is that these insisters apply their etymologies very selectively. You will find few of them who object to December being used for the twelfth month, when its Latin root means 'ten,' or to manure being used as a noun meaning 'to work (land) by hand.' So when you read, for example, that caption must refer to matter above a picture because it comes from Latin caput 'head,' keep manure in mind."
 
  • Like
Reactions: perplexedzeromass
Jul 12, 2022
27
5
Break that down for me if you would please.
"As such, I no longer refer to myself as an "Agnostic" because it appears that ship has sailed and flies under the banner of Atheism."

Well, it only falls under that banner of atheism if we take atheism to have one literal meaning from its original etymology as so many of the hard/positive atheists assert.

"Since I am neither theist or atheist, I am identifying my position as "Natural-Neutral" as I am not apposed to Gnosticism [which Agnosticism implies]"

I get what you are saying regarding knowledge asserted or lack of knowledge (or lack of being able to know), with Agnocism versus Gnosticism, but no knowledge exists without some form of belief, so the literal etymological derivations of these two terms and atheism or theism are not absolutes to the epistemology of their meaning or application; in fact, they are often misleading.

This is fundamentalist literalism just as much as literalist fundamentalist religion is.
 
How does the subject of selective etymological defenses relate to my dialogue ?
Because of points like this...

If you look up "atheism" in a dictionary, you will find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly, many people understand "atheism" in this way. Yet this is not what the terms means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek "a" means "without" or "not," and "theos" means "god". From this standpoint, an atheist is someone without a belief in God; he or she need not be someone who believes that God does not exist. Still, there is a popular dictionary meaning of "atheism" according to which an atheist is not simple one who holds no belief in the existence of a God or gods but is one who believes that there is no God or gods.
Source: Martin, Michael (editor). The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. (2008) pg. 1

So if atheism, at some point, came to be understood as the opposite of theism (a contrary belief and not just a lack of belief), then the point in quotations is simply an etymological fallacy. Our point about agnosticism being separate from atheism is dependent on how one defines atheism.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: perplexedzeromass
Break that down for me if you would please.

Going back in time ... Here's a thread providing some history of the term "atheism" from Mithrae responding to Wiploc on DebatingChristianity forum. You also contributed some good posts!
Mithrae [url="https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1012871#p1012871 said:
[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1012846#1012846]wiploc[/url] said:
"Fancy new terminology"? If you look in the OED, you'll find that calling all non-theists "atheists" is an ancient practice.

I don't have the OED handy, but Wikipedia suggests quite the opposite; that its Greek origins were as a pejorative term for rejection of (or by) the 'true' gods, even being applied against Christians. Same with its earliest known usages in the early modern period in French and in English, and the earliest recorded non-pejorative self-applications of the term likewise were cases of active disbelief:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Etymology
    In early ancient Greek, the adjective átheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods". . . .

    The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who ... denies the existence of God or gods",[134] predates atheism in English, being first found as early as 1566,[135] and again in 1571.[136] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[137] The term atheism was derived from the French athéisme,[138] and appears in English about 1587.[139] . . . .

    Karen Armstrong writes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic ... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist."[16] Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.[146] In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".[45]

Baron d'Holbach's rhetorical point aside, as far as I can find the earliest outline of ideas such as 'implicit' atheism and 'weak' atheism occur in the 1970s from philosophers such as Antony Flew and George H. Smith. The weak/strong distinction seems like a potentially useful one - for use among those who reject belief in gods - to easily clarify whether or not they also express a positive belief that there are no gods. But there seems to be no reason for indulging the invention of 'implicit' atheism, as far as I can tell, besides the tendency noted above of stacking the stats in favour of one's own position. I would find it equally irrational and objectionable to label babies as theists.
 
Last edited:

William

Novice Mystic
Jun 9, 2021
511
58
60
Te Waipounamu
jig.nz
Worldview

We Exist Within A Creation [WEWAC]

So it isn't anything I said then?

Going back to original meanings is "the ship that has sailed" I referred to.

This is because that is just the way of the evolution of human language and fighting for something so late in the Game, isn't constructive use of personal energy.

Lets go back a few steps.

I was thanked for a post in another thread. {LINK}
I pointed to this thread as part of my attempt to explain that I no longer saw the diagram as accurate.

I see now that my explanation could have been better, but even so, my argument is still valid re Agnosticism.

So the things I wrote about agnosticism to begin with, I realized at some point I wasn't actually writing about Agnosticism but about something else.

I sought to identify the "something else" and haven't discovered the name for it...so I referred to the position as "Natural-Neutral".
iB5bTru.png

William: The Natural-Neutral Default Position

GM: Sober journey into self-realization

William: Better than trying on the Agnostic label which has been through the mill

GM: A terrible milestone

William: Ground into powder....
{LINK}

Now that we have reached this point together - The GM from yesterday affirms;

A Matter of Knowing Where to Look
GM:
Brother Wolf Sister Moon

William: 289, as with;
The Suppression Matrix
This is how The Mind works...
Within that which is unseen...


GM: Though the Serpent rules the Shadow
Liminal [relating to a transitional or initial stage of a process. occupying a position at, or on both sides of, a boundary or threshold.]


William: Like "Natural-Neutral" re theism and atheism...not "Agnostic" because that is a known subset of atheism...

GM: The Spirit of The Earth
Essentially, we are Gaia in Human Form...

William: Such is the nature of consciousness...

GM: Chamber Of Self {LINK}

I am toying with the idea of calling it "Liminalism"
[Search "Liminality"]
a term used to describe the psychological process of transitioning across boundaries and borders. The term “limen” comes from the Latin for threshold; it is literally the threshold separating one space from another. It is the place in the wall where people move from one room to another.

Agnosticism is a form of Liminalism, applicable only to The Question "Do we exist within a creation?" re the theistic and atheistic answers and subsequent arguments re said question.

Liminalism is not limited to pondering questions specific to theistic/atheistic interpretation of the mind in relation to matter. That is a huge advantage.
 
Last edited:
Jul 12, 2022
27
5
So it isn't anything I said then?

Going back to original meanings is "the ship that has sailed."
This is because that is just the way of human language and fighting for something so late in the Game isn't constructive use of personal energy.

Lets go back a few steps.

I was thanked for a post in another thread. {LINK}
I pointed to this thread as part of my attempt to explain that I no longer saw the diagram as accurate.

I see now that my explanation could have been better, but even so, my argument is still valid re Agnosticism.

So the things I wrote about agnostcism to begin with, I realised at some point I wasn;t actually rtting about Agnosticism but about something else.

I sought to identify the "something else" and haven't discovered the name for it...so I referred to the position as "Natural-Neutral".
iB5bTru.png


{LINK}

Now that we have reached this point together - The GM from yesterday affirms;



I am toying with the idea of calling it "Liminalism"
[Search "Liminality"]


Agnosticism is a form of Liminalism, applicable only to The Question "Do we exist within a creation?" re the theistic and atheistic answers to said question.

Liminalism is not limited to pondering questions specific to theistic/atheistic interpretation of the mind in relation to matter.
I is things you said; it also what others claim that you alluded to.
 

William

Novice Mystic
Jun 9, 2021
511
58
60
Te Waipounamu
jig.nz
Worldview

We Exist Within A Creation [WEWAC]

I is things you said; it also what others claim that you alluded to.
One line replies don't do it for me as I have to then ask for clarification. Why not save me the effort and just post accompanying explanations to your statements.

That way I can better tell whether or not you are hearing me.

Cheers

W
 
Jul 12, 2022
27
5
One line replies don't do it for me as I have to then ask for clarification. Why not save me the effort and just post accompanying explanations to your statements.

That way I can better tell whether or not you are hearing me.

Cheers

W
I did in my initial reply sir; please read again.
 
Jul 12, 2022
27
5
Whatever.
Ok. Your reply shows me at least in this thread you are not serious about having this conversation with me. I'll digress, but this had so much promise. I was enjoying your other posts. I respect you, but to be clear, whatever is a conversation stopper as it had no meaningful information. I addressed your words specifically.
 
Natural Neutral: I don't know and refuse to form belief or lack of belief as belief or non-belief provides me with no compelling answer.
So far, I see a problem in your view. You can not form a lack of belief just as you can not form nothing (Lack = nothing or absence).
Perhaps the problem is just with the word "form". I see nothing wrong with saying someone actively (or chooses to) withholds judgement after being confronted with information. That would be synonymous with lacking a belief in terms of whether something exists or not.

However, the only person that has the luxury of being identified as a "natural-neutral" is a baby or someone who has not encountered the God concept. This is because they are ignorant of the concept and are not suspending judgement. To suspend requires choice, especially when it comes to maintaining it. So the difference between a weak atheist and a baby is the latter doesn't choose to lack belief.

Getting back to how this relates to agnosticism, I also think the "lack of belief" point presents a problem to the agnostics that do not identify with the atheist and theist label. I have my own solutions, like when someone doesn't know what they believe perhaps they haven't made up their mind because they have conflicting beliefs. William brings up "maybe" God exists and maybe not, and that can be used by an independent agnostic, as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: perplexedzeromass
Jul 12, 2022
27
5
So far, I see a problem in your view. You can not form a lack of belief just as you can not form nothing (Lack = nothing or absence).
Perhaps the problem is just with the word "form". I see nothing wrong with saying someone actively (or chooses to) withholds judgement after being confronted with information. That would be synonymous with lacking a belief in terms of whether something exists or not.

However, the only person that has the luxury of being identified as a "natural-neutral" is a baby or someone who has not encountered the God concept. This is because they are ignorant of the concept and are not suspending judgement. To suspend requires choice, especially when it comes to maintaining it. So the difference between a weak atheist and a baby is the latter doesn't choose to lack belief.

Getting back to how this relates to agnosticism, I also think the "lack of belief" point presents a problem to the agnostics that do not identify with the atheist and theist label. I have my own solutions, like when someone doesn't know what they believe perhaps they haven't made up their mind because they have conflicting beliefs. William brings up "maybe" God exists and maybe not, and that can be used by an independent agnostic, as well.

All great points. I still believe that an atheist typically does not believe in God(s) or the possibility of their existence, for the most part. Meaning, I will not broadly paint strokes like many do with us agnostics that we must be in one or the other category, so yeah, some atheists are just like I do not "know" and (conjunction), do not "believe" or inverse to do not "believe" and do not "know."

Whereas agnostics are more I do not "know," but it's possible as a rule...again exceptions exist, but the exceptions do not rule out my claim.

For me, I think it's possible, but I have no "belief" that God(s) are real or not, which is different from saying lack of belief entirely. Then again, in debate, most atheists tell me they do not think it's possible, even though they hit me with Webster's dictionary definition.

To make it more convoluted, different dictionaries and encyclopedias define atheism and agnosticism differently, related but with varying context that matters.
 

William

Novice Mystic
Jun 9, 2021
511
58
60
Te Waipounamu
jig.nz
Worldview

We Exist Within A Creation [WEWAC]

As I pointed out earlier, belief [or lack thereof] of 'Gods' existing, is secondary.

The Question isn't "Do you believe Gods exist?" but "Do we exist within a creation?"

The whole 'God' question and subsequent argument between religious theists and non-theists is manufactured on fallacy.

The only person that has the luxury of being identified as a "natural-neutral" is a baby or someone who has not encountered the God concept.

So here is someone who identifies as an 'agnostic' telling someone else what another's position means. Obviously it is not only atheists who think they have the right to do that.

The term "Natural-Neutral" was used by me as a temporary identifier as I became more aware that the identifier 'agnostic' wasn't appropriate.

In post #49 I make that obvious.

"Agnosticism is a form of Liminalism, applicable only to The Question "Do we exist within a creation?" re the theistic and atheistic answers and subsequent arguments re said question.

Liminalism is not limited to pondering questions specific to theistic/atheistic interpretation of the mind in relation to matter. That is a huge advantage."

6qI2JpQ.png
 
Last edited:
Jul 12, 2022
27
5
""Agnosticism is a form of Liminalism, applicable only to The Question "Do we exist within a creation?" re the theistic and atheistic answers and subsequent arguments re said question"

Will, is it, though? It seems to ask the question do we believe we exist within creation and/or is there a God(s) or not since God(s) can be real and not be a creator(s). Why should the God question require the creation and a creator?

There are deists, pantheists, theists, and even theists who do not believe in God(s) as prime mover.
 

William

Novice Mystic
Jun 9, 2021
511
58
60
Te Waipounamu
jig.nz
Worldview

We Exist Within A Creation [WEWAC]

The question is asked on account of the experiential reality we exist within.

Since folk are agreeing to that, there is no argument.

"Yes ... We exist within a reality we call "The Physical Universe."

The question "Do we exist within a creation?" comes from that shared position.

Theism then claims that we exist within a creation - the inference being "Therefore a creator."

The atheist responds from a position of lacking belief in creators.

The Liminalist responds to both theist and atheist points of view that we could exist within a creation and proceeds with finding out how this might be established as factual.

The Liminalist explains to both atheists and theists that the first question to ask and answer is not about having or lacking beliefs in creators, because it has yet to be established that we do or do not exist within a creation.

Why should the God question require the creation and a creator?

That is how a "God" is Generically spoken of.

Also to note, it is we within the Physical Universe who appear to require an answer and the question of "God" is secondary to the question of creation.
Thus, making it the first question requiring an answer, is fallacy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: perplexedzeromass
Jul 12, 2022
27
5
The question is asked on account of the experiential reality we exist within.

Since folk are agreeing to that, there is no argument.

"Yes ... We exist within a reality we call "The Physical Universe."

The question "Do we exist within a creation?" comes from that shared position.

Theism then claims that we exist within a creation - the inference being "Therefore a creator."

The atheist responds from a position of lacking belief in creators.

The Liminalist responds to both theist and atheist points of view that we could exist within a creation and proceeds with finding out how this might be established as factual.

The Liminalist explains to both atheists and theists that the first question to ask and answer is not about having or lacking beliefs in creators, because it has yet to be established that we do or do not exist within a creation.



That is how a "God" is Generically spoken of.

Also to note, it is we within the Physical Universe who appear to require an answer and the question of "God" is secondary to the question of creation.
Thus, making it the first question requiring an answer, is fallacy.
William, I agree with most of your generalities, but I disagree with your last point:"

Also, to note, it is we within the Physical Universe who appear to require an answer and the question of "God" is secondary to the question of creation.
Thus, making it the first question requiring an answer, is fallacy."

The agnostic is not just interested in whether there is a way to know we are created or not, but if any God(s) exist. There are a few religions with no deities, and others with God deities that are not creators, but even more importantly, an agnostic might not be convinced that religion can answer the questions in the first place.

That being said, I enjoyed reading this last post of yours and I got somethings from it--thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: William