Debunked: Socialism has never worked

[Mountain Man]

We seem to have this discussion on this forum regularly. Thomas Huxley, the coiner of the word "agnostic" was very opposed to lumping in "agnostic" with "atheist". So much so that he pointed out that in some ways he found atheism more distasteful than theism. His whole purpose for coining the word was to take a different approach on the question "is there, or is there not a god/s, spirits, the supernatural" that so many others seem to think they know the answer to. Other agnostics seem to agree that there is absolutely no reason to confuse the terms or make up distinctions like "weak" atheism" and "strong" atheism. All it does is add confusion.

In any practical sense, there is little if any difference between a "weak" atheist and a "strong" atheist.

Then you have those like the late Douglas Adams who owned it and called himself a radical atheist, just so there would be no mistake about where he really stood.

[Adrift]

In any practical sense, there is little if any difference between a "weak" atheist and a "strong" atheist.

Then you have those like the late Douglas Adams who owned it and called himself a radical atheist, just so there would be no mistake about where he really stood.

Well, as one agnostic, I think, correctly puts it,

Atheists are trying to force open the term to include as many people as possible in their “club,” if you will. But opening the definition of “atheism” really will have only one ultimate effect, which is to make it so wide that it no longer means anything at all. If the solution is to create a “club” of non-theists and non-theism, the terms “freethinker” and “freethought” are available, and more than suffice for that purpose.

[Mountain Man]

Well, as one agnostic, I think, correctly puts it,

Atheists are trying to force open the term to include as many people as possible in their “club,” if you will. But opening the definition of “atheism” really will have only one ultimate effect, which is to make it so wide that it no longer means anything at all. If the solution is to create a “club” of non-theists and non-theism, the terms “freethinker” and “freethought” are available, and more than suffice for that purpose.

Ultimately, it's all a ruse to avoid the burden of proof.

[rogue06]

Well, as one agnostic, I think, correctly puts it,

Atheists are trying to force open the term to include as many people as possible in their “club,” if you will. But opening the definition of “atheism” really will have only one ultimate effect, which is to make it so wide that it no longer means anything at all. If the solution is to create a “club” of non-theists and non-theism, the terms “freethinker” and “freethought” are available, and more than suffice for that purpose.

Agreed. Unfortunately there are a good number of Christians who tend to see no distinction between agnostics and atheists and in many cases quickly lump deists in with atheists as well.

[Tassman]

Why is it so impossible for you to simply admit when you're wrong?

I’m not wrong.

And I've already demonstrated why your survey is biased and mine isn't. Your survey was compiled by an anti-theist who, like you, wants to make it look like atheists are far better represented than they actually are. My survey was compiled by the European Commission who has no stake in the game, and it's 5 years newer than your survey. Also, your survey numbers are so wide as to be practically meaningless.

This means no more than that you’ve focused upon a survey which you think reflects your beliefs better...in fact there’s not much difference between them.

You're hoping that Finland's atheist make up approx. 60% of the population,

So you’re arguing against what you think I mean, rather than upon what I actually said.

but if they really only make up 28% of the population, then that right there tells us that Finland isn't at all "atheistic". But who can tell? Certainly no one can with your survey.

“My survey” as you like to call it is from a reputable source, namely Adherents.com, and if you try really hard you might remember that I elaborated on “atheistic” to include all who weren’t overtly theist, i.e. “Agnostics and non-believers in God” as per the survey. “Your survey” referred to those who believed in some sort of spiritual life, which you chose to define as theist. But that’s not what "spiritual" means at all...if people believed in God they would say so, not equivocate with words like "spiritual".

Finally, my whole reason for posting was to point out that you were wrong by making the claim that Finland is "atheistic". That's it. That's all I was replying to.

“Atheistic” is defined as "pertaining to atheism", which to my mind encompasses those without a traditional belief in a divinity...namely the 60% of Finns whose beliefs range from overt atheism to agnosticism to non-belief in God or gods. But, inconveniently for you, I later clarified exactly what I meant by "atheistic" anyway.

I don't care if you later added to that claim, or if you think that "spiritual" is not the same as "theist". That wasn't the point. The point was that it's wrong to claim that Finland is "atheistic", and that's it. That's all I set to prove. But, of course, you can't be wrong, so you have to find some way to wiggle out of it.

So your idea of a discussion is to make a claim and then walk away avoid being held to account?

Atheists are trying to force open the term to include as many people as possible in their “club,” if you will. But opening the definition of “atheism” really will have only one ultimate effect, which is to make it so wide that it no longer means anything at all.

As opposed to theists who try include as many people as possible in their "club” as possible...even recruiting those who claim to be "spiritual" as closet members of their club. Atheism has only one clear meaning: "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods". Oxford Dictionary.

[Sparko]

Agreed. Unfortunately there are a good number of Christians who tend to see no distinction between agnostics and atheists and in many cases quickly lump deists in with atheists as well.

well you do have many agnostics who are effectively atheists that want to sound more open minded but actually are not, like JimL or shunyadragon

[Mountain Man]

well you do have many agnostics who are effectively atheists that want to sound more open minded but actually are not, like JimL or shunyadragon

Again, it's just a ruse to avoid carrying the burden of proof, but it does make me laugh whenever someone claims to be agnostic but vehemently argues against theism. Even someone who insists there is a lack of evidence in favor of theism can not reasonably call themselves agnostic.

[Adrift]

I’m not wrong.

Yes. You are.

This means no more than that you’ve focused upon a survey which you think reflects your beliefs better...in fact there’s not much difference between them.

No, it means I've found a survey that is less biased and newer.

So you’re arguing against what you think I mean, rather than upon what I actually said.

Nah, I got you pegged, and you know it. That's why below you don't go with the smallest percentage, but with the largest, and that's why you've counted on the largest since you used that survey as evidence for Finland being an "atheistic" nation from the start.

“My survey” as you like to call it is from a reputable source, namely Adherents.com, and if you try really hard you might remember that I elaborated on “atheistic” to include all who weren’t overtly theist, i.e. “Agnostics and non-believers in God” as per the survey. “Your survey” referred to those who believed in some sort of spiritual life, which you chose to define as theist. But that’s not what "spiritual" means at all...if people believed in God they would say so, not equivocate with words like "spiritual".

We went through this the last time you spammed this stupid survey. I even linked to it in this thread! Last go around it was with Leonhard, and your claim was that Denmark was the atheist nation. It was the exact same case. The source is NOT Adherents.com. Just because you found it on their website does not make them the source (never mind the dubious claim that they're reputable). The survey was compiled by atheist advocate and anti-Christian, Phil Zuckerman of Pitzer College for the The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Again, I don't care what you elaborated on, not to mention that you're wrong on that as well. All those who are non-theists are not, then, atheistic. I don't "choose" to define someone who is spiritual as theist. No where in this thread have I stated that, that's just something you made up. What I've pointed out is that those who believe in spirits and life forces are NOT atheists. You can't claim them as atheists just so you can be right about Finland being an atheistic nation. That's ridiculous. I also pointed out that the survey I'm using explicitly makes the point that those who selected "You don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force" were the atheists. The survey itself does that, not me!

“Atheistic” is defined as "pertaining to atheism", which to my mind encompasses those without a traditional belief in a divinity...namely the 60% of Finns whose beliefs range from overt atheism to agnosticism to non-belief in God or gods. But, inconveniently for you, I later clarified exactly what I meant by "atheistic" anyway.

Well, you're wrong. Clarification or not.

So your idea of a discussion is to make a claim and then walk away avoid being held to account?

Being held to account for what? I'm not obligated to defend claims or points that I haven't been making. I entered this conversation because you stated that Finland was an atheistic nation based on a garbage survey you found at adherent.com. We had already gone over that dumb survey earlier this year, when you made pretty much the same claim about another nation, so I knew exactly what you were up to. All you had to do was state that you were wrong, but you couldn't do that. You had to double down.

As opposed to theists who try include as many people as possible in their "club” as possible...even recruiting those who claim to be "spiritual" as closet members of their club. Atheism has only one clear meaning: "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods". Oxford Dictionary.

I don't need to include them into my club, and nor have I done that. You know that I haven't done that, but strawmen is all you got. All I need to do is point out that they're not atheistic, and they aren't. From the New Encyclopedia of Unbelief edited by Richard Dawkins,

Positive atheists reject the theistic God and with it belief in an afterlife, in a cosmic destiny, in a supernatural origin of the universe, in an immortal soul, in the revealed nature of the Bible and Qu'ran, and in a religious foundation of morality. Positive atheism in its broadest sense also rejects both the theistic and pantheistic aspects of Hinduism as well as the lesser gods of Theravada Buddhism and Jainism.

[JimL]

well you do have many agnostics who are effectively atheists that want to sound more open minded but actually are not, like JimL or shunyadragon

There are agnostics that don't really look to deeply into the subject and there are those that do. I do, and for that reason I now lean atheist, or what you might call strong agnostic. My mind remains open to the possibility that there may be a god, but I am very highly skeptical of that idea. You on the other hand are the absolutely closed minded one, thinking that you know with certainty that for which you only hold a belief. Hypocrite!

[Mountain Man]

strong agnostic.

[Terraceth]

Well, as one agnostic, I think, correctly puts it,

Atheists are trying to force open the term to include as many people as possible in their “club,” if you will. But opening the definition of “atheism” really will have only one ultimate effect, which is to make it so wide that it no longer means anything at all. If the solution is to create a “club” of non-theists and non-theism, the terms “freethinker” and “freethought” are available, and more than suffice for that purpose.

I believe "freethinker" has stigma attached to it so I'm not sure that would work. Honestly, the best term is ironically right there: non-theist. I guess it does have the potential problem of technically including deists, but no less than "freethinkers" (actually, "freethinker" is probably a term more associated with deism than either atheism or agnosticism).

[JonathanL]

There are agnostics that don't really look to deeply into the subject and there are those that do. I do, and for that reason I now lean atheist, or what you might call strong agnostic. My mind remains open to the possibility that there may be a god, but I am very highly skeptical of that idea. You on the other hand are the absolutely closed minded one, thinking that you know with certainty that for which you only hold a belief. Hypocrite!

A strong agnostic is someone who believes knowledge of God('s existence) is impossible, not an agnostic who leans atheist.

[Adrift]

I believe "freethinker" has stigma attached to it so I'm not sure that would work. Honestly, the best term is ironically right there: non-theist. I guess it does have the potential problem of technically including deists, but no less than "freethinkers" (actually, "freethinker" is probably a term more associated with deism than either atheism or agnosticism).

Huh. I've typically heard people flaunt the "freethinker" moniker. Honestly, I don't think it's a very good label either, since I know plenty of theists who are far more freethinking than a great many dogmatic atheists, and vice versa. Yeah, non-theist probably works.

[Adrift]

A strong agnostic is someone who believes knowledge of God('s existence) is impossible, not an agnostic who leans atheist.

Right. Most people if they are completely honest with themselves (even most believers) will admit that they can't have absolute certainty of anything. So if we're using agnosticism in that regard, then we're all agnostic, but clearly that's not what Huxley meant when he coined the word. What he was referring to was a wholly different path from others who claimed to have some sort of gnosis/knowledge about things he though himself ignorant on. In his own words, he coined the term to separate himself and others like him from "an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker". As Huxley put it in the The Agnostic Annual,

1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.
2. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.

[Terraceth]

Huh. I've typically heard people flaunt the "freethinker" moniker. Honestly, I don't think it's a very good label either, since I know plenty of theists who are far more freethinking than a great many dogmatic atheists, and vice versa. Yeah, non-theist probably works.

Oh, some people definitely flaunt the term "freethinker" but a lot of people seem to avoid it--I'm going to guess the avoidance comes from perception that the term is arrogant, which it sort of it, as well as it just appearing sort of archaic. Interestingly, Bertrand Russell argued that "freethinker" is neither limited to atheists/agnostics nor is an atheist/agnostic inherently a freethinker, stating in "The Value of Free Thought":

"What makes a freethinker is not his beliefs but the way in which he holds them. If he holds them because his elders told him they were true when he was young, or if he holds them because if he did not he would be unhappy, his thought is not free; but if he holds them because, after careful thought he finds a balance of evidence in their favour, then his thought is free, however odd his conclusions may seem."