Okay, so what words would you use to describe what I’ve been communicating?
“Non-theist” is something I’ve heard Dawkins use. “Theological non-cognitivist”
might suit.
And the classic word for the theistically unconvinced either way has been “agnostic”. But that requires an impartiality I rarely see from self-purported “atheists” - since it requires being unconvinced toward either pole. It is, however, the default scientific position because (and I get tired of reminding atheists of this) the default hypothesis, statistical null, philosophical origin is
NOT “‘no’ unless otherwise proven”. It’s "‘uncertain/unknown’ until otherwise proven.
Uncertainly doesn’t befriend contingent affirmations or contingent rejections. It befriends shrugging your shoulders.
I don’t care about slap fights over what words to use, I care about communicating ideas to people.
Me too. And in an effort unambiguously motivated by ideology and an attempt to foster a “non-religious” religious community, there has been an attempt by atheists to redefine the word in a way that removes any sort of posit or burden of proof that they so often merrily chide the religious over (particularly Christians of a fundamentalist stripe - few of which are even on these forums).
So instead of hijacking a word with a historically and etymologically understood definition, use something else. Frankly, it’s your side that’s deliberately causing the confusion because many find it beneficial for reasons stated immediately above.
But a problem that is devoping from in this conversation is that the religious side seems to not release their current level of hostility to these words and ideas, so no matter what words I will use they will always have an underpinning abhorance of what I am trying to communicate.
I don’t think that’s particularly unexpected. That’s likely just the pot calling the kettle. When I participate in discussions hosted by atheists about the same thing, the vitriol I encounter is every bit as bad, if not worse, than what you’re encountering here. And no wonder. They’re also emotionally attached to an ideology that they bullishly try to defend. The irony is that they claim to be more scientifically impartial about it which usually has me laughing into my coffee.
So the worst thing I can do to them is to attempt to remove an enemy that they can’t point to any more.
Another way to describe this is that you’re trying to de-posit a posit so you
feel like you don’t have any kind of burden of proof to meet. And for reasons of etymology and historicity outlined a few posts higher, you’ll never fully achieve your aim.
It’s like when a couple with kids get a divorce. Because of the linkage that the children inherently provide, the divorce is never fully complete. There will always be a relationship there and there isn’t anything that can be done about it.
