Pedantry: Details at the Expense of Substance
Sunday January 11, 2009
Very often, debates become embroiled over what appear to be very minor issues. Sometimes this may be appropriate and sometimes it may not - when it is not, there is a strong possibility that no further productivity will occur in the discussion. When someone moves a discussion into an inappropriate and unproductive focus on minor issues, he can be accused of pedantry.
Read Article: Pedantry: Details at the Expense of Substance
Comments
How many discussions about the existence of gods immediately degenerate into semantic arguments about the definition of “atheism”?
“Atheism is the denial of the existence of God”, “To be an atheist you have to be able to PROVE that God ABSOLUTELY CANNOT exist”, “to be an atheist you have to know everything”. “If you just disbelieve in God but accept the possibility, then you’re really an agnostic”.
It’s all just smoke and mirrors. All these semantic questions about atheism vs agnosticism can all be swept under the carpet easily by providing a clear definition of “god” and providing evidence and arguments that support this god’s existence.
The fact that those attempting to argue for their faith rarely if ever attempt this, and instead concentrate on the semantics of atheism/agnosticism tells you everything you need to know: They can’t demonstrate the existence of their god because their god doesn’t exist, and they KNOW it doesn’t. But they have to maintain their beloved belief system so what else can they do?
Just confuse the issue with endless pedantry.
I saw a Christian recently who used the following argument: “Atheism is not the psychological state of disbelief in god. The root of atheism is “theos” which means God, and so atheism is the denial of the existence of God. If you merely disbelieve in God you’re an agnostic. To be an atheist you have to demonstrate that God cannot possibly exist.”
Now, it was explained to him that “theos” meant God, and that “theism” described the psychological state of belief in theos (which he missed out), and that “atheism” was therefore the psychological state of the lack of that particular belief.
And even if it wasn’t, even if atheism was “denial of the existence of god” it STILL doesn’t follow that to be an atheist you have to prove that god cannot POSSIBLY exist. It’s possible to deny the existence of something and not be 100% certain that it cannot possibly exist. I deny the existence of Hobbits, but I can’t prove they cannot possibly exist.
And after being told this what did this Christian do? Did he take the comments on board and learn from them? Nope, he ran away from the discussion and just posted the same exact things in a different place. Didn’t listen, didn’t understand, just continued lying for Jesus.
Ugh.
So the debate just degenerated into detailed semantic discussion, and totally discarded the only impoartant question: Is there any good reason to believe a god exists? The very digression itself, and how common such digressions are, suggest that there isn’t.
Hoping I’ve figured out a way to show the religious lot, atheism isn’t arguing against one or your religion, it’s not believing in any religions.
atheism isn’t arguing against one or your religion, it’s not believing in any religions.
Yes to the first, no to the second. You’re correct to say that atheism is not necessarily arguing against any particular religion. However, you’re wrong to say that atheism is lack of adherence to any religion. Atheism is purely and simply the lack of belief that any gods exist, or literally, the absence of theism. It is not synonymous with irreligion. It is possible to be religious and an atheist. Conversely, it is possible to be irreligious and a theist.
I apologise for the repeated posting. I made a typological error, failed to spot it until just after I clicked the ’say it’ button, corrected it, clicked the ’say it’ button again and somehow the post appeared twice, with the correction. Austin, could you delete the second copy, please?
Cheers, Austin!
I have never ever heard of a religious atheist, care to show any examples??
The question of religious atheists is one I’ve addressed, and I’ve created a list of religions which can be or necessarily are atheistic.
Why do you have so many Mormon advertisment on your web-site?
Guess I walked right into that one, thanks for the links.