# Logical Agnosticism is just non-commital pedantry. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 1, 2009, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-agnosticism-is-just-non-commital-pedantry/484032 "2009-02-01T22:01:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2009, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-agnosticism-is-just-non-commital-pedantry/484032/101 "2009-02-05T06:26:07Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > No, you misunderstand. Even if God were proven to exist, I would still not worship it. I would be against it. That is Classic atheism. None of this wishy-washy lack-of-belief crap. Okay, sorry. I get what you’re saying now. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2009, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-agnosticism-is-just-non-commital-pedantry/484032/102 "2009-02-05T06:41:05Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > No, you misunderstand. Even if God were proven to exist, I would still not worship it. I would be against it. That is Classic atheism. None of this wishy-washy lack-of-belief crap. That’s humanism or anti-organized religionism or something. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2009, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-agnosticism-is-just-non-commital-pedantry/484032/103 "2009-02-05T08:38:52Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > We don’t need a precise model of consciousness to know that it is directly tied to a physical information processing unit. Reason enough not to believe in any immaterial conscious entities. Nice job: we don’t _necessarily_ need a model of consciousness (though it would help). I see some problems though. 1. Pantheism would involve physical structures with presumably some sort of consciousness. Whether stars et al process information - or whether information processing is indeed an actual requirement of consciousness, is less clear. 2. Consciousness that we are aware of certainly involves physical structures. Whether there may be other kinds of support can’t be definitely determined absent a better understanding of consciousness. 3. There are Matrix-type models and other speculations discussed by Der Trihs et al. The conscious entity could be far removed from this particular world. 4. From what I can tell materialism is not universally accepted among philosophers. But there may a narrower POV that does reflect a rough consensus. Now we can speculate that all forms of consciousness come about either through design (future computers, possibly) or evolution (certain mammals). But I’d feel a lot more comfortable dismissing pantheism and the like if I had a firmer grasp of what consciousness was. Nonetheless, **Voyager** ’s point remains: it’s plausible that we could apply sufficient scrutiny to 1-4 without a comprehensive model of consciousness. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2009, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-agnosticism-is-just-non-commital-pedantry/484032/104 "2009-02-05T08:44:28Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > That’s humanism or anti-organized religionism or something. No, opposing belief in God is [antitheism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism). I don’t know what word if any means someone who doesn’t believe in God but would oppose him if he did. I just go with “enemy of God” myself. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2009, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-agnosticism-is-just-non-commital-pedantry/484032/105 "2009-02-05T09:12:24Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, opposing belief in God is [antitheism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism). I don’t know what word if any means someone who doesn’t believe in God but would oppose him if he did. I just go with “enemy of God” myself. Works for me. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2009, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-agnosticism-is-just-non-commital-pedantry/484032/106 "2009-02-05T12:13:59Z")
“Atheism” works well enough for me. But I’ll use “[Misotheist](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misotheism)” if it helps clarify things for others, although I can see myself having to explain what it means a lot. And at heart, I’ll always prefer the classic _ἄθεος_ Antitheist means being in opposition to _belief_ in God (which I am, too), and “enemy of God” carries an active confrontational element that doesn’t really reflect my views, IMO. While I’d be happy to see the end of religious belief, I’m not actually going to sling any priests from lamp-posts to facilitate it. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2009, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-agnosticism-is-just-non-commital-pedantry/484032/107 "2009-02-05T12:28:13Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Antitheist means being in opposition to _belief_ in God (which I am, too), and “enemy of God” carries an active confrontational element that doesn’t really reflect my views, IMO. While I’d be happy to see the end of religious belief, I’m not actually going to sling any priests from lamp-posts to facilitate it. Yeah, but “enemy of God” would imply that you’d be inclined to kill God, not priests. What I’ve jokingly called pro-active atheism a few times. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-agnosticism-is-just-non-commital-pedantry/484032/108 "2009-02-06T00:47:01Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > No, you misunderstand. Even if God were proven to exist, I would still not worship it. I would be against it. That is Classic atheism. None of this wishy-washy lack-of-belief crap. Er, that’s not atheism (though, presuming you also don’t believe in a god, you’re _also_ an atheist). Atheism is about belief, not what you’d do to God if it existed and you managed to get your hands on it. If you happened to believe in God and hate him, then you’re a theist. A disgruntled theist…but still a theist; what you think of the guy or whether you’d worship him has nothing to do with your belief in him. And I think the best term for somebody who would refuse to worship the Christian God and actively set themselves in opposition to that god… is “a moral person”. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-agnosticism-is-just-non-commital-pedantry/484032/109 "2009-02-06T09:03:03Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Er, that’s not atheism Yes, it is. One definition of atheism. Really. Look it up. Then drop it. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-agnosticism-is-just-non-commital-pedantry/484032/110 "2009-02-06T17:11:11Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Yes, it is. One definition of atheism. Really. Look it up. Then drop it. [Here are a few definitions of atheism.](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&defl=en&q=define:atheism&ei=f22MScaOLoT8NNPjuZQL&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title) If yours is the “Classic” defintion, why isn’t it there? But you go on ahead using the word however you want, Humpty. It’s not like you’d be singlehandledly destroying the language after all; it seems like half the planet has their own definitions for the words “atheist” and “agnositic”, not just you. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-agnosticism-is-just-non-commital-pedantry/484032/111 "2009-02-06T17:39:28Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > [Here are a few definitions of atheism.](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&defl=en&q=define:atheism&ei=f22MScaOLoT8NNPjuZQL&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title) If yours is the “Classic” defintion, why isn’t it there? > > But you go on ahead using the word however you want, Humpty. It’s not like you’d be singlehandledly destroying the language after all; it seems like half the planet has their own definitions for the words “atheist” and “agnositic”, not just you. I think his definition might be used by some who refuse to accept that some people honestly think no gods exist, and thus refusal to worship must be denial. I’ve seen definitions that use denial in a way that it could be interpreted to mean this, the use of denial in the definition list you linked to doesn’t have this problem. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2009, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-agnosticism-is-just-non-commital-pedantry/484032/112 "2009-02-07T12:11:18Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > [Here are a few definitions of atheism.](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&defl=en&q=define:atheism&ei=f22MScaOLoT8NNPjuZQL&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title) If yours is the “Classic” defintion, why isn’t it there? Because you’re not using [the right letters](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%84%CE%B8%CE%B5%CE%BF%CF%82), Sparky. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2009, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-agnosticism-is-just-non-commital-pedantry/484032/113 "2009-02-07T15:41:22Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Because you’re not using [the right letters](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%84%CE%B8%CE%B5%CE%BF%CF%82), Sparky. > **[Alpha privative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privative_a)** > > An alpha privative or, rarely, privative a (from Latin alpha prīvātīvum, from Ancient Greek α στερητικόν) is the prefix a- or an- (before vowels) that is used in Indo-European languages such as Sanskrit and Greek and in words borrowed therefrom to express negation or absence, for example the English words of Greek origin atypical, anesthetic, and analgesic, as well as the English word of Sanskrit origin ahimsa (ahinsa). > It is derived from a Proto-Indo-European syllabic nasal \*n̥-, the zero abla... “Not” or “no” don’t mean the same thing as “against”. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2009, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-agnosticism-is-just-non-commital-pedantry/484032/114 "2009-02-08T18:14:07Z")
Baah, it’s no use arguing with prescriptivists. Never mind that the Greeks had a very good idea of what they meant when they used their own term, or that usage evolved over time. Just what do people thing “disdain” means? ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2009, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-agnosticism-is-just-non-commital-pedantry/484032/115 "2009-02-10T05:50:26Z")
> [@Lobsang](#): > > I think there are at least to kinds of Angostic… > [@even\_sven](#): > > But this is all to vague and undefinable Never mind my position on God – I take a very firm position on the proper use of to/too/two…especially when accusing others of sloppy thinking. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-agnosticism-is-just-non-commital-pedantry/484032.md?page=5)