The Terms of the Debate - BionicDance

My comment on this, since it comes up here at times...

I do not like Steve McCrae (sp). He is arrogant & obnoxious. But, to the topic, ...first, words & definitions of them morph & change over time. Language evolves. So the classic definitions only go so far, whether Oxford, Harvard, ...any. Most of the modern atheists/agnostics I know (& I do know a good few "personally", being a member of Agnostic.com) & what seems to be the basic definition as put forth by forums such as AXP, the basic definition of an atheist is one that has no belief in a god or gods (other supernatural BS is optional for some, but I don't think most), NOT that one necessarily believes there is NO god. An important distinction for a number of reasons. One, the burden of proof falls on the theist position & it leads into the next point. The definition of agnosticism. That, in modern parlance, is defined by the root word, as is atheism, to wit, no "knowledge" about the fact of the existence of a god or gods. Which is a primary reason for the unbelief! I, personally, go by "agnostic atheist" I can't absolutely "know" & have no knowledge or proof of any god, therefore as things stand, I can't believe. (any other "add ons", apistevist, humanist, skeptic, etc. are just that, add ons, even if they are a major part of the rest of your belief system.) Agnostic, lacks the "knowledge", whether in religion or anything. An Atheist lacks a belief in a god or gods. You have to use the modifier "hard" atheist to get to a belief there is absolutely NO god. Otherwise, there can be a sliding scale on one's atheism, & agnosticism based on what one thinks about the probability (as per Dawkins, etc.), but I find total hard atheism as untenable as certainty of any theism/god for the same reasons. Prove it! I may actually be in the 90th percentile of my disbelief, but I know, as a human limited creature with limited senses & understanding of the Universe that I can not, at least at this time, make absolute declarations.

I sorta agreed with you on this almost completely, modern (colloquial) definitions are much more useful not only for real conversation but to be more precise with one's actual position. I really like Suris on most of his work, but I lean much more to you on this subject. &, anyway, I found you long before I found his channel!!! LOL!

I Troll McCrae (lightly) on the AXP comment stream when they're on on Sunday. I like to believe it throws him off a bit from his usual know it all stance. I watch many atheist channels, but I don't bother with Non Sequitur, I just really don't like him. Anyway, this is a topic that continues to arise, & it should be straightforward, at least mostly. Belief, or lack thereof. Knowledge, or lack thereof. They are two separate things that can co-join, tho not merge.

Again, thanks for the topical & well thought out video! You rock! & sorry to go on so long.