Ana Kasparian is Wrong

[rdubwiley]

[AtheistCrusader]

1. I tend to describe the dogmatic atheist as anti-theist, as Hitchens self-identified.

I think that works pretty well.

Thank you for the illustration of atheist/agnostic, the analogy you used works really nicely. Very neat package.

[blackspade]

2. I don't see how Ana was wrong here.

This is more a difference of opinion about terminology.
Personally I consider agnostics somewhere between Theists and Atheists.
The gent in the OP does not, but doesn't provide a more accurate definition to describe Ana's position.
His whole line on agnostic-atheists and agnostic-theists doesn't address the middle ground between them.
In fact there is this from wikipedia that seems to support Ana much more than the OP:

According to philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively; but that in the strict sense agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of rationally justifying the belief that deities do, or do not, exist.

[cpwm17]

3. Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods

Everybody is really born an atheist. Atheism is the default position. It takes evidence to move away from atheism. There is no evidence for any god, so I must remain an atheist.

Any position on any subject requires evidence for belief. Without the requirement for evidence to move away from the non belief position one would have an anarchic belief system.

[zeemike]

5. No everyone is born with a blank mind.

That is why kids believe in Santa.
It is their environment that determines what they believe until they get older...and even then their environment shapes what they believe.

[JRLeft]

25. Thus born an atheist.

[zeemike]

4. No Anna has it right.

And she points out why you think that no one has ever presented evidence for a supreme being, (I take it you have no knowledge of eastern mysticism)...because once you close your mind you do not listen to them.
And their evidence may be speculative, but then so is the evidence for no supreme being.
So her point is made and she is far closer to discovering the truth of it than someone who thinks they know already.

[Unca Jim]

10. Yep.

True that.

[radiclib]

6. Ahem…there is nothing wrong

..about Ana Kasparian.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

13. +1000 n/t

[RufusTFirefly]

7. And you are right

Unfortunately, the distinction is lost on the majority of the American public.
There is a misinformed definition of agnosticism in the popular discourse that has long since superseded the accurate one.

Similarly, you can always get a cheap laugh by talking about an "anarchists convention," as though the very concept were preposterous.

[CrawlingChaos]

11. Ana is correct. From the Merriam Webster dictionary:

agnostic : a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

The common usage of this word is long established and this definition is correct. Clearly it has become the talking point du jour on the atheist blogs or something, because everywhere I go on the internets, all of a sudden, I see atheists up in arms about it. Never saw any controversy about it before in my life.

It's almost unbearably ironic to see atheists displaying this hive-mind behavior.

[TiberiusB]

12. Not quite

The actual definition of agnosticism is the refusal to take a position on any subject for which there is insufficient evidence to take a side. In the case of religion, Huxley (who coined the term "agnostic" originally) was merely saying that the entire concept of an all powerful God capable of creating all of reality is so far beyond our ability to comprehend, much less prove or disprove, that it is best to simply avoid taking a position. Personally, I think that's a bit of a dodge. Essentially Huxley is removing the burden of proof from theists for their assertions. That's not how science works. Make a claim, you have to back it up. It is not up to everyone else to prove you wrong.

That's why I identify as an atheist. Yes Gods are possible, but they are not probable, at least not based on what little we know. However, since I am open to being wrong, that would put me in the camp of "agnostic atheist", I guess. For the time being, though, I like to think that the universe will still be operating by the same rules tomorrow that it is today, and that no omnipotent beings are fiddling with the playbook just because they can. I'd rather not wake up someday sure that Einstein was right and that energy is equal to applesauce.

[CrawlingChaos]

14. That's as may be

As I said, the word, regardless of it's origins, has a long-established usage. Here in the 21st century, that commonly accepted meaning is it's primary definition. That's why the dictionary says what it does.

[cpwm17]

20. Atheists lack a positive belief in gods

Ana claims that atheists know that there is no god. Ana is wrong.

Atheists themselves define themselves as lacking a positive belief in gods. That is the more scientifically logical position where evidence is lacking.

Proving the negative is often impossible, but that is irrelevant since the burden of proof is on the one that makes the positive claim.

[CrawlingChaos]

22. I don't quite get the point of this hair-splitting

I can't prove that leprechauns don't exist either, but obviously, I would never say I'm agnostic on the existence of leprechauns, because that word implies a significant degree of uncertainty.

Furthermore, I thought there's no dogma attached to atheism, so what's up with declaring how atheists, collectively, define themselves?

Ana is using the commonly held definitions of these terms. She is not "wrong" just because a group of atheists got together and decided they MUST be called "agnostic atheists" (a term that's only going to confuse people, I might add).

[cpwm17]

23. It isn't dogmatic to lack a belief in something that has no evidence

That's like saying it's dogmatic to lack a belief in a basketball orbiting pluto.

Ana, at about 20 seconds into the video, criticized atheists for claiming they know that there is no god. That's nonsense. Where could such knowledge come from? That's not how most atheists define themselves.

I'm sure that there is no god, as popularly defined. Gods as popularly defined are obviously made up, and often logically inconsistent. But I have no specific knowledge of there being no god.

"Agnostic atheists" isn't a term I care much about. So I'm the wrong person to answer that question.

[CrawlingChaos]

24. That's not at all what I meant

What I said was that it's dogmatic to assert that you can speak for atheists collectively regarding how they define themselves.

I took Ana to be referring to something more than a negligible degree of uncertainty - again, how one would normally use the word 'agnostic' - and in that regard, she's giving her personal view. You're free to disagree with her, but it doesn't make her opinion demonstrably "wrong" and I still don't see anything here that requires correction.

[longship]

26. Gnosis == knowing.

Gnostic == having special knowledge. (Cultural definition related to some early Christian sects, a secret religion.)

Agnostic == the lack of knowing. Word coined by Darwin's bulldog, Huxley.

Note that it does not mean that one is unsure that god exists. It means one cannot know through science.

I am an atheist because I think the evidence for gods does not exist. I am an agnostic because I do not think that such a thing is knowable.

[delrem]

8. I don't believe that the great koot hoomi exists.

That doesn't mean that I'm a "believer" in something, just like believers in the GKH believe in something, except that my "belief" is that the GKH doesn't exist. That's total sophistry. It just means that I *don't believe* something. I can explain why I don't believe in the GKH: it's because the name 'GKH' doesn't make a lick of sense to me and nobody has succeeded in making the so-called thing the least bit sensible. So this so-called GKH has zero impact on my system of beliefs one way or the other.

[valerief]

9. Atheism is the lack of belief, so how can it be believing something?

[gmoles]

15. What is this guy talking about?

If you are going to go to the length of shooting down somebody else's tv interview with a youtube video, and in it even claim that you are some champion of terminology and paragon of theistic or anti-thesistic correctness, at least be right. Atheist does not mean "a skeptic who requires proof." It literally translates from ancient greek means "no gods." "A" is the negation, and theos means gods. "No-gods" is exactly what Anna is claiming it means. This man's definition of atheism is actually more consistent with the actual definition of agnostic. In any case, he is at best still more wrong than Anna. At worst, completely confused about the general use of terminology. Now, I am all for people using language as they see fit as it is merely a vessel to communicate meaning, and if that makes sense and works within the circle he communicates in, great. But to bend it as you will, then use your new definitions to attack others as ignorant is rather pathetic. Sadly, by his very claim to be an agonistic, one who requires facts, he seems to be failing. Anna's claim to be an agnostic is consistent with the word, meaning basically "one that favors knowledge/fact." She suggests there is no proof that a god does not exist, and there is no proof that one does exist, so either position is intellectually irresponsible…thus she is an agnostic.

[JoeyT]

16. Theist has never meant gods.

It meant, not translated, "a belief in a god". The a prefix means not so it works out to "not someone who believes".

Theos is the ancient Greek word for "deity". Theist is a word derived from theos created by Ralph Cudworth in England in the 1600s. It doesn't need translating for an English audience because it's an English word.

According to Cudworth, the definition is: "who affirm, that a perfectly conscious understanding being, or mind, existing of itself from eternity, was the cause of all other things"

[gmoles]

18. irrelevant

Language is about common usage because it is a medium for communicating an idea, not what was decided in 1600, or what greek words it came from. That was my point. I understood exactly what she was saying, and so would most people who watched it. If a small group of people wish to parse atheism into additional meanings for their own use in their own conversation, so be it. I have no problem with that at all. But to attack somebody else for communicating with the most commonly understood usage of a word (the one her audience would understand best) and suggest that she is dumb makes no sense at all. Viewers would understand her point. If she would have said "I am an agnostic atheist that would gladly believe is a higher power once I see proof" the audience would have been confused and would have failed to understand what she was saying, and there would have been a communication breakdown. Language should not be treated as an idea. Language is a medium through which ideas are shared. How would you feel if you said you liked the color red on a tv image and I attacked you and said you were an idiot because there was no color red on the screen because you are perceiving light in your retina, and additionally that light is technically the absence of the red spectrum. It is simple. The color on the screen is red, you and I agree what red is, you and I agree that it is an image that appears in the screen, we have understanding. Such a obtuse position wouldn't be about truth, it would be about grandstanding and attempts at intellectual superiority by trying to put myself above you. I am an atheist for sure, but I'm sick of atheists using their belief system as some sort of proof that they are more holy and righteous. I thought that such things were part of what we were trying to get away from.

[TiberiusB]

27. What?

Your entire previous post was an assertion that you had the correct definition of "atheist". Now definitions don't matter? If language is driven by usage, and specifically by common usage, how can atheists currently hope to have any say over the definition of the very word used to frame and contain them? If the theist majority care to define atheism negatively, should atheists should shut up and accept it? Even if it seems irrelevant to you, it clearly bothers some.

Plus, I don't think anybody in this thread said Ms. Kasparian is dumb. Attractive, sure, but dumb? Not so much. I think that the debate over whether she is mistaken stems from dismay, since most clearly hold her in high regard (has there ever been a truly negative post on DU about her). If people really thought she had a neuron deficit, this thread almost certainly wouldn't exist.

"light is technically the absence of the red spectrum"

I'm guessing your thoughts got a little muddled here and you meant color, specifically the color(s) of the things we see around us, and not light. In your example, red light coming from a tv is, indeed, red. TVs emit light, they don't reflect it like an apple. Reflective sources absorb light and we see the color(s) they reflect (or reject, if you want to make it personal). Emmissive sources like light bulbs and tv sets actually emit the colors you see. Except Magenta, which is a color with no wavelength and is completely invented by the human brain, apparently. Sort of a neural Photoshop filter.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

17. If Ana ia wrong, I don't want to be right

Lovely and bright woman

[12ZTR]

19. Around 2870 deities?

There is no proof of any existence of any spiritual/superior being. Any argument for the existence is using words written or spoken by others that don't have any evidence other than using words written or spoken by others using words written or spoken by others. etc.,etc., etc.

It's a great country, We have the Right to believe whatever we choose.

Iraq has WMD.
I don't believe cigarettes are harmful.
"Anna Nicole married for love."
I didn't inhale.

To paraphrase a commercial:

"You can't put anything on the Internet that isn't true."

"Where did you hear that?"

"The Internet."

[amcgrath]

21. Actually,

Although i am an atheist, the non existence of a god cannot be proven. Therefore Anas comments are hard to assail, she is clearly going for a "fair and balanced" approach, which is probably the wisest move for somebody in the media eye, or trying to remain entirely subjective.

And if that is really what is "tearing you up", i'd suggest it's time to leave the basement and see what's happening outside.