Actually I was trying to be so general as to ignore the UK, US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand &c. distinction, let alone the various division therein...:)
It's also highly unlikely that such ah onerous contract term (camera confiscation) would be binding, unless the conditions were very prominently displayed (Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd).
Yes thank you! I was trying to remember the name of that case! Someone below reminded me that it was in Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw that Denning LJ established that onerous clauses must be written in proverbial “red ink,” and I couldn’t bring to mind the name of the “parking station case” which required prominent display. Actually the principle that exclusion clauses (and Thornton dealt with an exclusion clause) must be brought to notice, (whether or not notice is actually taken), was already established in Parker v Sth Eastern Rail back in the C19th.
It was this aspect of Thornton, however, which I was communicating in my original post when I wrote "[When]... a shopping centre... sets conditions of entry, and displays these conditions of entry in a place visible to the entrant..." [emphasis added], though I should perhaps have written "prominently visible"...
It’s also highly unlikely that such ah onerous contract term (camera confiscation) would be binding
I should damn well hope not! Again, as I’ve now written numerous times in reply (this will be my last), it was not my intent to state positively that said shopping centre has the right to confiscate, but to get the OP to reflect upon the certainty with which he insisted they do not. OK, I'm being a little coy, I was deliberately provocative and cannot now complain at having provoked. But 23 replies... sheesh!
And also there is there effect of unfair contracts legislation (which I hinted at) to consider.
And I can tell you that they are not - I’ve been to the Braehead mall many times (I used to work nearby), and such signs, if they exist, are not prominent.
Ah yes, but these are the mere facts of the case.;)
Although I do not practise now, I did once act for someone in a shopping centre case (‘act’ is too strong a word, since we did not take on the case, I tried to help them out shall we say) . Being as vague as possible to avoid identification... Someone had managed to get themselves indefinitely excluded from entry to their local shopping centre for what was IMO a fairly minor matter. What was worse they were employed in shop in that centre. I spoke to the manager, and as we were not taking this on, did not assert any legal rights, but tried to appeal to his better nature. “The person is really sorry, it was out of character, they live nearby and have never caused trouble before, they work here and will be unemployed if you don’t show mercy... blah blah. “ The manager seemed very amenable to reversing the decision.
The next day he called me back, he had (unfortunately) spoken to his “legals,” (even thought I had strenuously avoided any legal claim) they said they didn’t have to reverse the ban, so he wouldn’t, end of story, goodbye. So we end up with some poor bod, lost their job, unable to enter the local shop when there are none for miles about, or even access basic social amenities such as the local Post Office. And all this without any real avenue of appeal (as would be the case where the state to make an order).
Perhaps it is a shame we could never pursue this matter, but it has left me feeling that issues of individual rights which are being affected by the privatisation of public space (the mall eating the high street), have yet to be seriously addressed.
Where is the line drawn on what the conditions of entry are allowed to be?
Well that's for a court to say on a case by case basis. I'm only flagging the possibility that confiscation might be a term, I'm not saying that it would be enforceable. I really doubt it would be. It seems just too onerous to be enforceable without having explicitly been brought to the attention. But then again actual decisions can often be surprising. And absent clear curial authority, it's not for me to say.
as an extreme example
Extreme examples, as opposed to real world examples, are the most easily answered and thus the least interesting. Look for the marginal cases if you really want to get into the nitty-gritty.
would it be okay for the condition of entry to allow them to murder you?
That's a completely different kettle of fish. Firstly murder is a crime, which traditionally speaking is something which disturbed the king's peace. Even where people are citizens rather than subjects, crimes are better thought of as being against the community than the individual. Individuals can seek redress via tort, contract &c. Think about O J Simpson, the prosecution for the crime was not successful, but the individuals affected retained a right to seek redress at tort.
Generally where statute proscribes behaviour or imposes obligations people cannot evade these simply by agreeing amongst each other. That's not contract, that's conspiracy.:)
I would presume so too. It is good (if perhaps not strictly binding) authority here (in NSW). I read it... oh some 10 years ago. And there is the other relevant decision by Denning in the parking station case (sorry can't recall the name right now) about conditions needing to be prominently displayed. Additionally there is unfair contracts legislation (which I hinted at) to be considered.
I'm sorry if^H^H that I came across as claiming that such a term, were it included, would be enforceable. I trust it would not. I was really just trying to shake OP complete certainty that there could be no possible circumstance under which confiscation would be possible.
And if I gave a definite opinion such (as OP put it) that "they can confiscate your camera/film/whatever as long as they post a note by the door saying they will," on a matter in a foreign (though related) jurisdiction, without reference to legislative framework (such as unfair contracts legislation), the current curial authority, the facts scenario from a source other than (mis)reporting in the popular press or the actuals wording of the condition in question, I would almost certainly be wrong.
Which is why I did not do so.
What I wrote was "we don't know whether or not the gentleman in question had agreed (albeit unwittingly) to hand over his camera", which I concede now,was too strongly worded, as I have apparently implied to readers that I believe this would be sufficient to make such a term enforceable. For the record, this term seems to me so onerous that it wouldn't, for any number of reasons, fly. My intention was not to make any definitive statement about the legality of confiscation in those circumstances, anywhere in the world. Quite the opposite, my intention was to dispel the certainty with which it was being claimed that they do not.
I'll point out that you forgot to add "this is not a legal advice". You forgot the fact that courts routinely strike clauses in contracts that are considered unconscionable.
No it was not legal advice, nor did I forget that. It was just notice that the law in effect related to entry of private property. I'm sorry now I even talked about confiscation (which I seriously doubt would fly), but I wanted to dispel OPs certainty in the matter.
No, it doesn't work like that. In my freshmen year law class, they teach you that you cannot waiver protected rights.
Who is talking about "protected" rights. I'm not sure where you are studying Law, in England, Australia, and indeed most of the CL world, SFAIK, the leading case, from which subsequent curial authority flows is Parker v Sth Eastern Railway where it was held that exclusion clauses must be specifically brought to notice, but are not invalid merely for not having been read.
Try wearing a sign around your neck that says, "By allowing me to enter your store...
Do you, as an entrant to, blindly accede to the demand for a stripsearch because you have agreed to be bound by the conditions of entry?
8 point font? Clearly not! The good thing about exaggerating is that you avoid the grey areas.
In any case one would hope that strip searches would be so unreasonable as to be unenforceable without explicit verbal agreement. In fact I would hope that confiscation of the camera would be unenforceable too. But when you start talking about temporary removal of the media containing photos taken in breach of the conditions of entry you start heading into grey areas where you may need to defer to the opinion of a court before speaking with certainty.
My take home message was not meant to be, they have a right to confiscate your camera (which I doubt). It was don't be too sure about the "rights" on the case, law is difficult.
If so - can I set up a store in the U.K. and put a sign up at the entrance saying "by entering, you agree to pay me a thousand pounds" and then confiscate the money in the wallets of all those who are stupid enough pass through a door without reading the fine print?
That would seem an unreasonable condition to impose and no court would enforce it unless you made it very clear that such an entry charge was being levied. As might be the case for admittance to a front-row seat is some gala concert of an ageing celebrity singer... This is law, it's not B&W, there is a mountain of (sometimes contradictory) case law to consider. There are many limits to what is enforceable both at CL and by virtue of statute. Remember I wrote parenthetically about the "limits the various legislatures have set as to what contractual conditions might be enforceable"
On the other hand I doubt a supermarket overreaches when it seeks permission to search your bag as a condition of entry. I've been in a cue where a man harrangued a poor check-out chick that the bag was private property and they had no right to search without a warrant &c. &c. He was wrong of course. My point was simply don't be too sure.
I was under the impression that consumer contract in England could not supersede your statutory rights.
Which is why I wrote about the "limits the various legislatures have set as to what contractual conditions might be enforceable." Generally you are free to assign or bail your property, such as a camera. In recognition of the fact, however, of the power imbalance in most contractual relationships between large organisations and individuals (and how many people actually read all the fine print on all documents they sign, they EULA the click, or even realise that they are entering a into contract when they buy an ice-cream), legislatures around the CL world have imposed various statutory limitation as to what contractual terms can be imposed (esp. during the 70s and 80s before the tide turned again away from human and towards corporate rights. Some "statutory right" are drafted explicitly to state that they cannot be abrogated by contract.
Therefore, how could the police officer state that he can confiscate the man's camera?
Sorry, I was under the (mis?)apprehension that it was the security guard (ie. the Corporation via its agent) which made the claim that they could. Whether this was true would depend on whether conditions of entry stated they could and whether it is the kind of condition which they could enforce in court. And just because you've imposed a condition doesn't mean a court will allow you to enforce it, but that is not a matter for the security guard to consider. If it was actually a police officer saying this it was probably some obscure provision under some draconian anti-terrorist legislation which has been so widely drafted as to abrogate all right the free-born Englishman has accumulated since Magna Carta. Sorry, strike that last sentence, I got a bit carried away.:)
This smacks of Officer Friendly not knowing the law and just making stuff up for the purpose of intimidation.
Well I've never struck this in the police. In my experience they are careful to work within their powers. But then here in New South Wales police powers are organised in a particular way. Instead of the officer "just making stuff up," they go to the Murdoch press, and tell them what powers they would like to have, who in turn tell the state government what legislation to pass. That wouldn't ever happen in England, I'm sure.
IANAL, but I have fun with a DSLR, and educate myself on what I legally can or can't do with it.
IAAL and you have fundamentally misunderstood what has happened here. Since you like to educate yourself, I'll share some of my precious time;)
This is not happening pursuant to any general laws relating to photography, which are probably quite similar in the UK and the US, but under under contract law.
As I understand this situation... When the occupant (that is the resident owner, or leaseholder) of private property (eg. a shopping centre) sets conditions of entry, and displays these conditions of entry in a place visible to the entrant, the entrant is taken to have agreed to those conditions by virtue of entering the premises. The quid pro quo here is that you agree to be bound by the conditions of entry, in return for an undertaking by the occupant not to sue you in trespass.
This is, for example, what gives supermarkets the "right" (it isn't a right, you've just given permission) to search your bags where this is stipulated in the conditions of entry.
The shopping centre in question apparently made it a condition of entry that no photographs be taken by entrants. And this gentleman was apparently in breach. I have not read the conditions of entry, but they may have included an agreement to surrender all "... equipment; film; and other media to Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC or its authorised agents" on breaching said condition.
I doubt that this works very differently in the US, the UK or indeed any other common law country, (although there may be some variance as to what limits the various legislatures have set as to what contractual conditions might be enforceable).
Confiscation of cameras in the US is theft.
"Confiscation" without a statutory right of confiscation (as some LEOs may have) or the consent of the owner, has been a common-law crime in Britain since at least the 12th century and a statutory one since the 19th, known variously as 'larceny' and 'theft.' Without reading the actual conditions, however, we don't know whether or not the gentleman in question had agreed (albeit unwittingly) to hand over his camera.
The story, I'm led to believe, has a happy ending, the corporation in question having agreed to remove this onerous condition.
The larger problem --the privatisation of the High Street and the concomitant abrogation of individual rights this involves --is, in the face of the relentless invasion of the mall, unlikely to be so happily resolved.
If this keeps up I'll have to add you to my friends list!:) And thank you for disagreeing with me in an increasingly intelligent manner.
However as the English language does not correspond directly to predicate logic, you'd also find your "no" to be interpreted as "I think there's no God"
Yes exactly, that is what is happening. Indeed our language does not do justice to the radical difference between the statements I don't believe God exists, and I believe God does not exist. People could be forgiven for the confusion (not that I'm about to).
Whatever the nature of the language though it remains fallacious to make that inference. At a certain point we have to take away the excuse of language and just admit that people can be mistaken in their thinking. And... correct their mistakes.
... not "I'm not willing to make the affirmative statement that there is a God, and instead say nothing"
But that's not what you would be attempting to communicate. You would instead be saying that you do not believe there is a God. You would be a denier. You're not merely avoiding being an affirmer. And surely, the failings of natural language notwithstanding, that is the most natural interpretation of the "no" answer in response to the question "do you think there is a God." You don't think there is one.
The answer that would communicate that you have no belief either way...
I think "no belief either way" mis-characterises the situation. Our atheist simply does not believe that God exists. That's all! The question of the lack of positive non-belief only enters into consideration once someone else has drawn the unwarranted inference. Otherwise we would all, believer and non-believer alike, have to walk around with an unwieldy set of non-beliefs in the non-existence of all possibly non-existing things.
... would be "I don't know".
I'm not going to allow you to answer that to a question that begins with "Do you think...":)
they infer (from the fervour with which Dawkins campaigns against theism) that he actually believes that God does not exist...
Yes, you are probably correct there.
... and is not expressing a neutral "no belief either way" position.
Apart from the fact that I don't buy the "no belief either way" description and it is certainly not a neutral position.
Oh goodness, you're not really buying into that tired old piece of rhetoric are you?
Actually I was being cheeky, I should have added a smiley.;) But you need to slow down there a bit mate... you're treating an analogy literally. It may be that some atheists have made of their atheism a hobby (which does make one wonder), but the "hobby" in the analogy does not mean 'hobby,' but 'belief system,' as in: Is not believing a belief system?
You've got me thinking, I should perhaps have paid more attention to the connotation of our words. Maybe it is largely the connotations which people do not wish to adopt in regard to labels such as 'atheist' and 'agnostic.'
PS. Pardon the accusatory tone in the previous. Once I got home and looked up the words on the dashboard widget under Snow Leopard I got the same definitions as you (except for 'agnostic,' of course, where you were a little naughty). I’d assumed the widgets would connect to a server for the words... surprising. At least it shows that dictionary definitions are improving to reflect contemporary use. <ducks>
PPS if you are interested, there is an "Oxford English" widget available as well.
you will notice the key word denies appears first, and its definition of "disbelieve" (unless it has changed in newer editions) is "to hold not to be true or real" (rather than "not to hold to be true or real"). Doesn't appear to help your cause any, that one!
FYI the current top definitions for 'disbelieve' read: "Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to"... followed by the pertinent entry "a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of. And we in any case have to allow 'disbelieve' to take on a different shade of meaning to 'deny' in a statement where the two are disjunctively linked.
And no, I'm not particularly interested in jurisdiction shopping in regard to dictionaries. My "cause," if you will recall is to allow concrete practising Christians and atheists to tell us what they believe, rather than shoehorning people into convenient definitions or coercing them to identify under a term they would choose not to (esp. since that term properly denotes something else, despite your appeal to hoi polloi)
I have no problem with the defn, nor with the fact that "denies" precedes "disbelieves." It is common ground I think, that if a person insists that they positively assert in God's non-existence, that they are properly classified as an atheist, as was conceded in my very first sentence in reply to you. However such a positive assertion is no requirement, it is enough to deny the assertion of God's existence.
Rather than relying on any particular dictionary definition, I would prefer to rely on a question posed by another of my favourite authors, williamhb, "Do you think there's a God," a negative answer to which satisfies the minimum requirement to get you across the atheist threshold. I put it to you that the common speaker would similarly tag a person who answered "no" as an 'atheist.' In fact to speak for unschooled speakers generally, they would not label such a person an 'agnostic' which we require the response "I'm not sure" instead.
Indeed you yourself have been complaining just how often you keep having to "correct" people's understanding of the word.
I did? Where... ? I'm searching our correspondence and that was the first instance of the word 'correct' I can find. But in case I did, I retract! What needs to be corrected is that idea the statement "I don't believe in God" necessarily implies the statement "I believe God does not exist."
I don't honestly see what you think you have to gain by fighting the tide on this one.
Perhaps you are misreading the direction of the tide? You see I don't see what you have to gain by fighting for an false definition of 'atheist' where the most natural one is given by the question you yourself posed.
Frankly, I think this claim to "the technical definition" is utter tosh.
Look at the OED definition. What percentage of the population do you imagine could even understand it? It is clearly a "technical definition," which many people would be unable to understand or use. You and I can. Not is it anywhere near as ill-defined as colloquial uses of the word. As far as Wittgenstein is concerned, I've never read him, sorry. And BTW, I think you are being unfair to the standard of discussion at slashdot generally (try having this conversation on YouTube), and after all both of my new two favourite authors are here.:)
When I was talking about your use of 'belief' being jargonistic, I was not admonishing you for using it. I was admonishing you for importing the connotations to accompany 'jargon' and downplaying how 'jargon' facilitates communication... while using you use it for that purpose.
As [to] quote one of your favourite authors (yourself): "It would be a mistake to allow that jargonistic use to colour your everyday use of the word"
[No probs parsing that typo, I do that kind of thing all the time ('the' for 'they,
You'd like it to mean "not being affirmatively convinced of God's existence", but society (and most dictionaries... )
I'm not sure what give you the right to speak for society in general, and I'm fairly certain you have no idea what "most dictionaries" say. The only dictionary that counts;) defines 'atheist' as "[o]ne who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God..." and 'agnostic' as "One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing."[OED]
Moreover there seems to be something funny going in with your Mac widget because here is what mine says:
atheism: disbelief in the existence of God or gods. atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods: agnostic a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
The last is particularly interesting as it gives the technical definition before the colloquial one you quote?! If I were less generous I might suspect your were quoting selectively.
It's fairly clear, isn't it, that it is you who wants the words to mean something other than they do. As to your motivation, I can but guess.
Atheists have faith in superior beings or God not existing.
That is both wrong and, because of your choice of wording, (deliberately?) offensive.
Now I don't know whether you are trying being an arsehole, or whether you have yet to grasp why this is fallacious. On the presumption it is the latter I'll attempt to clarify.
Rejection of the proposition does not entail the acceptance of it's negation. A biologist might not accept the existence of extra-terrestrial life on the basis that it's existence has not been scientifically demonstrated (yet), without making a claim that extra-terrestrial life exists nowhere in the universe, (which claim would be impossible to establish scientifically). Similarly an atheist could, and atheists do, reject both the proposition "God exists" and its negation "God does not exist" for lack of evidence.
What utter bunkum. Language is not owned by jargon.
I've just taken a straw poll of my kid's 8 year old friends, and
they have decided that 'Baysian'[sic] refers to things found in our
local waterway, so I'm afraid you're out-voted and should desist form
your jargonistic use. Oh and btw, you're misspelling it, that should
be an 'a', not an 'e'... duh!</sarcasm>
You are more than welcome to buy your tomatoes in the vegetable
aisle without an army of botanists descending upon you to beat you
with technical definitions of a fruit
Yes, that's my point. The context in which terms are used is
important as to which meanings we use and how strictly we need to
adhere to them. The flip-side of this is that what is a perfectly
adequate usage at the green-grocers may not suffice in technical
disputes within Botany.
You are not in the vegetable aisle. The popular misconceptions of
8 year olds and unaccomplished adults, though they may in time affect
even technical language, are impertinent at this level of discourse.
>>... and you've just never seen someone claim that
atheism is a "faith" or a "belief?"I'm
probably the wrong person to ask...
I'm sorry, that was irony. This thread is founded upon this kind of claim. The fallacy of equating the non-acceptance of a
proposition with the acceptance of the negation of that proposition
is the crucial point in this whole discussion.
You seem to think it carries many more connotations than I do.
You are reading too much into my text if you think I am concerned
about the connotation of this or any of these terms.
[In] my field of study... A Bayesian network and other
reasoning systems are talked about as having beliefs.
Which is an extreme example of jargonisation. If however that is
the 'trade use' (to use a term from one of my fields), then I suggest
you keep using it if you want to be understood in your field.
It would be a mistake, the one you accuse me of in fact, to allow
that jargonistic use to colour your everyday use of the word.
Context.
Anyway now I know why you want to import probability into binary
distinctions!;) Fuzzy atheists now, huh?
Actually I would prefer not to talk about 'beliefs' (which is a
word you introduced into our conversation) but about acceptance or
non-acceptance of claims or propositions, though I do accept that
'belief' might be a convenient shorthand for "acceptance of a
proposition," and one probably not all that distant from your
trade use.
So if you tell me you have a "lack of beliefs", in a
sense to me that sounds like you're saying you're very unconfident in
whatever you think.
If you tell me you have a "lack of beliefs" it sounds to
me like you are completely dysfunctional. The belief, for example,
that it is easier to reach an adjoining room via a door rather then
trough the wall, is fairly useful, as is the belief that stepping in
front of a speeding car may result in pain.
If you are an atheist you don't necessarily suffer from a general
lack of beliefs. You need only lack a single belief, ie. you do not
accept the proposition that "god(s) exist" in the sense a
believer does. Additionally if you are an atheist who has an evidence
based epistemology you will lack the belief that "god(s) don't
exist" (on the presumption that positive evidence for that
proposition is hard to come by.)
If you've even got the confidence to answer the question "Do
you think there's a God", then that sounds expressing a belief
against the question
A belief against the question!?... Sorry, I don't
understand.
In any case this sounds dangerously close to reposing the basic
fallacy. To sidestep it, if an evidence-based epistemology has led
you to answer "no" (and giving that answ
I agree and I would add that in expert fields, such as philosophy of religion, they are very technically defined by experts. And all these words have fairly clear technical definitions. I'd suggest that when people deviate from this it is either out of ignorance or malice.
[I]f you say "I believe there isn't a God" you'll be tagged atheist.
And you would be one too. But you would not be an evidence-based atheist (or you might simply be talking loosely). Conversely, were I to declare "I am an atheist" it would be wrong (not as a matter of "logic-chopping" but plain wrong) to presume that I believe in the non-existence of gods.
A lot of the definitional logic-chopping appears to be atheists wanting the latter category...
Funny, to me it appears the logic-chopping comes from believers who desperately want to claim atheism is a "faith,"who can apparently accept that someone tergiversates between one article of faith "god exists" or another "god does not exist" (the mis-definition of 'agnostic',) but refuse to understand that almost all reflective atheists accept neither. But I guess that's a matter of perspective and you've just never seen someone claim that atheism is a "faith" or a "belief?"
As I pointed out, you can be both an atheist (which requires nothing more than non-acceptance of the statement "God exists [in some non-material and non-cultural form]" and agnostic (which requires acceptance of the statement "It is not possible to know about beings which possibly exist in some non-material and non-cultural form.")
In general, it's a good policy, to let people decide for themselves what they do believe in and what don't believe in, rather than "tagging" them and presuming to dictate to them such beliefs, or lack thereof.
Unfortunately making up your own definitions for words which have shared meanings doesn't facilitate discussion. Eg. let's define "Christian" as someone who eats babies... [Of course I didn't make that up, that was the traditional accusation levelled at Christians in the classical world].
Agnostics think they can't prove it (now/ever), but they don't rule existance [sic]
I had a similar misunderstanding of the word when I was an uneducated high schooler. So what is the simple dictionary defintion? From the OED...
agnostic, n. and adj.
Pronunciation:/ægnstk/
Etymology: < Greek - unknowing, unknown, unknowable ( < not + - know) + -ic suffix. Compare gnostic adj. and n.; in Greek the termination - never coëxists with the privative -.... One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.
Atheist have faith in the lack of God's existence and would love an atheist universe.
The simple dictionary definition is "[o]ne who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.." So, sorry, no "faith" is necessary, simple disbelief will do. Moreover, as I pointed out above, atheist thinkers (including Dawkins) generally do not believe that God does not exist, they simply do not believe He does. For myself, I'm not sure I even understand what is meant by the statement "God exists."
Is the experimental method just another ritual to you, to be applied when you see fit and disregarded likewise?
So when I see a beautiful girl (or what appears, in my delusional state to be one), you would need to get your callipers out to determine whether she is or not?:)
Science is indeed "the best way devised to reach understanding" about what is properly the subject matter of science. The subject matter of science, however, does not describe the totality of the human experience.
That seems impossible to truly do. They are mutually exclusive...
Why?
Say we take that text of an ancient poem. We can exercise a scientific understanding of it, the various means by which we establish, for instance, its age and authenticity &c... But science must necessarily be silent as to its poetic meaning. Does this mean a person cannot embrace both science and poetry?
Could a person not entertain an evidence based epistemology in one field of knowledge while relying on, I don't know... intuition in another?
What is it about a religious world view in general (as opposed to specific explicitly anti-scientific religious positions) that would require of a believer "a sacrifice in understanding" of science?"
To me, "atheist" is no different than "strong atheist".
Is that because you want to paint atheists into a corner they don't actually occupy? Remember even the particularly virulent band of atheists who surround Dawkins used the slogan "God probably does not exist" on their bus advert, because the "strong atheist" position is evidentially untenable (which is, after all, why those arguing against atheism invented the "strong atheist" concept in the first place).
It's is like saying (without regard for what it is actual Christians believe): "To me a person who does not believe BOTH that plants existed before male and female humans (Gen 1) AND that the male human being existed before plant life (Gen 2:5), is not a Christian." Indeed I often see atheists telling Christians that they aren't really Christians because they don't accept an (ultimately untenable) inerrantist position.
It's ever so much easier to argue against ridiculous position ascribed to an interlocutor than actually to argue against them. This is what the believer who endorses the fiction of "strong atheism" as an intellectually accepted atheist position (of course you will catch people saying "their is no God," as you fill find a "Christian" activist committing mass murder at a youth camp) does, no less than the atheist who thinks they can dictate to any particular believer what it is they must believe.
Agnosticism --which is the position that anything pertaining to the nature of God is inherently unknowable --is not necessarily incommensurate with being an atheist. However it sits uncomfortably with atheism because, after all, claiming God, or even gods, to be inherently beyond human knowledge privileges gods above unicorns;, Santa; the tooth fairy; Skth; or any other things whose claims to existence lack evidential foundation. Most atheist thinkers would instead merely point out that the claim for the "existence" of gods suffers from lack of proof (which is not the agnostic position).
Atheism is simply the non-acceptance of the claim that gods exist. Which is, contra the GP, not a "subtle," but a radically different position from the claim that the attribute of 'non-existence' can positively be predicated to gods.
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily. The point of marketing is to make you want it. It doesn't have to be great, you just have to believe it's great.
How is "cool' not what people believe is great?
But yes, the point of Apple (under Jobs) was clearly not merely marketing.
Except that if anything, Apple is a marketing machine. They could have sold shit on a cracker.
Ah yes, but if would have to be really cool shit, on a beautifully designed and engineered cracker.
(Ignoring the England/Scotland confusion...)
Actually I was trying to be so general as to ignore the UK, US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand &c. distinction, let alone the various division therein ... :)
It's also highly unlikely that such ah onerous contract term (camera confiscation) would be binding, unless the conditions were very prominently displayed (Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd).
Yes thank you! I was trying to remember the name of that case! Someone below reminded me that it was in Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw that Denning LJ established that onerous clauses must be written in proverbial “red ink,” and I couldn’t bring to mind the name of the “parking station case” which required prominent display. Actually the principle that exclusion clauses (and Thornton dealt with an exclusion clause) must be brought to notice, (whether or not notice is actually taken), was already established in Parker v Sth Eastern Rail back in the C19th.
It was this aspect of Thornton, however, which I was communicating in my original post when I wrote "[When] ... a shopping centre ... sets conditions of entry, and displays these conditions of entry in a place visible to the entrant ..." [emphasis added], though I should perhaps have written "prominently visible" ...
It’s also highly unlikely that such ah onerous contract term (camera confiscation) would be binding
I should damn well hope not! Again, as I’ve now written numerous times in reply (this will be my last), it was not my intent to state positively that said shopping centre has the right to confiscate, but to get the OP to reflect upon the certainty with which he insisted they do not. OK, I'm being a little coy, I was deliberately provocative and cannot now complain at having provoked. But 23 replies ... sheesh!
And also there is there effect of unfair contracts legislation (which I hinted at) to consider.
And I can tell you that they are not - I’ve been to the Braehead mall many times (I used to work nearby), and such signs, if they exist, are not prominent.
Ah yes, but these are the mere facts of the case. ;)
Although I do not practise now, I did once act for someone in a shopping centre case (‘act’ is too strong a word, since we did not take on the case, I tried to help them out shall we say) . Being as vague as possible to avoid identification ... Someone had managed to get themselves indefinitely excluded from entry to their local shopping centre for what was IMO a fairly minor matter. What was worse they were employed in shop in that centre. I spoke to the manager, and as we were not taking this on, did not assert any legal rights, but tried to appeal to his better nature. “The person is really sorry, it was out of character, they live nearby and have never caused trouble before, they work here and will be unemployed if you don’t show mercy ... blah blah. “ The manager seemed very amenable to reversing the decision.
The next day he called me back, he had (unfortunately) spoken to his “legals,” (even thought I had strenuously avoided any legal claim) they said they didn’t have to reverse the ban, so he wouldn’t, end of story, goodbye. So we end up with some poor bod, lost their job, unable to enter the local shop when there are none for miles about, or even access basic social amenities such as the local Post Office. And all this without any real avenue of appeal (as would be the case where the state to make an order).
Perhaps it is a shame we could never pursue this matter, but it has left me feeling that issues of individual rights which are being affected by the privatisation of public space (the mall eating the high street), have yet to be seriously addressed.
Where is the line drawn on what the conditions of entry are allowed to be?
Well that's for a court to say on a case by case basis. I'm only flagging the possibility that confiscation might be a term, I'm not saying that it would be enforceable. I really doubt it would be. It seems just too onerous to be enforceable without having explicitly been brought to the attention. But then again actual decisions can often be surprising. And absent clear curial authority, it's not for me to say.
as an extreme example
Extreme examples, as opposed to real world examples, are the most easily answered and thus the least interesting. Look for the marginal cases if you really want to get into the nitty-gritty.
would it be okay for the condition of entry to allow them to murder you?
That's a completely different kettle of fish. Firstly murder is a crime, which traditionally speaking is something which disturbed the king's peace. Even where people are citizens rather than subjects, crimes are better thought of as being against the community than the individual. Individuals can seek redress via tort, contract &c. Think about O J Simpson, the prosecution for the crime was not successful, but the individuals affected retained a right to seek redress at tort.
Generally where statute proscribes behaviour or imposes obligations people cannot evade these simply by agreeing amongst each other. That's not contract, that's conspiracy. :)
I would presume so too. It is good (if perhaps not strictly binding) authority here (in NSW). I read it ... oh some 10 years ago. And there is the other relevant decision by Denning in the parking station case (sorry can't recall the name right now) about conditions needing to be prominently displayed. Additionally there is unfair contracts legislation (which I hinted at) to be considered.
I'm sorry if^H^H that I came across as claiming that such a term, were it included, would be enforceable. I trust it would not. I was really just trying to shake OP complete certainty that there could be no possible circumstance under which confiscation would be possible.
Or just plain wrong. Nobody's perfect.
Quite.
And if I gave a definite opinion such (as OP put it) that "they can confiscate your camera/film/whatever as long as they post a note by the door saying they will," on a matter in a foreign (though related) jurisdiction, without reference to legislative framework (such as unfair contracts legislation), the current curial authority, the facts scenario from a source other than (mis)reporting in the popular press or the actuals wording of the condition in question, I would almost certainly be wrong.
Which is why I did not do so.
What I wrote was "we don't know whether or not the gentleman in question had agreed (albeit unwittingly) to hand over his camera", which I concede now ,was too strongly worded, as I have apparently implied to readers that I believe this would be sufficient to make such a term enforceable. For the record, this term seems to me so onerous that it wouldn't, for any number of reasons, fly. My intention was not to make any definitive statement about the legality of confiscation in those circumstances, anywhere in the world. Quite the opposite, my intention was to dispel the certainty with which it was being claimed that they do not.
I'll point out that you forgot to add "this is not a legal advice". You forgot the fact that courts routinely strike clauses in contracts that are considered unconscionable.
No it was not legal advice, nor did I forget that. It was just notice that the law in effect related to entry of private property. I'm sorry now I even talked about confiscation (which I seriously doubt would fly), but I wanted to dispel OPs certainty in the matter.
No, it doesn't work like that. In my freshmen year law class, they teach you that you cannot waiver protected rights.
Who is talking about "protected" rights. I'm not sure where you are studying Law, in England, Australia, and indeed most of the CL world, SFAIK, the leading case, from which subsequent curial authority flows is Parker v Sth Eastern Railway where it was held that exclusion clauses must be specifically brought to notice, but are not invalid merely for not having been read.
Try wearing a sign around your neck that says, "By allowing me to enter your store ...
How would the consideration flow in this case?
Do you, as an entrant to, blindly accede to the demand for a stripsearch because you have agreed to be bound by the conditions of entry?
8 point font? Clearly not! The good thing about exaggerating is that you avoid the grey areas.
In any case one would hope that strip searches would be so unreasonable as to be unenforceable without explicit verbal agreement. In fact I would hope that confiscation of the camera would be unenforceable too. But when you start talking about temporary removal of the media containing photos taken in breach of the conditions of entry you start heading into grey areas where you may need to defer to the opinion of a court before speaking with certainty.
My take home message was not meant to be, they have a right to confiscate your camera (which I doubt). It was don't be too sure about the "rights" on the case, law is difficult.
If so - can I set up a store in the U.K. and put a sign up at the entrance saying "by entering, you agree to pay me a thousand pounds" and then confiscate the money in the wallets of all those who are stupid enough pass through a door without reading the fine print?
That would seem an unreasonable condition to impose and no court would enforce it unless you made it very clear that such an entry charge was being levied. As might be the case for admittance to a front-row seat is some gala concert of an ageing celebrity singer ... This is law, it's not B&W, there is a mountain of (sometimes contradictory) case law to consider. There are many limits to what is enforceable both at CL and by virtue of statute. Remember I wrote parenthetically about the "limits the various legislatures have set as to what contractual conditions might be enforceable"
On the other hand I doubt a supermarket overreaches when it seeks permission to search your bag as a condition of entry. I've been in a cue where a man harrangued a poor check-out chick that the bag was private property and they had no right to search without a warrant &c. &c. He was wrong of course. My point was simply don't be too sure.
I was under the impression that consumer contract in England could not supersede your statutory rights.
Which is why I wrote about the "limits the various legislatures have set as to what contractual conditions might be enforceable." Generally you are free to assign or bail your property, such as a camera. In recognition of the fact, however, of the power imbalance in most contractual relationships between large organisations and individuals (and how many people actually read all the fine print on all documents they sign, they EULA the click, or even realise that they are entering a into contract when they buy an ice-cream), legislatures around the CL world have imposed various statutory limitation as to what contractual terms can be imposed (esp. during the 70s and 80s before the tide turned again away from human and towards corporate rights. Some "statutory right" are drafted explicitly to state that they cannot be abrogated by contract.
Therefore, how could the police officer state that he can confiscate the man's camera?
Sorry, I was under the (mis?)apprehension that it was the security guard (ie. the Corporation via its agent) which made the claim that they could. Whether this was true would depend on whether conditions of entry stated they could and whether it is the kind of condition which they could enforce in court. And just because you've imposed a condition doesn't mean a court will allow you to enforce it, but that is not a matter for the security guard to consider. If it was actually a police officer saying this it was probably some obscure provision under some draconian anti-terrorist legislation which has been so widely drafted as to abrogate all right the free-born Englishman has accumulated since Magna Carta. Sorry, strike that last sentence, I got a bit carried away. :)
This smacks of Officer Friendly not knowing the law and just making stuff up for the purpose of intimidation.
Well I've never struck this in the police. In my experience they are careful to work within their powers. But then here in New South Wales police powers are organised in a particular way. Instead of the officer "just making stuff up," they go to the Murdoch press, and tell them what powers they would like to have, who in turn tell the state government what legislation to pass. That wouldn't ever happen in England, I'm sure.
What if I agree to photoshop out everything surrounding my kid who I was taking the picture of.
Irrelevant. You've agreed not to take a photograph in the first place.
IANAL, but I have fun with a DSLR, and educate myself on what I legally can or can't do with it.
IAAL and you have fundamentally misunderstood what has happened here. Since you like to educate yourself, I'll share some of my precious time ;)
This is not happening pursuant to any general laws relating to photography, which are probably quite similar in the UK and the US, but under under contract law.
As I understand this situation... When the occupant (that is the resident owner, or leaseholder) of private property (eg. a shopping centre) sets conditions of entry, and displays these conditions of entry in a place visible to the entrant, the entrant is taken to have agreed to those conditions by virtue of entering the premises. The quid pro quo here is that you agree to be bound by the conditions of entry, in return for an undertaking by the occupant not to sue you in trespass.
This is, for example, what gives supermarkets the "right" (it isn't a right, you've just given permission) to search your bags where this is stipulated in the conditions of entry.
The shopping centre in question apparently made it a condition of entry that no photographs be taken by entrants. And this gentleman was apparently in breach. I have not read the conditions of entry, but they may have included an agreement to surrender all " ... equipment; film; and other media to Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC or its authorised agents" on breaching said condition.
I doubt that this works very differently in the US, the UK or indeed any other common law country, (although there may be some variance as to what limits the various legislatures have set as to what contractual conditions might be enforceable).
Confiscation of cameras in the US is theft.
"Confiscation" without a statutory right of confiscation (as some LEOs may have) or the consent of the owner, has been a common-law crime in Britain since at least the 12th century and a statutory one since the 19th, known variously as 'larceny' and 'theft.' Without reading the actual conditions, however, we don't know whether or not the gentleman in question had agreed (albeit unwittingly) to hand over his camera.
The story, I'm led to believe, has a happy ending, the corporation in question having agreed to remove this onerous condition.
The larger problem --the privatisation of the High Street and the concomitant abrogation of individual rights this involves --is, in the face of the relentless invasion of the mall, unlikely to be so happily resolved.
I hate yoghurt.
If this keeps up I'll have to add you to my friends list! :) And thank you for disagreeing with me in an increasingly intelligent manner.
However as the English language does not correspond directly to predicate logic, you'd also find your "no" to be interpreted as "I think there's no God"
Yes exactly, that is what is happening. Indeed our language does not do justice to the radical difference between the statements I don't believe God exists, and I believe God does not exist. People could be forgiven for the confusion (not that I'm about to).
Whatever the nature of the language though it remains fallacious to make that inference. At a certain point we have to take away the excuse of language and just admit that people can be mistaken in their thinking. And ... correct their mistakes.
But that's not what you would be attempting to communicate. You would instead be saying that you do not believe there is a God. You would be a denier. You're not merely avoiding being an affirmer. And surely, the failings of natural language notwithstanding, that is the most natural interpretation of the "no" answer in response to the question "do you think there is a God." You don't think there is one.
The answer that would communicate that you have no belief either way ...
I think "no belief either way" mis-characterises the situation. Our atheist simply does not believe that God exists. That's all! The question of the lack of positive non-belief only enters into consideration once someone else has drawn the unwarranted inference. Otherwise we would all, believer and non-believer alike, have to walk around with an unwieldy set of non-beliefs in the non-existence of all possibly non-existing things.
I'm not going to allow you to answer that to a question that begins with "Do you think ..." :)
they infer (from the fervour with which Dawkins campaigns against theism) that he actually believes that God does not exist ...
Yes, you are probably correct there.
Apart from the fact that I don't buy the "no belief either way" description and it is certainly not a neutral position.
Oh goodness, you're not really buying into that tired old piece of rhetoric are you?
Actually I was being cheeky, I should have added a smiley. ;) But you need to slow down there a bit mate ... you're treating an analogy literally. It may be that some atheists have made of their atheism a hobby (which does make one wonder), but the "hobby" in the analogy does not mean 'hobby,' but 'belief system,' as in: Is not believing a belief system?
You've got me thinking, I should perhaps have paid more attention to the connotation of our words. Maybe it is largely the connotations which people do not wish to adopt in regard to labels such as 'atheist' and 'agnostic.'
PS. Pardon the accusatory tone in the previous. Once I got home and looked up the words on the dashboard widget under Snow Leopard I got the same definitions as you (except for 'agnostic,' of course, where you were a little naughty). I’d assumed the widgets would connect to a server for the words ... surprising. At least it shows that dictionary definitions are improving to reflect contemporary use. <ducks>
PPS if you are interested, there is an "Oxford English" widget available as well.
you will notice the key word denies appears first, and its definition of "disbelieve" (unless it has changed in newer editions) is "to hold not to be true or real" (rather than "not to hold to be true or real"). Doesn't appear to help your cause any, that one!
FYI the current top definitions for 'disbelieve' read: "Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to" ... followed by the pertinent entry "a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of. And we in any case have to allow 'disbelieve' to take on a different shade of meaning to 'deny' in a statement where the two are disjunctively linked.
And no, I'm not particularly interested in jurisdiction shopping in regard to dictionaries. My "cause," if you will recall is to allow concrete practising Christians and atheists to tell us what they believe, rather than shoehorning people into convenient definitions or coercing them to identify under a term they would choose not to (esp. since that term properly denotes something else, despite your appeal to hoi polloi)
I have no problem with the defn, nor with the fact that "denies" precedes "disbelieves." It is common ground I think, that if a person insists that they positively assert in God's non-existence, that they are properly classified as an atheist, as was conceded in my very first sentence in reply to you. However such a positive assertion is no requirement, it is enough to deny the assertion of God's existence.
Rather than relying on any particular dictionary definition, I would prefer to rely on a question posed by another of my favourite authors, williamhb, "Do you think there's a God," a negative answer to which satisfies the minimum requirement to get you across the atheist threshold. I put it to you that the common speaker would similarly tag a person who answered "no" as an 'atheist.' In fact to speak for unschooled speakers generally, they would not label such a person an 'agnostic' which we require the response "I'm not sure" instead.
Indeed you yourself have been complaining just how often you keep having to "correct" people's understanding of the word.
I did? Where ... ? I'm searching our correspondence and that was the first instance of the word 'correct' I can find. But in case I did, I retract! What needs to be corrected is that idea the statement "I don't believe in God" necessarily implies the statement "I believe God does not exist."
I don't honestly see what you think you have to gain by fighting the tide on this one.
Perhaps you are misreading the direction of the tide? You see I don't see what you have to gain by fighting for an false definition of 'atheist' where the most natural one is given by the question you yourself posed.
Frankly, I think this claim to "the technical definition" is utter tosh.
Look at the OED definition. What percentage of the population do you imagine could even understand it? It is clearly a "technical definition," which many people would be unable to understand or use. You and I can. Not is it anywhere near as ill-defined as colloquial uses of the word. As far as Wittgenstein is concerned, I've never read him, sorry. And BTW, I think you are being unfair to the standard of discussion at slashdot generally (try having this conversation on YouTube), and after all both of my new two favourite authors are here. :)
When I was talking about your use of 'belief' being jargonistic, I was not admonishing you for using it. I was admonishing you for importing the connotations to accompany 'jargon' and downplaying how 'jargon' facilitates communication ... while using you use it for that purpose.
As [to] quote one of your favourite authors (yourself): "It would be a mistake to allow that jargonistic use to colour your everyday use of the word"
[No probs parsing that typo, I do that kind of thing all the time ('the' for 'they,
You'd like it to mean "not being affirmatively convinced of God's existence", but society (and most dictionaries ... )
I'm not sure what give you the right to speak for society in general, and I'm fairly certain you have no idea what "most dictionaries" say. The only dictionary that counts ;) defines 'atheist' as "[o]ne who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God ..." and 'agnostic' as "One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing."[OED]
Moreover there seems to be something funny going in with your Mac widget because here is what mine says:
atheism: disbelief in the existence of God or gods.
atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods:
agnostic a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
The last is particularly interesting as it gives the technical definition before the colloquial one you quote?! If I were less generous I might suspect your were quoting selectively.
It's fairly clear, isn't it, that it is you who wants the words to mean something other than they do. As to your motivation, I can but guess.
But it does.
No it doesn't.
Atheists have faith in superior beings or God not existing.
That is both wrong and, because of your choice of wording, (deliberately?) offensive.
Now I don't know whether you are trying being an arsehole, or whether you have yet to grasp why this is fallacious. On the presumption it is the latter I'll attempt to clarify.
Rejection of the proposition does not entail the acceptance of it's negation. A biologist might not accept the existence of extra-terrestrial life on the basis that it's existence has not been scientifically demonstrated (yet), without making a claim that extra-terrestrial life exists nowhere in the universe, (which claim would be impossible to establish scientifically). Similarly an atheist could, and atheists do, reject both the proposition "God exists" and its negation "God does not exist" for lack of evidence.
It really is that simple.
What utter bunkum. Language is not owned by jargon.
I've just taken a straw poll of my kid's 8 year old friends, and they have decided that 'Baysian'[sic] refers to things found in our local waterway, so I'm afraid you're out-voted and should desist form your jargonistic use. Oh and btw, you're misspelling it, that should be an 'a', not an 'e' ... duh!</sarcasm>
You are more than welcome to buy your tomatoes in the vegetable aisle without an army of botanists descending upon you to beat you with technical definitions of a fruit
Yes, that's my point. The context in which terms are used is important as to which meanings we use and how strictly we need to adhere to them. The flip-side of this is that what is a perfectly adequate usage at the green-grocers may not suffice in technical disputes within Botany.
You are not in the vegetable aisle. The popular misconceptions of 8 year olds and unaccomplished adults, though they may in time affect even technical language, are impertinent at this level of discourse.
>> ... and you've just never seen someone claim that
atheism is a "faith" or a "belief?" I'm
probably the wrong person to ask ...
I'm sorry, that was irony. This thread is founded upon this kind of claim. The fallacy of equating the non-acceptance of a proposition with the acceptance of the negation of that proposition is the crucial point in this whole discussion.
You seem to think it carries many more connotations than I do.
You are reading too much into my text if you think I am concerned about the connotation of this or any of these terms.
[In] my field of study ... A Bayesian network and other
reasoning systems are talked about as having beliefs.
Which is an extreme example of jargonisation. If however that is the 'trade use' (to use a term from one of my fields), then I suggest you keep using it if you want to be understood in your field. It would be a mistake, the one you accuse me of in fact, to allow that jargonistic use to colour your everyday use of the word. Context.
Anyway now I know why you want to import probability into binary distinctions! ;) Fuzzy atheists now, huh?
Actually I would prefer not to talk about 'beliefs' (which is a word you introduced into our conversation) but about acceptance or non-acceptance of claims or propositions, though I do accept that 'belief' might be a convenient shorthand for "acceptance of a proposition," and one probably not all that distant from your trade use.
So if you tell me you have a "lack of beliefs", in a sense to me that sounds like you're saying you're very unconfident in whatever you think.
If you tell me you have a "lack of beliefs" it sounds to me like you are completely dysfunctional. The belief, for example, that it is easier to reach an adjoining room via a door rather then trough the wall, is fairly useful, as is the belief that stepping in front of a speeding car may result in pain.
If you are an atheist you don't necessarily suffer from a general lack of beliefs. You need only lack a single belief, ie. you do not accept the proposition that "god(s) exist" in the sense a believer does. Additionally if you are an atheist who has an evidence based epistemology you will lack the belief that "god(s) don't exist" (on the presumption that positive evidence for that proposition is hard to come by.)
If you've even got the confidence to answer the question "Do you think there's a God", then that sounds expressing a belief against the question
A belief against the question!? ... Sorry, I don't
understand.
In any case this sounds dangerously close to reposing the basic fallacy. To sidestep it, if an evidence-based epistemology has led you to answer "no" (and giving that answ
fundamentally words are socially defined.
I agree and I would add that in expert fields, such as philosophy of religion, they are very technically defined by experts. And all these words have fairly clear technical definitions. I'd suggest that when people deviate from this it is either out of ignorance or malice.
[I]f you say "I believe there isn't a God" you'll be tagged atheist.
And you would be one too. But you would not be an evidence-based atheist (or you might simply be talking loosely). Conversely, were I to declare "I am an atheist" it would be wrong (not as a matter of "logic-chopping" but plain wrong) to presume that I believe in the non-existence of gods.
A lot of the definitional logic-chopping appears to be atheists wanting the latter category ...
Funny, to me it appears the logic-chopping comes from believers who desperately want to claim atheism is a "faith,"who can apparently accept that someone tergiversates between one article of faith "god exists" or another "god does not exist" (the mis-definition of 'agnostic',) but refuse to understand that almost all reflective atheists accept neither. But I guess that's a matter of perspective and you've just never seen someone claim that atheism is a "faith" or a "belief?"
As I pointed out, you can be both an atheist (which requires nothing more than non-acceptance of the statement "God exists [in some non-material and non-cultural form]" and agnostic (which requires acceptance of the statement "It is not possible to know about beings which possibly exist in some non-material and non-cultural form.")
In general, it's a good policy, to let people decide for themselves what they do believe in and what don't believe in, rather than "tagging" them and presuming to dictate to them such beliefs, or lack thereof.
Here's my personal take
Unfortunately making up your own definitions for words which have shared meanings doesn't facilitate discussion. Eg. let's define "Christian" as someone who eats babies ... [Of course I didn't make that up, that was the traditional accusation levelled at Christians in the classical world].
Agnostics think they can't prove it (now/ever), but they don't rule existance [sic]
I had a similar misunderstanding of the word when I was an uneducated high schooler. So what is the simple dictionary defintion? From the OED ...
agnostic, n. and adj. /ægnstk/ ....
Pronunciation:
Etymology: < Greek - unknowing, unknown, unknowable ( < not + - know) + -ic suffix. Compare gnostic adj. and n.; in Greek the termination - never coëxists with the privative -
One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.
Atheist have faith in the lack of God's existence and would love an atheist universe.
The simple dictionary definition is "[o]ne who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.." So, sorry, no "faith" is necessary, simple disbelief will do. Moreover, as I pointed out above, atheist thinkers (including Dawkins) generally do not believe that God does not exist, they simply do not believe He does. For myself, I'm not sure I even understand what is meant by the statement "God exists."
Is the experimental method just another ritual to you, to be applied when you see fit and disregarded likewise?
So when I see a beautiful girl (or what appears, in my delusional state to be one), you would need to get your callipers out to determine whether she is or not? :)
Science is indeed "the best way devised to reach understanding" about what is properly the subject matter of science. The subject matter of science, however, does not describe the totality of the human experience.
That seems impossible to truly do. They are mutually exclusive ...
Why?
Say we take that text of an ancient poem. We can exercise a scientific understanding of it, the various means by which we establish, for instance, its age and authenticity &c ... But science must necessarily be silent as to its poetic meaning. Does this mean a person cannot embrace both science and poetry?
Could a person not entertain an evidence based epistemology in one field of knowledge while relying on, I don't know ... intuition in another?
What is it about a religious world view in general (as opposed to specific explicitly anti-scientific religious positions) that would require of a believer "a sacrifice in understanding" of science?"
To me, "atheist" is no different than "strong atheist".
Is that because you want to paint atheists into a corner they don't actually occupy? Remember even the particularly virulent band of atheists who surround Dawkins used the slogan "God probably does not exist" on their bus advert, because the "strong atheist" position is evidentially untenable (which is, after all, why those arguing against atheism invented the "strong atheist" concept in the first place).
It's is like saying (without regard for what it is actual Christians believe): "To me a person who does not believe BOTH that plants existed before male and female humans (Gen 1) AND that the male human being existed before plant life (Gen 2:5), is not a Christian." Indeed I often see atheists telling Christians that they aren't really Christians because they don't accept an (ultimately untenable) inerrantist position.
It's ever so much easier to argue against ridiculous position ascribed to an interlocutor than actually to argue against them. This is what the believer who endorses the fiction of "strong atheism" as an intellectually accepted atheist position (of course you will catch people saying "their is no God," as you fill find a "Christian" activist committing mass murder at a youth camp) does, no less than the atheist who thinks they can dictate to any particular believer what it is they must believe.
Agnosticism --which is the position that anything pertaining to the nature of God is inherently unknowable --is not necessarily incommensurate with being an atheist. However it sits uncomfortably with atheism because, after all, claiming God, or even gods, to be inherently beyond human knowledge privileges gods above unicorns;, Santa; the tooth fairy; Skth; or any other things whose claims to existence lack evidential foundation. Most atheist thinkers would instead merely point out that the claim for the "existence" of gods suffers from lack of proof (which is not the agnostic position).
Atheism is simply the non-acceptance of the claim that gods exist. Which is, contra the GP, not a "subtle," but a radically different position from the claim that the attribute of 'non-existence' can positively be predicated to gods.