Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism and/or Agnosticism

Options
  • 21-01-2009 12:34pm
    #1
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    Recently I've seen an increase in misinterpretations of both atheism and agnosticism, and though we might beat the issue out in a new thread.

    While both terms have different levels of strength or certainty attached to them, they both nevertheless have defined core principles at heart.

    The following would be my nutshell definitions of both:

    Atheism
    An absence of belief in deities.

    Agnosticism
    The belief that the existence of god(s) is inherently unknowable.

    The oft overlooked result of this, if these are accepted as reasonably correct, is that it is clearly possible to be both.

    That is, you can believe gods do not exist, while also subscribing to the idea that certainty in that belief is impossible due to the nature of the subject. In fact that seems to be the only true option for atheists, given the idea that you cannot disprove a negative.


    I'm not going to ramble on, rather open the floor to thoughts. Particularly dissenting ones. :)


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    8kvscdpglqnyr4
    Closed Accounts Posts: 413 ✭✭8kvscdpglqnyr4


    I agrees with Dades definitions of agnostic and atheist. Personally, I never liked the idea of calling myself agnostic. I am an atheist.

    You can believe "that the existence of god(s) is inherently unknowable", but still believe that a god exists. Therefore you are an Agnostic Theist. So Agnostic on it's own describs nothing - IMHO you can be an Agnostic Atheist or an Agnostic Theist.

    In theory, we can't be sure about anything in this world, but we don't have an adjective before every belief we hold that expresses that sense of how unsure we are about the belief.


  • Options
    #3
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    I would have always considered Agnosticism to be defined as 'the belief that the existence or non-existence of god(s) is inherently unknowable'.


  • Options
    #4
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    OK - I'm going to do this one more time (mainly for my own amusement)

    First - "Do you believe in a personal intervening type of God?"

    If you answer yes to this question (and many do), then you are a theist. (Hopefully uncontroversial).

    Now the controversial bit ... All those who didn't answer yes ... are atheists (i.e. a-theists ... not theists)

    It doesn't matter what other answer you gave, "No", "maybe" or "Wibble", you haven't answered "yes", therefore not a theist, therefore atheist.

    This is really simple, easy to get, you Agnostics and Deists, you mightn't like it, you might desperately want not to be an atheist, but you are.

    Agnosticism and Deism are sub-groups of atheists (neither believe in a personal intervening God).


  • Options
    #5
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I would have always considered Agnosticism to be defined as 'the belief that the existence or non-existence of god(s) is inherently unknowable'.
    "Non-existence" is superfluous there. It's implied by the sentence. If something's existence is inherently unknowable, then so is it's non-existence.


  • Options
    #6
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    seamus wrote: »
    "Non-existence" is superfluous there. It's implied by the sentence. If something's existence is inherently unknowable, then so is it's non-existence.
    My thoughts exactly. I can't see how adding "non-existence" to the definition would change the dynamic of it (or indeed an alternative belief).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    seamus wrote: »
    "Non-existence" is superfluous there. It's implied by the sentence. If something's existence is inherently unknowable, then so is it's non-existence.

    While I accept that there is an implication involved, I don't believe that 'non-existence' is a superfluous inclusion. Surely a definition should not imply anything? Rather it should state the position in it's entirety and without implication.


  • Options
    #8
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    pH wrote: »
    This is really simple, easy to get, you Agnostics and Deists, you mightn't like it, you might desperately want not to be an atheist, but you are.

    Agnosticism and Deism are sub-groups of atheists (neither believe in a personal intervening God).

    Deists believe in a non-intervening God though. Like just read Jeffersons Bible, which is basically the ministry of Jesus without the miracles and supernatural in it. So how on earth could they be atheists?

    Atheists essentially believe it is most probable that there is no God or gods. Agnostics merely accept that the question is more of a tossup.

    They are all entirely different. Atheism takes a belief that there is no God just as much as theism takes a belief that there is one essentially.


  • Options
    #9
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    Jakkass wrote: »
    So how on earth could they be atheists?

    In the sense that they are not theists, under the definition of theism that pH outlined in his post.


  • Options
    #10
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Atheism takes a belief that there is no God just as much as theism takes a belief that there is one essentially.
    Atheists are just people who state they don't believe in other peoples gods.


  • Options
    #11
    tba
    Registered Users Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭tba


    Dades wrote: »
    Atheists are just people who state they don't believe in other peoples gods.
    ANY god.... any god


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Asiaprod
    Registered Users Posts: 6,737 ✭✭✭Asiaprod


    Dades wrote: »
    Atheists are just people who state they don't believe in other peoples gods.

    But...but...that makes Jakkas an atheist too


  • Options
    #13
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Dades wrote: »
    Atheists are just people who state they don't believe in other peoples gods.

    Ya sometimes I wonder why it is so important for theists to insist that there is some faith involved in being an atheist i.e a belief stance. Essentially I live my life without the burden of fasting an hour before mass on Sunday morning :D I just live my life. The question maybe asked why I haunt this and the Christianity forum (why be bothered about religion) and my answer would be that religion has gotten its way into many areas of life (mine included) and coming here allows for a certain amount of resistance to that. A place for people
    who state they don't believe in other peoples gods.


  • Options
    #14
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Asiaprod wrote: »
    But...but...that makes Jakkas an atheist too
    Almost an atheist. As tba suggested, you gotta not believe in any of 'em. ;)


  • Options
    #15
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Deists believe in a non-intervening God though. Like just read Jeffersons Bible, which is basically the ministry of Jesus without the miracles and supernatural in it. So how on earth could they be atheists?

    Because they're NOT theists! how much simpler can it be?


  • Options
    #16
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Interestingly enough, dictionary.com gives two distinct meanings for "theism" and explicitly points out that one meaning is the opposite of deism, but the other meaning is the opposite of atheism.

    Perhaps we should consider there to be three ultimate forms of belief:

    1. Theism - Belief in an all-powerful interventionist creator God or Gods
    2. Deism - Belief in a natural or personal non-interventionist God
    3. Atheism - Absence of belief in a God or Gods.

    In reality, you may say that atheism is the opposite of the other two, but then you could also say the same for any of the three.


  • Options
    #17
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    While I wholly agree with your definitions, Dades, I also feel that when you identify yourself as an atheist, you are saying more about yourself than that you simply don't believe. When I tell someone I'm an atheist, there is always the intentional de facto understanding that it is more to me than a simple intellectual position.

    If someone says to me, "I don't really believe in god", I take it at face value. However, if they say "I'm an atheist", I take it to mean they believe they are right and theists wrong, they think religion is somewhere between silly and wicked, and I take it to mean they are socially liberal (I've never met a conservative atheist). Being an "atheist" is de jure simply a disbelief, but in reality and in modern society it means a whole lot more, and can arguably be synonymous with being a humanist.


  • Options
    #18
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    I concur to a degree, ChocolateSauce.

    Atheism will always be by definition 'absence of belief', but in practice it is seen more as a statement of non-belief.

    That is down to people's perceptions, however.


  • Options
    #19
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I think it's very easy to be an atheist, it's not a jump of faith in any way at all: by its very definition.

    But, I myself, am agnostic with regards to deistic a god. We can certainly never know whether it exists or not. Nobody should be adeistic (that word should exist:pac:).

    So, I'm an atheistic agnostic-deistic. If that makes sense.


  • Options
    #20
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Asiaprod wrote: »
    But...but...that makes Jakkas an atheist too

    Of course it doesn't. Atheism means the lack of theism, and even if I do not believe in other concepts of God, I still am a theist. I'm not an atheist in any situation.


  • Options
    #21
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm not an atheist in any situation.
    So does that mean that you believe that Thor and Zeus really do exist?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I would have always considered Agnosticism to be defined as 'the belief that the existence or non-existence of god(s) is inherently unknowable'.

    There can be a lot of confusion over the what 'unknowable' means. I think that, on a fundamental and trivial level, both Christians and atheists, if they are honest, must admit that they are agnostic regarding the existence of God, or the existence of anything for that matter. What defines an atheist is a high level of confidence in the claim that there is no God. A Christian naturally has a high level of confidence in the claim that there is a God, and an agnostic, as understood by most people, would not be willing to put money on either claim.


  • Options
    #23
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    robindch wrote: »
    So does that mean that you believe that Thor and Zeus really do exist?

    You don't get the point. Atheism is the lack of theism. I believe in God, albeit not Zeus or Thor, but I still believe in God. So I am a theist in all situations as even when I disregard Zeus or Thor, I still believe in God.

    If I didn't believe in any god at all I would be an atheist, but since I do even when not considering other belief systems, I'm still a theist.

    That's why the idea of "I'm atheist about one less god than you are" is absurd, because I'm not atheist when considering any other god either.


  • Options
    #24
    Tyler MacDurden
    Registered Users Posts: 351 ✭✭Tyler MacDurden


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You don't get the point. Atheism is the lack of theism. I believe in God, albeit not Zeus or Thor, but I still believe in God. So I am a theist in all situations as even when I disregard Zeus or Thor, I still believe in God.

    If I didn't believe in any god at all I would be an atheist, but since I do even when not considering other belief systems, I'm still a theist.

    That's why the idea of "I'm atheist about one less god than you are" is absurd, because I'm not atheist when considering any other god either.

    I've a bit of a soft spot for the old gods, I must admit recently sacrificing an oatmeal cracker to Apollo in an 8th Century B.C.E shrine in Crete. :D

    Jakass, what then of the notion that believing in your (or anyone's) own particular version of god is solely an accident of culture or timing? Relocate a believer geographically or temporally and wouldn't they just as strongly defend Thor or Zeus or Mithras as you have defended your own god?


  • Options
    #25
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Well Tyler, the geographical and cultural one is easy to disprove. People move out of their cultural and religious norms all the time. Just look at the example of Masab Youcef from Islam to Christianity (it's 6 parts but this part should be enough to prove my point):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td8YdfNoPBk


    Christianity made sense to me, and I could assess it's impact in my life, and I could see how the Biblical text has shown itself to be authentic, and I've heard the arguments that Christians have made for their faith and I found them convincing.


  • Options
    #26
    Tyler MacDurden
    Registered Users Posts: 351 ✭✭Tyler MacDurden


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Well Tyler, the geographical and cultural one is easy to disprove. People move out of their cultural and religious norms all the time. Just look at the example of Masab Youcef from Islam to Christianity (it's 6 parts but this part should be enough to prove my point):


    Christianity made sense to me, and I could assess it's impact in my life, and I could see how the Biblical text has shown itself to be authentic, and I've heard the arguments that Christians have made for their faith and I found them convincing.

    I shall peruse that when I get back to broadband land, thanks!

    Well the leap from one Abrahamic religion to another is relatively small. I just think that one's concept of god is almost wholly shaped by culture. Were one to be born along the Ganges or on a Peloponnesian hillside two and a half millenia ago, the arguments for Brahma or Vishnu or Artemis would be favourably received too.

    This isn't directed at you personally, just for the sake of discussion. :)


  • Options
    #27
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You don't get the point. Atheism is the lack of theism.
    You can define it that way, but it's not all that useful a definition, since I couldn't then use the word to to describe myself (since I don't generally assert that theism, the belief that deities exist, is certainly wrong).

    Here's a definition from last year which tries to pin down exactly what the word means in a bit more detail:

    1. "Weak specific atheism" in which the holder believes that some specific deity, or group of deities, does not exist.
    2. "Weak non-specific atheism" in which the holder believes that deities of any kind do not exist.
    3. "Strong specific atheism" in which the holder asserts that some specific deity, or group of deities, does not exist
    4. "Strong non-specific atheism" in which the holder asserts that no deities exist at all.

    In general, I'd imagine that most atheists here fall into category (1) and a few into (2) and (3) and there's nobody whom I know who falls into (4), though there are plenty of religious people who think that all atheists place themselves in (4).
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I believe in God, albeit not Zeus or Thor, but I still believe in God. So I am a theist in all situations as even when I disregard Zeus or Thor, I still believe in God.
    So, by these more precise definitions, you're a (3), a strong specific atheist with respect to Zeus and Thor, which is what I meant by my post up above.


  • Options
    #28
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    There have also been various converts from Hindu backgrounds to Christianity too such as Ravi Zacharias.
    The geographical argument is poor, as all people would have to do is show examples of people who have joined from another culture where Christianity isn't the primary faith.


  • Options
    #29
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    robindch wrote: »
    Here's a definition from last year which tries to pin down exactly what the word means in a bit more detail:

    1. "Weak specific atheism" in which the holder believes that some specific deity, or group of deities, does not exist.
    2. "Weak non-specific atheism" in which the holder believes that deities of any kind do not exist.
    3. "Strong specific atheism" in which the holder asserts that some specific deity, or group of deities, does not exist
    4. "Strong non-specific atheism" in which the holder asserts that no deities exist at all.

    In general, I'd imagine that most atheists here fall into category (1) and a few into (2) and (3) and there's nobody whom I know who falls into (4), though there are plenty of religious people who think that all atheists place themselves in (4).So, by these more precise definitions, you're a (3), a strong specific atheist with respect to Zeus and Thor, which is what I meant by my post up above.

    That sounds more like a redefinition to me. If we look literally at the structure of the word atheism. Theism evidently being the belief in a God or gods, and "a" generally being used to indicate a lack of, atheism would most likely be the lack of theism. I prefer to stick to a definition that is more apt to the word than to digress into redefining words to fit particular arguments or circumstances. I'm very much a theist if I have faith in God, irrespective of how I view other religions.


  • Options
    #30
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Tyler MacDurden wrote: »
    I shall peruse that when I get back to broadband land, thanks!
    By all means do, Tyler, but better if yourself and Jakkass took any further debate on the 'accident of culture' idea to another thread.

    Danke :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Jakkass wrote: »
    That sounds more like a redefinition to me. If we look literally at the structure of the word atheism. Theism evidently being the belief in a God or gods, and "a" generally being used to indicate a lack of, atheism would most likely be the lack of theism. I prefer to stick to a definition that is more apt to the word than to digress into redefining words to fit particular arguments or circumstances. I'm very much a theist if I have faith in God, irrespective of how I view other religions.

    But like anything, a single word isn't specific enough. Not by a long shot. Would you be happy just classing yourself as a theist? Nothing more specific? I think Robins definition is almost perfect, he only needs to add in implicit and explicit atheism.

    I myself would be a number (2), explicit atheist. As I imagine a good few posters here would be.


Advertisement