Atheism and/or Agnosticism

Dades

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.

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.

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'.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

tba

Dades wrote: »

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

ANY god.... any god

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

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Jakkass

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.

robindch

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.

Comes from the Greek privative ἀ and the word θεός, translated exactly as "absence of/lack of/not" + "god", with adjectives and the rest formed as usual in English. I'm defining the word in the context of the other adjectives, since the word on its own is so imprecise that it's not really very useful. Plenty of other people use these definitions in broad terms too -- see the wiki page on weak and strong atheism. (I'm ignoring the implicit/explicit categorization for the sake of simplicity.)

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

You're certainly free to use the word "atheism" in any way you like, but if you choose to define and use it in a way that's used by almost nobody else, you shouldn't expect to be understood all that often -- best of luck!

.

philologos

robindch's definition only seems perfect as it has been elaborated on to suit the argument that Christians are infact atheists about many gods. It doesn't really cut it. If I was defining democracy, I would find the most rigid way of defining it and the most apt to be looking at the Greek word demokratia split up of the words demos = people, and kratia = power. Other people could redefine it for themselves, but to get to the core of the issue people power seems to sum it up the best.

Atheists have consistently defined atheism as the lack of theism, or a belief in God or gods so I would see that as being a definition that conforms to most peoples understanding. Whereas your elaborated definition is merely to fit a certain context and a certain argument against Christians, "I'm atheist about one less god than you are" which is a poor argument in itself.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Robins definition only seems perfect as it has been elaborated on to suit the argument that Christians are infact atheists about many gods.

Er, well, you just said that you don't believe that Zeus and Thor exist (unless I didn't understand what you meant). If you don't believe in these two deities, then that makes you a "weak specific atheist" in general terminology.

I'm not, by the way, changing my definitions just so I can call you an "atheist" so that I can feel smug about it as it seems you appear to think.

I'm trying to define what we are talking about so that we can understand our respective positions accurately. Specifically, so that you can understand that you reject the existence of more deities than almost all of the the people who tend to self-describe as "atheist".

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

robindch's definition only seems perfect as it has been elaborated on to suit the argument that Christians are infact atheists about many gods. It doesn't really cut it. If I was defining democracy, I would find the most rigid way of defining it and the most apt to be looking at the Greek word demokratia split up of the words demos = people, and kratia = power. Other people could redefine it for themselves, but to get to the core of the issue people power seems to sum it up the best.

Atheists have consistently defined atheism as the lack of theism, or a belief in God or gods so I would see that as being a definition that conforms to most peoples understanding. Whereas your elaborated definition is merely to fit a certain context and a certain argument against Christians, "I'm atheist about one less god than you are" which is a poor argument in itself.

I agree with you about that saying "I'm just an atheist with respect to one more god than you are", or however it's phrased. It's a poor argument that doesn't make logical sense.

But, atheism needs to be defined very specifically because most atheists have varying degrees of conviction. Robins definition suits it well, in my opinion. But, you still can't be classed as a (3) or whatever, because you're theistic, therefore not atheistic in any way at all.

pH

Jakkass wrote:

So how on earth could they [Deists] be atheists?

Jakkass wrote: »

You don't get the point. Atheism is the lack of theism.

OK so you're either contradicting yourself or you've come round to the idea that deists are indeed atheists. Which is it?

philologos

pH wrote: »

OK so you're either contradicting yourself or you've come round to the idea that deists are indeed atheists. Which is it?

The latter. I had never thought of it that way before. Thanks for the correction. I am open to things if they are reasoned adequately.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

But, atheism needs to be defined very specifically because most atheists have varying degrees of conviction. Robins definition suits it well, in my opinion. But, you still can't be classed as a (3) or whatever, because you're theistic, therefore not atheistic in any way at all.

I reject 1 and 3 totally on the basis, that although people may disregard other concepts of God or panthenons doesn't make them atheist in any respect.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

I reject 1 and 3 totally on the basis, that although people may disregard other concepts of God or panthenons doesn't make them atheist in any respect.

I agree with you, reluctantly. Atheism doesn't concern itself with specific gods. If you're an atheist, you don't believe in theism. You can't be an atheist with respect to a specific god; if you're an athiest you don't believe in any gods, as you don't believe in theism. Of course none of what I said applies to a deist god.

sink

Thinking in terms of deists also being atheist and deism as an alternative to theism I would classify myself as a hard atheist. I reject totally and with absolute certainty the possibility of a interventionist god who listens to prayers and is concerned with human affairs. It simply does not fit with the world I see around me. For instance why would god create type 1 diabetes and the also give humans the capacity to treat it as some Christians believe, but then restrict it to only those who can afford it leaving the poorest to die a horribly painful death.

I am however completely ignostic towards deism. Whether a deist style god exists or not is unanswerable until we have a clear definition and understanding of what it is. And even then the question might be beyond our understanding.

Dades

sink wrote: »

I reject totally and with absolute certainty the possibility of a interventionist god who listens to prayers and is concerned with human affairs.

You do leave yourself open to accusations of 'faith', or the impossibility of proving a negative. But I'm not going to disagree with you, just not go quite as far!

Regarding the "atheist about every other god" phrase, of course it's a logical impossibility. It's like being a virgin except for this one time...

Of course the whole point of it is merely to highlight how (certain) theists reject out of hand hundreds of gods, while taking exception to someone rejecting their favourite one.

robindch

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I agree with you, reluctantly. Atheism doesn't concern itself with specific gods. If you're an atheist, you don't believe in theism. You can't be an atheist with respect to a specific god; if you're an athiest you don't believe in any gods, as you don't believe in theism.

That kind of sidesteps the distinction I made up above. What you're describing seems closer to non-theism, rather than atheism.

DinoBot

I dont like either term tbh and I refuse to be called either. Recently I was in hospital and I had marked "no-religion" on the form. The nurse proceed to say "so your atheist" I simply said "well i dont play football either, does that make me anti-football-ist"

My point is to use either terms defines you in terms of religion. Defines you in terms of rejection of theism. Its a negative term. There should be a word to express someone is pro-real-life, pro-natural-world. Even "non-theist" is better than "anti-theist" imo

I dont think I should be defined by something which is fictional. Its not done with anything else in life except religion.

"Hi my name is DinoBot and I dont play golf"

Goduznt Xzst

DinoBot wrote: »

My point is to use either terms defines you in terms of religion. Defines you in terms of rejection of theism. Its a negative term. There should be a word to express someone is pro-real-life, pro-natural-world. Even "non-theist" is better than "anti-theist" imo

A naturalist?

Also, DinoBot, you do realize that the "a" in atheist does not stand for "anti". Atheist can simply be understood as "not Theist", an anti-theist goes another step further than merely being Atheist in that they now have an objection to Theism. Atheist is the most neutral term. If you are applying pop-connotations to the word then that is due to your own misunderstanding of its meaning.

uncleoswald

"Non-theist" I like it, but then I guess it does also fall into the trap of defining yourself by religion. Atheist may not mean anti-theist but that is what many people hear.
What would we call a person who had never come into contact with any idea of God and had never entertained the notion himself? Technically an atheist but it hardly seems right to label him an atheist if he has no notion of theism. I guess that religion has had such an influence (both good and bad) over our existence we have to be defined by it in someway.

DinoBot

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

A naturalist?

Sounds rude :-)

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Also, DinoBot, you do realize that the "a" in atheist does not stand for "anti". Atheist can simply be understood as "not Theist", an anti-theist goes another step further than merely being Atheist in that they now have an objection to Theism. Atheist is the most neutral term. If you are applying pop-connotations to the word then that is due to your own misunderstanding of its meaning.

I know, I was more writing what people impression of the word is. People do not see the term as "godless" but rather an objection to Theism , which I do have but I dont feel I should be defined by it in a negative way.

Goduznt Xzst

DinoBot wrote: »

rather an objection to Theism , which I do have but I dont feel I should be defined by it in a negative way.

odd. You do realize that your view of this term having negative connotations is religiously driven. I find the term Atheist a positive title. If you have an issue with naturalist, maybe consider freethinker as a title, although its worth noting that theists can also be freethinkers (although the numbers that could be defined as such are exceptionally small)

Dades

uncleoswald wrote: »

What would we call a person who had never come into contact with any idea of God and had never entertained the notion himself?

Lucky?

uncleoswald

Dades wrote: »

Lucky?

Well according to some this person would be going to hell... Poor guy, can you imagine that? "I have to spend eternity writhing in agony because I don't believe in who?!" I'd be carrying a chip on my shoulder about that for centuries.

DinoBot

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

odd. You do realize that your view of this term having negative connotations is religiously driven.

No, I never thought about it that way. Thanks, I will have to rethink that one.

Handsome Bob

I am what I deem to be agnostic, and define that belief of mine as "not believing in any supernatural force put forward by any organized religion." I don't care if that isn't an official definition.;)

pH

I reread Wikipedia's etymology of atheism, this bit is great:

In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587.[11] The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God",[12] predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571.[13] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[14] Related words emerged later: deist in 1621,[15] theist in 1662;[16] theism in 1678;[17] and deism in 1682.[18] Deism and theism changed meanings slightly around 1700, due to the influence of atheism; deism was originally used as a synonym for today's theism, but came to denote a separate philosophical doctrine.[19]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Etymology

I'm not sure that any word can stand the highly structured analysis we try to bring to this one, I bet even for the word 'car', I can find pictures on the net that some would think "is one" and others would think "ain't".

I'm a great believer that a word's meaning is descriptive, not prescriptive, words mean what people want them to mean (though don't get me started on people using the world 'literally' when they really mean the opposite 'figuratively'.) As such atheism means (like any word really) what the users of it want it to mean, in the meantime, let's all be thankful that 'bright' never caught on