Definition of atheism and agnosticism

irishgandalf

Some people seem to think that these are too seperate "black and white" catagories but i don't think they are mutually exclusive

eg: athiest means you don't have a belief in the existance of a god or gods while agnostic means you don't know weither a god or gods exist.

in my opinion you can be an agnostic atheist ie: you don't believe that a god or gods exist but you don't know.


I'm new so I do appologise if this has been posted before.

Naz_st

It has been asked before - and every time it comes up in a thread (which is very often) I do wonder why the Atheists & Agnostics forum doesn't have any stickied definitions for "Atheism" and "Agnosticism", I suppose it may be because they aren't always easy to objectively define beyond the simplistic.

Anyway, I'll repost a couple of definitions from other threads that are useful in this area:

(Robin's defintions from some thread I can't be arsed searching for):

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).

And Dawkins' scale of theistic probability isn't bad, but doesn't cover deism explicitly.

Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

Dawkins notes that he would be "surprised to meet many people in category 7." Dawkins calls himself "about a 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."

And these links are also useful in understanding the differences and what atheism is and isn't:

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/p/AtheismReligion.htm

Dades

irishgandalf wrote: »

I'm new so I do appologise if this has been posted before.

I posted an identical thread before here.

However since your views mirror mine, and many posters still think contrary we might just see where this one goes.

irishgandalf

thanks for the quick replies, oh and i thought the dawkins definitions were very good.

Joe1919

There are, then, four positions which philosophers may adopt
with respect to the proposition ‘There is a God’, as follows:
(1) It is meaningless and neither true nor false: Positivism.
(2) It is meaningful and false: (Positive) Atheism.
(3) It is meaningful and may be true or false: Agnosticism.
(4) It is meaningful and true: Theism.

The positivists based their position on the verifiability criterion
of meaning: a statement has factual meaning, they claimed, if and
only if it is empirically verifiable. But statements about God are
not verifiable even in principle, they argued, and therefore they
lack factual meaning.

quote from Anthony Kenny.

Stercus Accidit

I think the confusion arises when people claim an atheist is someone who knows there is no god.

My position is that an atheist does not believe in a god, does not claim to know there isn't, but treats the idea as unlikely, as any of the infinite other possiblities but as one of the less likely. Logic regarding lack of evidence and being one of an infinite number of such notions, leads us on to not believe in one explanation without evidence, not to believe in a god.

While it is possible one exists, it is possible any one of the other infinite possibilities are true, so I don't believe in one over any other.


I'd say an agnostic believes in some god like or creating external influence, but not as described by organised religions.


If you maintain that you definitely know there is no god, you are as bad as the guy saying he definitely knows there is.


I just sit on the fence, keep up with science and its progress as best I can, and don't hypothesise on the unknown, but I also don't chose to believe in a god or creator over other ideas, I'm atheist.

Rev Hellfire

I think Joe1919's definition is the most accurate.

IrishGandalf and Dades definition is good, but really by their own words defines atheists as simply nothing more than opinionated agnostics.

8kvscdpglqnyr4

I like Joe1919's definition too.

My opinion is Agnostic is a redundant word. I think everybody in the world is either an "Agnostic Atheist" or and "Agnostic Theist". I realise that's very black and white, but left me explain.

"Agnostic Atheist" - does not believe in the existence of a God(s) but does not know for sure.
"Agnostic Theist" - believes in the existence of a God(s) but does not know for sure.

People can't know for sure either way. We don't use the word "Agnostic" for describing things were unsure about in other aspects of life as we can't be 100% sure of anything!

Rev Hellfire

Royal Ashy Sleeper wrote: »

We don't use the word "Agnostic" for describing things were unsure about in other aspects of life as we can't be 100% sure of anything!

Actually we do, I hear it when referring to technology quite a bit. Typically when signifying that an underlying technology is not tightly coupled, ie. unsure.
I would imagine its also used in a similar manner in other disciplines as well.

Joe1919

Its important (imo) to distinguish the difference between 'knowledge', 'opinion' and 'belief'.

There is much dispute about the word 'knowledge' and whether 'knowledge' actually exists. 'Knowledge' is often defined as 'justified true belief' but our justification of knowledge is never perfect and hence some argue that what we mostly have is 'opinion'. The word 'truth' also has different meanings and can be defined as some type of correspondence between the mind and the world. But how can the finate mind really correspond to the almost infinate world ?. So many think truth is what is coherent and useful by way of belief.

Finally 'belief' is a psychological state, a state where we commit ourselves to a position because of our opinion or how we feel about something. We often believe intuitively because it 'fits in' or matches our way of thinking.(coherence). However, there are different levels of 'how well it fits in' and of commitment and hence different levels of belief. We may have people with strong beliefs or persons with weak beliefs.

The words 'aetheism', 'theism' , 'agnosticism' and 'positivism' are as such ideal or 'polar' (extreme) positions. They just outline the boundaries so to speak. Most people fall within these poles and hence have a degree of each. e.g strong/weak atheist, strong/weak theist etc.

Why do we say 'Are you certain? Our use of the 'certain' implies that knowledge is always subject to error.

Goduznt Xzst

Personally, my Atheism extends as far as that I don't accept that the Gods created by man and the religions of this world exist. I don't accept that any God has an active influence on the earth or the lives of humans.

Do I accept that there is the possibility that there is a God? Yes, it would be foolish not to. However, if one or a number of Gods exist it has no bearing on human existence and therefore is irrelevant.

So I guess I'm Atheist in regards to man made Gods and positivist in regards to everything else.

Flamed Diving

irishgandalf wrote: »

Some people seem to think that these are too seperate "black and white" catagories but i don't think they are mutually exclusive

eg: athiest means you don't have a belief in the existance of a god or gods while agnostic means you don't know weither a god or gods exist.

in my opinion you can be an agnostic atheist ie: you don't believe that a god or gods exist but you don't know.


I'm new so I do appologise if this has been posted before.

I think the agnostic position is that we cannot know. Because the supernatural is untestable.

JimiTime

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Personally, my Atheism extends as far as that I don't accept that the Gods created by man and the religions of this world exist. I don't accept that any God has an active influence on the earth or the lives of humans.

Do I accept that there is the possibility that there is a God? Yes, it would be foolish not to. However, if one or a number of Gods exist it has no bearing on human existence and therefore is irrelevant.

The line in bold first of all skips between certainty and a little wiggle room IMO. First its an innocuous, 'I don't accept', indicating an opinion or belief. Then it switches to 'Gods created by men', presented as a 'fact', that all gods worshipped by men were created by men and thus false.

So is it safe to say, that while you are all open to some form of divine creator ever so slightly, you 'Know' that the Christian God certainly does not exist? Would this be the case for most of you?

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

The line in bold first of all skips between certainty and a little wiggle room IMO. First its an innocuous, 'I don't accept', indicating an opinion or belief. Then it switches to 'Gods created by men', presented as a 'fact', that all gods worshipped by men were created by men and thus false.

So is it safe to say, that while you are all open to some form of divine creator ever so slightly, you 'Know' that the Christian God certainly does not exist? Would this be the case for most of you?

I leave some room for the possibility that one of the major religions has it right (no one religion with any more probability than any other) but it's is far smaller than the room I leave for the idea of a generic creator type god that doesn't interact. I'd say he was just using the word's "gods created by men" for convenience sake

I can't "know" that the christian god or any major god doesn't exist but I can look at the evidence for them, see that it doesn't amount to much and say that there is insufficient evidence to accept the hypothesis and the evidence that does exist is unreliable. so it's not that I reject the hypothesis as definitely false, I just don't accept it as true

CerebralCortex

JimiTime wrote: »

...So is it safe to say, that while you are all open to some form of divine creator ever so slightly, you 'Know' that the Christian God certainly does not exist? Would this be the case for most of you?

"Divine creator" what does that even mean though? If you're going by these definitions then certainly not that is just the same as the god you believe in. If however you're talking about an explanation for why everything exists well I guess we're both agnostic(generically speaking) not on god but on that question. We don't know we may never know.

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

So is it safe to say, that while you are all open to some form of divine creator ever so slightly, you 'Know' that the Christian God certainly does not exist? Would this be the case for most of you?

No. You can't logically know something invisible or intangible doesn't exist. However in a lot of cases this is just a bow to semantics.

There is also an everyday use of "know", which isn't quite so airtight. For example, sitting in a pub you might say "I know I'm going to have a hangover tomorrow" - although you can't possibly know what you are going to feel tomorrow - or even if you will be still alive!

So perhaps although atheists can't know gods don't exist, they kinda know they don't.

*throws cat amongst pigeons*

Goduznt Xzst

JimiTime wrote: »

you 'Know' that the Christian God certainly does not exist? Would this be the case for most of you?

No. Let me elaborate. I know nothing about the Christian Gods existence or lack of, however I do know that no man or book can tell me what this God is thinking or what I should be doing to please it. I have no reason to trust the word of any "holy" man or book. Therefore, as this is the only mediums all of the worlds religions have for selling their brands of dogma, I do not accept them.

Plus, this world and Universe has shown no evidence thus far that it requires a God to create it or guide it. Until such time as that evidence is shown the God of Christianity is of zero interest or relevance to me.

A Primal Nut

I disagree there should be a definition of Atheism & Agnosticism. I think one of the great things about these belief systems is you are not bound by other people's beliefs, or an organisations beliefs. For example, in Christianity, you are bound by the bible. In Catholicism, you are bound by the bible, the traditions of the church and the beliefs of the pope. According to these teachings there is very little room for individual interpretation or choice in beliefs. That is generally the nature of organised religion.

If there was a definition for Atheism, it probably should be something vague like "Don't believe in a God." How they define "Don't believe" or "a God" would be up to the individual.

Agnosticism is more complicated but I would think it would be something like "unsure if they believe in a God", again the definition of belief and God would be left up the agnosticism.

This assumes of course we use common sense. Obviously a Muslim isn't atheist because he doesn't believe in a Christian God, for example.

A Primal Nut

JimiTime wrote: »

The line in bold first of all skips between certainty and a little wiggle room IMO. First its an innocuous, 'I don't accept', indicating an opinion or belief. Then it switches to 'Gods created by men', presented as a 'fact', that all gods worshipped by men were created by men and thus false.

So is it safe to say, that while you are all open to some form of divine creator ever so slightly, you 'Know' that the Christian God certainly does not exist? Would this be the case for most of you?

Its quite simple for me anyway. I don't know for sure that the Christian God/Muslim God/Buddha/Zeus don't exist. I also don't know for sure we will continue breathing over the next minutes, what our exact birthdate is or we won't live for 120 years. However there are certain things I would accept based on a high probabilty, such as the non-existence of God, enough to call myself an Atheist. Whereas Agnostics might be closer to 50/50. Its not a scientific explanation, I admit, and in theory it may cause confusion as to where you draw the line between Atheism and Agnosticism. However, in practice, each individual can usually say whether he is Atheist or Agnostic.

A lot of non-Atheists try to discredit Atheism by saying they aren't 100% sure there is no God, and this is important because Atheists are supposed to be super-logical and only believe things when it is backed up 100%. This is good for scientific purposes, but when making life choices this won't get you very far. You won't trust anyone, you probably hold down a job of any kind in case you don't get paid, etc. Obviously probability plays an important part in anyone's life; I simply don't believe that being 99.9% sure that God doesn't exist, somehow makes you agnostic.