Definition of "Atheism" and "Agnosticism"

robindch

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think this needs a sticky at this stage because constantly having to spell out the basic definition of a word which is in the forum title three times a day is hard going.

Not a sticky on its own, but certainly an addendum to the charter, so that people can not only refer to is, but also see that a lot of the public discourse about what atheism is, and what atheists believe, is complete tosh.

Rehashing an earlier post along with Wikipedia's entry on atheism, I reckon that "atheism" is composed of at least the following categories:

1. "Weak explicit atheism" in which the holder believes that some specific deity, or group of deities, does not exist.
2. "Weak non-explicit atheism" in which the holder believes that no deities of any kind exist.
3. "Strong explicit atheism" in which the holder asserts that some specific deity, or group of deities, does not exist
4. "Strong non-explicit atheism" in which the holder asserts that no deities exist at all.
5. "Implicit atheism" or "organic atheism" in which the holder simply has never thought about the notion of one or more specific or non-specific deities and, by default, simply ignores the topic.

In general, I'd imagine that most atheists here fall into category (1) and a few into (2) and (3) and there's nobody I can think of who falls into (4), though I'm sure there are a few around. Many religious people think, incorrectly, that all atheists place themselves in (4). Agnosticism has little meaning without specifying exactly what it is that one's being agnostic about, but once it's been defined, it's possible to apply a similar categorization to the one above. Most religious people people fall into category (3), when for example, a christian asserts that Allah does not exist.

I suggest that posters take the above definition and add, edit or remove whatever they want, so that we can move to some kind of consensus (if that's possible )

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Daftendirekt

You seem to have left out an important one:

Atheism - Lack of belief in a deity or deities.


In fact, I always thought that was the definition of weak atheism, and strong atheism was defined as the belief that no deity or deities exist. Isn't this the position (weak atheism) that most folks round here take?


Another simpler definition that I like:

Atheism - The rejection of theism.

sink

Atheism = not theism.
Atheist = not a theist.
Simple and accurate.

Ickle Magoo

Daftendirekt wrote: »

You seem to have left out an important one:

Atheism - Lack of belief in a deity or deities.

Yep, that would be mine too. Doesn't the word atheism even break down to no-god or the Greek equivalent of god-less...?

I view theism as a positive belief and atheism as a neutral rather than a belief that there isn't a god. More a kind of no evidence to the contrary leaves nothing to believe in, than a rejection or refusal to believe in a god.

JimiTime

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I view theism as a positive belief and atheism as a neutral rather than a belief that there isn't a god. More a kind of no evidence to the contrary leaves nothing to believe in, than a rejection or refusal to believe in a god.

Thing is, atheism, came from theism, so it can't be neutral. Its very foundation was in opposition to the standard. No-one exposed to the concept of theism or in turn atheism can be neutral. A true neutral wont know what they are, as they would have no concept of theism or atheism. To define 'yourself' is to admit to a thought process.

Lets have a loose analogy

I like Yorkie Bars: Theist
I don't like Yorkie bars: Atheist
Whats a Yorkie Bar?: The neutral position

For some reason, there seems to be a desire to 'claim' the neutral position. The fact is though, that we define nothing this way. We don't call a baby, a-science or a-astrology etc etc. Its neutral position is that it has no concept whatsoever so its a rather silly, pedantic endeavour.

eoin5

Defining atheism isnt too hard, the problem is what definition of god do you use. A very handsome man or money isnt going to cut it.

I think that the most useful definition for theistic gods are interventionist, creator type ones. Even in polytheistic religions they always seem to manage the creation between them somehow.

This discourse between weak and strong and explicit and whatever seem like arbitrary quantizations. I'm not saying theyre not useful as its the way humans work, but its got about as much meaning as saying there are athiests that are over 50 and some that are under.

edit: Jimitime, if you've never heard of god then obviously you don't believe in him.

iUseVi

sink wrote: »

Atheism = not theism.
Atheist = not a theist.
Simple and accurate.

This.

Bringing in the question of agnosticism is just confusing, you can be agnostic and atheist, or gnostic and atheist. You can be agnostic and theist, or gnostic and theist. And before anyone argues with this think about it a bit first, all these states are valid; therefore agnosticism is not contained in either of the atheist or theist sets (in set theory terms).

iUseVi

Found a nice image here, looks like a good synopsis to me:



EDIT: It's the best diagram I could find, but its drawn inaccurately unfortunately, for example there should be no part of the agnostic circle that is outside the theist or atheist ones, but you get the idea.

Xluna

I spoke to a theist once and he was the most racist,homophobic and transphobic person I ever met so I'm not to sure about theists being in the tolerant zone.:)

Genghiz Cohen

JimiTime wrote: »

Thing is, atheism, came from theism, so it can't be neutral. Its very foundation was in opposition to the standard. No-one exposed to the concept of theism or in turn atheism can be neutral. A true neutral wont know what they are, as they would have no concept of theism or atheism. To define 'yourself' is to admit to a thought process.

I'm not so sure.
Darkness is the opposite of light, yet darkness is just a lack of light.

So if we replace some words;
Atheism is the opposite of Belief, yet Atheism is just a lack of Belief.

Hot and cold is another example of on being simply the lack of something rather than the active opposition of it.

EDIT: In before anyone links no belief to spiritual darkness and belief to enlightenment.

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

Thing is, atheism, came from theism, so it can't be neutral. Its very foundation was in opposition to the standard. No-one exposed to the concept of theism or in turn atheism can be neutral. A true neutral wont know what they are, as they would have no concept of theism or atheism. To define 'yourself' is to admit to a thought process.

Lets have a loose analogy

I like Yorkie Bars: Theist
I don't like Yorkie bars: Atheist
Whats a Yorkie Bar?: The neutral position

For some reason, there seems to be a desire to 'claim' the neutral position. The fact is though, that we define nothing this way. We don't call a baby, a-science or a-astrology etc etc. Its neutral position is that it has no concept whatsoever so its a rather silly, pedantic endeavour.

Yes it can be neutral Jimitime. you can have heard of an idea and still not say with certainty one way or another whether it's true or not. It's the difference between not accepting a proposition to be true - neutral, and asserting that it is false - not neutral. I don't not assert that your religion is false, I just haven't seen enough evidence to believe it to be true

Daftendirekt

JimiTime wrote: »

Lets have a loose analogy

I like Yorkie Bars: Theist
I don't like Yorkie bars: Atheist
Whats a Yorkie Bar?: The neutral position

[nitpick] Perhaps a bit too loose. The neutral position in your analogy would actually be 'I don't care much for Yorkie bars, but I don't mind them.' [/nitpick]

Zillah

I think "claims to know" would be better than "assert".

Personally, and I know this isn't popular, I don't see a relevant difference between "I don't have a belief in a deity" and "I don't believe in a deity".

I would never claim to know there is no deity, and I am open to correction if the religious become drastically more intellectually tenable than they have been so far, but I do believe there is no God. At the very least in relation to any God any human has ever claimed to interact with. As for an abstract, uninvolved deist God, my response is a gigantic yawn.

Dades

Zillah wrote: »

Personally, and I know this isn't popular, I don't see a relevant difference between "I don't have a belief in a deity" and "I don't believe in a deity".

I'm going to come out of the closet on this one too.

Daftendirekt

Zillah wrote: »

Personally, and I know this isn't popular, I don't see a relevant difference between "I don't have a belief in a deity" and "I don't believe in a deity".

I would never claim to know there is no deity, and I am open to correction if the religious become drastically more intellectually tenable than they have been so far, but I do believe there is no God. At the very least in relation to any God any human has ever claimed to interact with. As for an abstract, uninvolved deist God, my response is a gigantic yawn.

Do you mean to say you don't see a difference between 'I don't believe in a deity' and 'I believe there are no deities?'

Zillah

You're making one claim with singular and one claim with plural, so I'm not sure how to respond clearly without simply repeating myself.

Can you explain what exactly you're getting at?

pH

Have to say I'm with Zillah here, i can't see any practical difference in the 2 statements

I do not believe God exists.
and
I believe God does not exist.

I suppose technically you could argue that the first allows the person the woolly "don't know" position where they neither believe nor disbelieve in God's existence, however for most people, most of the time, the statement "I don't believe God exists" has a very clear and singular meaning, and to attempt to argue there's a massive difference between it and "I believe God does not exist" seems an exercise in pedantry.

sink wrote:

Atheism = not theism.
Atheist = not a theist.
Simple and accurate.

What about the deists? Those who believe in (a) god, just not the personal intervening theist one. Technically, not being theists they are therefore atheists, it just seems strange to have people who believe in god defined as atheists, however I'm happy to have them if the rest of you are!

eoin5

iUseVi wrote: »

Found a nice image here, looks like a good synopsis to me:



EDIT: It's the best diagram I could find, but its drawn inaccurately unfortunately, for example there should be no part of the agnostic circle that is outside the theist or atheist ones, but you get the idea.

Its nice, but completely wrong :P

Ickle Magoo

JimiTime wrote: »

Thing is, atheism, came from theism, so it can't be neutral. Its very foundation was in opposition to the standard. No-one exposed to the concept of theism or in turn atheism can be neutral. A true neutral wont know what they are, as they would have no concept of theism or atheism. To define 'yourself' is to admit to a thought process.

Lets have a loose analogy

I like Yorkie Bars: Theist
I don't like Yorkie bars: Atheist
Whats a Yorkie Bar?: The neutral position

That doesn't make any sense, no atheist in their right mind would say they didn't like god, they'd be a theist for starters - an atheist would be more likely to ask what is god and so be neutral by your own definition.

JimiTime wrote: »

For some reason, there seems to be a desire to 'claim' the neutral position. The fact is though, that we define nothing this way. We don't call a baby, a-science or a-astrology etc etc. Its neutral position is that it has no concept whatsoever so its a rather silly, pedantic endeavour.

Not at all. Babies are not born with religion or a belief in a god, they have religion spoon fed to them (and for some reason we don't insist that small children take on science or astrology in the same way so it's apples and oranges). Not having such beliefs is the neutral position, for someone who never goes on to believe what they are told, they remain in the neutral position. I understand that theists have this need to have atheists as their opposite number but I don't think that is a wholly accurate description - and the very reason this thread is here.

I'm not so sure.
Darkness is the opposite of light, yet darkness is just a lack of light.

So if we replace some words;
Atheism is the opposite of Belief, yet Atheism is just a lack of Belief.

Hot and cold is another example of on being simply the lack of something rather than the active opposition of it.

Exactly, thank you Mr Cohen.

Zillah wrote:

Personally, and I know this isn't popular, I don't see a relevant difference between "I don't have a belief in a deity" and "I don't believe in a deity".

I don't see a relevant difference either - when conversing with other atheists! The issue comes when discussing atheism with our religious friends. Ime, professing to "not believing in" something tends to give them the impression there is something there to believe in and we are denying or refusing to accept it. It's a small but important difference that theists never seem to fail to pick up on and try to argue with and that's the only reason I think a distinction should be made.

JimiTime

eoin5 wrote: »

edit: Jimitime, if you've never heard of god then obviously you don't believe in him.

Yet you would not try define someone who never heard of a mars bar by calling them 'A' something or other. We don't generally define people in such ways.

My question would be why you'd desire to define people in relation to theism/atheism in such a manner? The fact is, is that every person who is atheist, knows what it means and has decided what they believe and don't believe. Its not a neutral position by any means, and I don't get why 'some' insist that it is.

I think maybe some people fight for it being the 'natural' position, only for it to be corrupted by religion or something. The fact is though, one is not atheist until one decides to be atheist. The very coining of the term was in relation to going against the standard of theism. Every child is born with a concept of pretty much nothing. To start defining them with terms of concepts they have absolutely no concept of is quite ridiculous.

Dades

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't see a relevant difference either - when conversing with other atheists! The issue comes when discussing atheism with our religious friends. Ime, professing to "not believing in" something tends to give them the impression there is something there to believe in and we are denying or refusing to accept it. It's a small but important difference that theists never seem to fail to pick up on and try to argue with and that's the only reason I think a distinction should be made.

That may be the case but I don't see some pedantic grammatical nit-picking (on the part of certain theists) as reason enough to have to redefine what is in realty a simple term.

Mr Theist, you believe in god(s) - I don't. Now fupp off with your pointless wordplay!

Ickle Magoo

JimiTime wrote: »

Yet you would not try define someone who never heard of a mars bar by calling them 'A' something or other. We don't generally define people in such ways.

My question would be why you'd desire to define people in relation to theism/atheism in such a manner? The fact is, is that every person who is atheist, knows what it means and has decided what they believe and don't believe. Its not a neutral position by any means, and I don't get why 'some' insist that it is.

No, they haven't. I have never believed in a god - whatever it is you need to have latched onto the idea I have never had it. My feeling towards religion and god have not changed in my lifetime. If that isn't the neutral default then what is it?

JimiTime wrote: »

I think maybe some people fight for it being the 'natural' position, only for it to be corrupted by religion or something. The fact is though, one is not atheist until one decides to be atheist.

The bit in bold is the reason I think this sticks in your craw. If I have no belief in a god I fit the criteria for an atheist whether I declare it publicly or not, that's what I am/was/always have been.

JimiTime wrote: »

The very coining of the term was in relation to going against the standard of theism. Every child is born with a concept of pretty much nothing. To start defining them with terms of concepts they have absolutely no concept of is quite ridiculous.

A new born baby may be without concept of most things but as they grow older they are not. I had fantastic theological discussions with my parents from the age of about three. I did not develop a belief in a god regardless of the information I was given, I remained in the neutral position.

Ickle Magoo

Dades wrote: »

That may be the case but I don't see some pedantic grammatical nit-picking (on the part of certain theists) as reason enough to have to redefine what is in realty a simple term.

Mr Theist, you believe in god(s) - I don't. Now fupp off with your pointless wordplay!

I know, I know! I just get a bit fed up with having to fight off the accusations of denial and rejection! Even just being able to point them to this thread will better than having to constantly repeat myself.

I guess having never having had a belief, I don't view it that I don't believe in something because that isn't what came first, more that I never grew to have a belief - so it's definitely something I lack...though as I've gotten older and looked in greater detail as to why I lack belief I have also come to the conclusion that there is nothing to believe in so you could say I don't believe... o_O

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

Yet you would not try define someone who never heard of a mars bar by calling them 'A' something or other. We don't generally define people in such ways.

My question would be why you'd desire to define people in relation to theism/atheism in such a manner? The fact is, is that every person who is atheist, knows what it means and has decided what they believe and don't believe. Its not a neutral position by any means, and I don't get why 'some' insist that it is.

It's not neutral by your definition because your definition only includes people who have never heard of religion. Your definition pretty much includes remote undiscovered tribes in the jungles.


But our definition of neutral is different to yours. As Ickle Magoo says, no atheist would say they don't like god because in order to not like god you must first acknowledge its existence. My position is neutral in that I neither accept your claims to know something you cannot possibly know but nor do I say that your claims are 100% definitely wrong. You might be right that there is a single intelligent creator of the universe who disapproves of homosexuality and working on Sunday but since there is no evidential basis for your claims, if you are right it will be nothing more than luck.

Ickle Magoo

JimiTime wrote: »

Yet you would not try define someone who never heard of a mars bar by calling them 'A' something or other. We don't generally define people in such ways.

That's just how some words have come into being, I think the "a" something is just a quirk of the english language with some words taken from the greek.

"Atheism", from the Greek:
atheismos : noun, from

• a- : lacking, without, or not having something; akin to the English suffix "-less"
• theos : a god, deity, mighty magic entity
• -ismos : a state, quality, or condition; an "-ism"

There are lots of similar words which are prefixed with "a" or "an" in exactly the same way; atypical, atheist, anarchy, anonymous, apathy, aphasia, anaemia, anaesthesia, etc.

If an isolated tribe had a very unusual way of behaving we would call it atypical despite the tribe never knowing another way of doing it.

Sam Vimes

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

There are lots of similar words which are prefixed with "a" or "an" in exactly the same way; atypical, atheist, anarchy, anonymous, apathy, aphasia, anaemia, anaesthesia, etc.

A good example to show the difference between "opposite" and "lack of" is immoral and amoral. Killing someone is immoral but someone being killed by a storm is amoral, morality does not apply to it. Their god is said to be moral but since he regularly does and allows things to be done that would be considered immoral if we did them and the excuse is basically that he's above the law, if he does exist he is at best amoral.

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's not neutral by your definition because your definition only includes people who have never heard of religion. Your definition pretty much includes remote undiscovered tribes in the jungles.

Indeed it does. My objection, is that you don't define people in certain ways. You don't define babies as A-astrology, A-simpsons, A-football. Similarly, you would not define a person who has never heard such concepts like this either. I would ask someone who insists on doing it, why you do this? Its not that I really care either way, but it does wrack my noggin when some people are so fervant about it.

But our definition of neutral is different to yours. As Ickle Magoo says, no atheist would say they don't like god because in order to not like god you must first acknowledge its existence.

I do know that Sam. The Yorkie analogy (Which I said was very loose) was not meant to be a strict take on things.

My position is neutral in that I neither accept your claims to know something you cannot possibly know but nor do I say that your claims are 100% definitely wrong.

If you are atheist, you have made the decision that I am in fact wrong. Simply putting a cavaet in saying that 'If something convincing arrises I'll change my mind', makes no odds. Your position is not neutral.

You might be right that there is a single intelligent creator of the universe who disapproves of homosexuality and working on Sunday but since there is no evidential basis for your claims, if you are right it will be nothing more than luck.

As this is irrelavent, I wont get into it.

eoin5

JimiTime wrote: »

Yet you would not try define someone who never heard of a mars bar by calling them 'A' something or other. We don't generally define people in such ways.

My question would be why you'd desire to define people in relation to theism/atheism in such a manner? The fact is, is that every person who is atheist, knows what it means and has decided what they believe and don't believe. Its not a neutral position by any means, and I don't get why 'some' insist that it is.

I think maybe some people fight for it being the 'natural' position, only for it to be corrupted by religion or something. The fact is though, one is not atheist until one decides to be atheist. The very coining of the term was in relation to going against the standard of theism. Every child is born with a concept of pretty much nothing. To start defining them with terms of concepts they have absolutely no concept of is quite ridiculous.

Huh? I'm not adding any weight behind the words theist or atheist, but you are. You either believe or not, and not moral wrangling can change that.

Rev Hellfire

Personally I prefer the more classical definition

atheism ~ the doctrine or belief that there is no god(s)

All this weak, strong, second cousin of, etc only serves to muddy the waters further. You're over analysing the word imho.

Ickle Magoo

JimiTime wrote: »

Indeed it does. My objection, is that you don't define people in certain ways. You don't define babies as A-astrology, A-simpsons, A-football. Similarly, you would not define a person who has never heard such concepts like this either. I would ask someone who insists on doing it, why you do this? Its not that I really care either way, but it does wrack my noggin when some people are so fervant about it.

Okay, go back to the isolated tribe, imagine one that revels in multiple partners with either sex. They have never heard of the laws or religions that exist out-with their tribe. Are they immoral or amoral?