Definitions

Comrade C

I know many ppl are gonna eat me alive for putting a label next to an idealogy, but would like to know, with the ever changing world and more disbelievers by the day, wat ppl define as Athesist, and Agnostic? And even to say what label opposes religion, and which seeks to simply be impartial?

strobe

Atheist = Without a belief in a god(s)

Agnostic = Undecided on wether or not they believe in a god(s)

Anti-theist = Opposes religion.

Roughly......

rgt320q

Some more informal definitions would be:

Atheist = The default.

Agnostic = Polite atheist.

Anti-theist = Was raised Catholic.

Mark Hamill

Comrade C wrote: »

I know many ppl are gonna eat me alive for putting a label next to an idealogy, but would like to know, with the ever changing world and more disbelievers by the day, wat ppl define as Athesist, and Agnostic? And even to say what label opposes religion, and which seeks to simply be impartial?

As i see it:

Atheist: Has no belief in god (this ranges from simply denying all current notions of god as being man made up to asserting that god in any form does not exist)

Agnostic: Believes that there is not enough information for them to make definite claims on god existence (some will say there is currently not enough information, some will say there can never be).

Anti-theist: Someone who is opposed to organised religion.

It is possible to be an anti-theist-agnostic (you dont think there is enough info to make claims on gods existence, but actively disagree with organised religions claims) or agnostic-atheist (you dont think there is enough information to make definitive claims, but still will assert to having no belief in god-in reality this is what most atheists are, very few will say god absolutely doesn't exist).
In terms of being impartial to religion, atheist and agnostics can be impartial to it (they are purely personal positions), its anti-theism that opposes religion.

This is simplifying it a bit, the problem with labels like these is they convey nothing of the extent of a persons atheism or agnosticism. Does a particular atheist think that god simply hasn't been proven yet, and that the best current position is disbelief, or do they think that nothing like any current notions of god will ever be close to reality?

Turtwig

Is it just me or is every 10th or so thread here dealing with the definition of Atheism?

Btw, this isn't aimed at you OP, it's just that we get so many folks around here constantly bickering about the definition. Mainly religious folks trying to tell us what atheism should be.

Daftendirekt

My take on it:

Atheist - Not a theist

Agnostic - Virtually everyone

Anti-theist - Often (incorrectly) called 'militant' or 'fundamentalist' atheists

Dades

Atheist - Declares a lack of belief in god(s).

Agnostic - Declares the question of the existence of god(s) is unknowable.

Most self-declared atheists are both, as are in fact most self-declared agnostics, imo*. I suspect a lot of people say they are agnostic rather than atheist as they incorrectly assume that atheism is a declaration of knowledge, or that they do not wish to be labelled one due to a perceived stigma associated with the term.

* Particularly in relation to the gods of human religions

Zombrex

Comrade C wrote: »

I know many ppl are gonna eat me alive for putting a label next to an idealogy, but would like to know, with the ever changing world and more disbelievers by the day, wat ppl define as Athesist, and Agnostic? And even to say what label opposes religion, and which seeks to simply be impartial?

Atheist = A rejection of the claims of theists.
Agnostic = A belief that what theists claims may be accurate but not sure.

The key point, for me at least, is the claims bit. I've no idea if God or god or gods exist. I do reject the claims of theists because I don't think they do either. I think there are other far more plausible explanations for what they think they are experience that lead them to believe a god is interacting with us that that explanation itself.

A good analogy, used before, is two men looking at a closed door. The first man says "I know there is a tiger behind the door because in my head I can hear him roaring"

The second man says "No you don't know there is a tiger behind the door, and what you hear in your head is more likely explained by X,Y,Z"

The second man is making no claim about what is or isn't behind the door, he is not making a claim that there isn't a tiger behind the door. He has no idea what is behind the door.

He is simply responding to the claim of the first man and rejecting them.

In this analogy the agnostic may claim that he is not sure if the first man is correct or not, he may be hearing the tiger in his head.

Pygmalion

Gnostic Atheist - There's no God, I'm sure of it.
Agnostic Atheist - There's probably no God, but I'm not sure/no proof.
Agnostic Theist - There's probably a God, but I'm not sure/no proof.
Gnostic Theist - There's a God, I'm sure of it.

I'd say most Atheists are the second one.
Most moderate religious people would be the third, with fundamentalists being the last.

I think the problem with these definitions is that people equate "I'm not sure" or "There's no proof either way" with "There's a 50% chance", which is why I'd rather just say I'm an atheist rather than give that impression by saying I'm an agnostic.

It's possible to have no belief at all in the concept of God(s) while still admitting you can't prove it.