Just curious...

Soul Winner

Atheism and Agnosticism - what is the difference?

I've heard it said by many atheists that atheism does not hold to the view that there is no God, rather that it leaves open the possibility that their might be a God and that atheists just lack belief in a God. If this is the case then what really differentiates atheism from agnosticism? Can anyone tell me?

I always thought that atheism was the view that there is no such being as a supernatural God(s), or that is was the belief that God(s) don't exist, and that agnosticism was the view that there might be a God but that agnostics - as the name implies - simply do not know either way but that they also lack belief in a God or Gods.

So what do ye guys think are the major differences between the two terms?

Can ye first define both terms in short for me and then expand on what you think the main differences are between both of them, and maybe give a few examples for both or even how you would place yourself in the mix.

Genuinely interested... Ta...

Scuid Mhór

agnostics are half and half - they can't decide whether or not there's a god. or you can be in my boat; you don't really believe in religion/an afterlife/god but you wouldn't mind if there was one.

atheists are unbelievers.

edit: at least i'm pretty sure that's the official definition through the grapevine.

Rented Mule

www.dictionary.com

Daftendirekt

Atheists don't believe, agnostics don't know.

You can be an agnostic theist or atheist (most people), or a gnostic theist or atheist (nobody that I'm aware of).

That's it in a nutshell anyway.

Soul Winner

So Agnosticism = Don't know and Atheism = Don't believe?

Wouldn't agnostics also be atheists then? Given that lack of knowing would also mean lack of believing? Or does that logically follow?

And if non believing atheists simple lack belief without lacking knowledge then that means that they know that what they lack belief in doesn't actually exist?

Or if they simply don't believe without knowing either way then that means they don't know either, which would make them agnostics.

This is why I get confused about what meaning to attach to these terms.

I'd really like a clear and concise answer from the A&A guys on this one.

iBumblebeetuna

Soul Winner wrote: »

Atheism and Agnosticism - what is the difference?

Speaking personnally I don't think there is a universally agreed upon definition of the terms.
I am an atheist, in that I don't have a belief in any of the gods. But as you have obviously heard before on this forum, I don't rule out the possibility that one or all of them may exist. I don't see the possibility as 50/50 mind you. more like 99.99/0.01. Someone else may say that my description of myself is agnostic.
To me... an agnostic would say that they don't, and can't, know about god or gods and simply get on with life as if one didn't exist. Depending on the individual agnostic and the probability they give to the chances of a deity existing, I might refer to them as an atheist.

That probably didn't hep much...
The point i longwinded tried to make is, some people who call themselves an atheist, I might call agnostic by my own definition and vice versa.

Zillah

Atheism is a question of "belief", while agnosticism is a question of "knowledge". An atheist has no belief in God (but does not necessarily [and rarely does] claim to know there is no God). An agnostic (usually) concedes that one cannot ever know whether God exists or not.

The vast majority of people are agnostic about God (including theists), most debates here revolve around how reasonable our respective beliefs are. I am not surprised by the observation that those who claim to know the answer are invariably theists.

There are, however, many flavours of agnosticism.

Soul Winner

Rented Mule wrote: »

www.dictionary.com

OK, from Dictionary.com

Atheism:

a·the·ism

   /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Origin:
1580–90; < Gk áthe ( os ) godless + -ism



Agnosticism:

ag·nos·ti·cism

   /ægˈnɒstəˌsɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ag-nos-tuh-siz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun 1. the doctrine or belief of an agnostic.

2. an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.


Origin:
1870–75; agnostic + -ism


Dictionary.com defines atheism as the belief or doctrine that there is no God. That's a far cry from simply lacking belief that there is a God wouldn't you agree? If this definition is accurate then atheism is not that much different to religion. But that is not why I started this thread. I just wanted to know what all ye guys personally think and where you'd place yourselves on the scale.

Zillah

A lot of atheists seem to be obsessed with the (supposed) distinction between "I do not belief in" and "I lack belief in". I don't see it, I think its pointless linguistic fuckery. I don't believe in God. This does not mean I have faith that there is no God, nor does it mean I claim to know there is no God, I just don't believe in God. I don't have belief in god. Belief for God is not in my brain.

I think the "lack of belief" thing is counter productive, because it seems to imply there is something wrong with belief. There's nothing wrong with reasonable belief, just don't conflate it with faith or claims of knowledge.

iBumblebeetuna

Soul Winner wrote: »

Dictionary.com defines atheism as the belief or doctrine that there is no God. That's a far cry from simply lacking belief that there is a God wouldn't you agree?

That's what I tried to get across in my previous post.
I don't agree with that definition. I don't have a positive disbelief in god, or reject god.
It is simply that no evidence to form a belief in the first place exists, for me.
Having said that... there probably are some atheists out there that do fit that definition for all I know. I haven't met any of them in real life though.

mikhail

There are formal definitions, but my experience finds three kinds of people who call themselves agnostic:
1. Those who have serious doubts about what was previously their religion. They're half-Catholic (or whatever) and half-don't know/atheist.
2. Those who don't think it's intellectually reasonable to form a firm opinion on the existence of god.
3. Those who don't believe in a god but find the term atheist distasteful or want to avoid confrontation or condemnation.

The first is reasonably close to the dictionary definition. The second is even closer. The third is essentially an atheist responding to societal pressure.

Daftendirekt

Soul Winner wrote: »

So Agnosticism = Don't know and Atheism = Don't believe?

Wouldn't agnostics also be atheists then? Given that lack of knowing would also mean lack of believing? Or does that logically follow?

And if non believing atheists simple lack belief without lacking knowledge then that means that they know that what they lack belief in doesn't actually exist?

Or if they simply don't believe without knowing either way then that means they don't know either, which would make them agnostics.

This is why I get confused about what meaning to attach to these terms.

I'd really like a clear and concise answer from the A&A guys on this one.

I'll elaborate a little bit, now that I'm feeling less lazy.

First off all, others probably think about this a little differently than me, but I'm pretty certain from reading this forum that at least some others are on the same page. For me, atheism and theism are two binary positions: you either believe in a god or you don't. Some people use the word agnostic to mean a kind of "I don't know" position, but that's not the way I'd use it.

Most people who refer to themselves as atheists could more technically be called agnostic atheists. That is, they don't believe in a deity but don't claim definite knowledge. The reason many choose to call themselves atheists rather than agnostics is simply because the question "Do you believe in a god?" relates to belief (atheism - without belief) rather than knowledge (agnosticism - without knowledge). I'm sure there are people who self-identify as agnostic who'd disagree with me on this, but that's the way I see it anyway.


To answer your initial question "Wouldn't agnostics also be atheists then?", I'd say maybe. They could be theists, either.


Gnostic theist - Claims to know there is a god.

Agnostic theist - Doesn't claim to know if there is or isn't a god, but believes that there is.

Agnostic atheist - Doesn't claim to know if there is or isn't a god, but doesn't believe so (or "believes there isn't", "lacks belief in", "disbelieves in", "doesn't possess an active belief in" - all basically mean the same thing).

Gnostic atheist - Claims to know there isn't a god.


For all practical purposes however, I'd say the views of many of those who call themselves agnostics and those who call themselves atheists are very similar, if not identical in most cases.

Marcus.Aurelius

To go with Richard Dawkins' useful scale of religiosity,

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.'

I think I am a level 6 atheist, I do not know for certain, but I believe the probability is so low that I give God the same respect as I do unicorns and flying celestial teapots.

The Mad Hatter

Zillah wrote: »

A lot of atheists seem to be obsessed with the (supposed) distinction between "I do not belief in" and "I lack belief in". I don't see it, I think its pointless linguistic fuckery. I don't believe in God. This does not mean I have faith that there is no God, nor does it mean I claim to know there is no God, I just don't believe in God. I don't have belief in god. Belief for God is not in my brain.

I think the "lack of belief" thing is counter productive, because it seems to imply there is something wrong with belief. There's nothing wrong with reasonable belief, just don't conflate it with faith or claims of knowledge.

I think it's more the distinction between "I do not believe in" and "I believe there is no," which I would see as the same statement with different levels of certainty (more weight being on the second one). Neither statement is made with 100% certainty, though.

I can't see any difference between "I do not believe in" and "I lack belief in."

Soul Winner

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

To go with Richard Dawkins' useful scale of religiosity,

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.'

I think I am a level 6 atheist, I do not know for certain, but I believe the probability is so low that I give God the same respect as I do unicorns and flying celestial teapots.

Excellent - thank you, that's exactly what I was looking for. Prof Dawkins is a clever chap, well done...

For the record, I'd put myself at number 1 , but for fear of derailing this thread, getting into that would require a new one to be opened. BTW placing myself at number 1 on that scale does not mean I could prove it was true to others.

Anyway, getting back to the OP...

goingpostal

I heard of a doctor once who had to treat an agnostic for the splinters in his posterior, acquired from sitting on the fence too long.........

goingpostal

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I think it's more the distinction between "I do not believe in" and "I believe there is no," which I would see as the same statement with different levels of certainty (more weight being on the second one). Neither statement is made with 100% certainty, though.

I can't see any difference between "I do not believe in" and "I lack belief in."

Spot on. I would say "I don't believe in" because if I say "I believe there is no" I am making a claim, which I would have to back up with evidence. In the absence of any evidence for the (non-)existence of a deity, I choose not to make claims. I use the same logic when people angrily demand that I justify, in detail, my non-belief in Mother Goose.

Dades

Soul Winner I'm happy to see you don't seem to have an agenda going on in this thread.

Yes, you can be both agnostic and atheist, as belief and knowledge are separate claims.

Also, like Zillah, although many here are hung up on the distinction, I'm not down with the "lack of belief/disbelief" debate. I'm happy to say I don't believe in god(s) or I lack belief in god(s).

Please don't start going down the road of atheism/agnosticism as faith or religion though or I might cry. It doesn't require faith to not believe something if you think there is absolutely no evidence for it - it just doesn't.

Soul Winner

Dades wrote: »

Soul Winner I'm happy to see you don't seem to have an agenda going on in this thread.

Just biding one's time...



Kidding

Dades wrote: »

Please don't start going down the road of atheism/agnosticism as faith or religion though or I might cry. It doesn't require faith to not believe something if you think there is absolutely no evidence for it - it just doesn't.

I agree but it does require faith to believe that there is no God(s) but like you say, lets not go down that road.

Dades

Soul Winner wrote: »

I agree but it does require faith to believe that there is no God(s) but like you say, lets not go down that road.

No it bloody doesn't. :pac:

I conclude there is no evidence for gods, therefore it is my belief there are none. No faith required END OF STORY. It's not rocket science.

Ickle Magoo

Dades wrote: »

No it bloody doesn't. :pac:

I conclude there is no evidence for gods, therefore it is my belief there are none. No faith required END OF STORY. It's not rocket science.

See, lacking faith/belief gets avoids all that malarkey. :P

Dades

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

See, lacking faith/belief gets avoids all that malarkey. :P

Maybe but it shouldn't have to! We shouldn't have to be pushed into a corner because some people get English wrong.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

I agree but it does require faith to believe that there is no God(s)

Unless you're saying that "belief" and "faith" are the same things, then no, it certainly doesn't.

Paul (or whoever wrote Hebrews) said that "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen".

Even by the self-serving and leaky definition that this guy used, "faith" is only needed if one wants to convince oneself that something is there, when one can't see it. If one doesn't see it, or doesn't want to see it, then "faith" is simply unnecessary to the belief that your deity, or anybody else's, is not there.

I trust that you accept the bible when it discusses faith?

Soul Winner

Dades wrote: »

No it bloody doesn't. :pac:

I conclude there is no evidence for gods, therefore it is my belief there are none. No faith required END OF STORY. It's not rocket science.

If you insist then. Faith is simply acting on a belief. After concluding that there is no God due to lack of evidence you then act as though that conclusion is true. That is faith.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

We shouldn't have to be pushed into a corner because some people get English wrong.

We shouldn't, but we do.

But that's really the purpose of religious language: an elegant and highly-evolved word-salad whose only purpose is to obscure meaning and to allow, perhaps a bit like white noise or abstract painting, the consumer to "find" comforting and familiar patterns which are -- mirabile dictu -- identical to their own cognitive patterns, within prose which is essentially meaningless.

To coin a phrase, religious language acts as nothing more than a memetic mirror.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Unless you're saying that "belief" and "faith" are the same things, then no, it certainly doesn't.

Paul (or whoever wrote Hebrews) said that "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen".

Even by the self-serving and leaky definition that this guy used, "faith" is only needed if one wants to convince oneself that something is there, when one can't see it. If one doesn't see it, or doesn't want to see it, then "faith" is simply unnecessary to the belief that your deity, or anybody else's, is not there.

I trust that you accept the bible when it discusses faith?

Yes I do. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the certainty of things not seen. We act as though a thing is true without having any evidence for it. Science proceeds on this basis also. It assumes that our human cognitive faculties have the ability to comprehend the universe and the world around us before we set off to do so. That is a faith based assumption. That is being certain of something that is not yet certain. That is faith.

Dades

Soul Winner wrote: »

Faith is simply acting on a belief.

Acting? How different do you act not believing in Ganesha?

Soul Winner wrote: »

That is a faith based assumption. That is being certain of something that is not yet certain. That is faith.

SW, you disappoint me. After all that has been said already in the thread and you go and conflate certainty with belief.

You've made me sad.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

[...] religious language: an elegant and highly-evolved word-salad whose only purpose is to obscure meaning

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes I do. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the certainty of things not seen. We act as though a thing is true without having any evidence for it. Science proceeds on this basis also. It assumes that our human cognitive faculties have the ability to comprehend the universe and the world around us before we set off to do so. That is a faith based assumption. That is being certain of something that is not yet certain. That is faith.

Can I have mine with a dash of balsamic vinegar?

bnt

Soul Winner wrote: »

OK, from Dictionary.com

Dictionary.com is not a primary dictionary itself, it's an aggregator of other dictionaries. The definition you quoted is from the Random House dictionary, which is itself a compliation of other dictionaries, some over a century old (e.g. the "Century Dictionary"). Which begs the question: how timely and objective are dictionaries and their authors? We atheists have put in the time and effort to clarify exactly what we mean by "atheism", and now I have no compunction in calling definition <1> wrong.

Back to the OP's question: have a look at this diagram (from irreligion.org):

The Mad Hatter

goingpostal wrote: »

Spot on. I would say "I don't believe in" because if I say "I believe there is no" I am making a claim, which I would have to back up with evidence. In the absence of any evidence for the (non-)existence of a deity, I choose not to make claims. I use the same logic when people angrily demand that I justify, in detail, my non-belief in Mother Goose.

Getting very technical, I think it's to do with where the emphasis falls in the sentence. "I don't believe in" puts the stress on "believe", whereas "I believe there is no" puts the stress on "no."

Zillah

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you insist then. Faith is simply acting on a belief. After concluding that there is no God due to lack of evidence you then act as though that conclusion is true. That is faith.

So, um...you think it is a useful use of the word to say that, for example, you have faith that there is no tiger behind you? You do not believe there is a tiger behind you, you do not know there is no tiger behind you...so you have faith there is no tiger behind you.

In fact, thinking about it, as you have defined it, doing anything but indulging in unrelentant solipsism is an act of "faith". In which case, the use of the term "faith" to describe the beliefs of the religious is somewhat diluted. So we need a new word to distinguish the faith that a reasonable person engages in every day with the irrational beliefs of the religious. In which case, wouldn't it be just easier to say that "faith" is the word we use for evidence-less religious belief and just call everything else "belief".

Wait, that is what we already do. Maybe we shouldn't run the English language through a meat grinder to help you misappropriate some degree of respectability for your delusions.

Soul Winner

Guys, it wasn't my intention to get all this with ye but its like ye are not satisfied until I do.

OK, a Lesson on the word Faith.

Faith in the English bares no difference in meaning as such from the word belief. But in the language of the New Testament (Greek) there was a difference. Belief in the English is a noun and we all understand what it means. The word belief or believe comes from the Greek word Pistis, this is the noun form of the word in the Greek. The word faith comes from the Greek word Pisteo, this is the verb form. Like in English, verbs in the Greek are action words.

Example of faith versus belief: You believe in the force of gravity, but you have faith when you get out of the bed in the morning and act as though your feet will hit the floor instead of the ceiling, its so natural to you that you don't even think about it.

These words (Pisteo and Pistis) were around long before the New Testament was written, they were used in everyday speak and they were not strictly religious terms.

Another example of faith versus belief: You could stand on a runway and look at a plane and believe that it can fly. However you only have faith when you actually get on the plane. Or another example: When you have a green light in traffic you also proceed by faith. You act on the belief that those who have the red light will stop. Faith by definition is simply acting on a belief and sustaining that action with the confidence that what you are acting on will stay true. It is not strictly a religious word, never was, God just likes it because it encapsulates how He wants His people to relate to Him based on what He says in His Word. He wants his people to act on promises that He has given in His word as though they were true even if what is promised in His Word has not become a fact in reality. This kind of action is what saves the theist. He is not saved because he simply believes that God exists, that's just the starting point.

Anyway, at is essence that's all faith is. And everyone has faith by that definition because everyone acts on some belief or some set of beliefs to one degree or another. Those who have and will reply to posts in this thread have or will act on what they believe to be true statements and proceed to type them out. That is faith too.

What differentiates the theist from the atheist are their objects of faith. And as said already, the theist has faith in God when he acts on what God says. He does not have faith in God if he simply believes that God exists. There is a big difference. There is no neutral gear when it comes to the Greek. As in English we have Theist and Atheists. Atheism is the opposite to theism. Theists believe and atheists don't believe. Likewise to reverse faith in the Greek you must put an A in front of the word Pisteo - i.e. Apisteo. For example: A Gnostic is one who knows and an Agnostics is one who doesn't know. But simply lacking belief in God does not constitute Apisteo as such. However, as belief is part of pisteo, lack of belief is part of apistis. In other words all actions that flow from your position of non-belief in God are from (God's perspective at least) Apisteo, faith going in the wrong direction if you like.

Lacking belief in God will make you an atheist and as such will result in you not acting in faith on what God says. But lacking faith in God does not mean that you lack faith per se. All actions of mankind are based upon beliefs be they true or false. Faith is simply the mechanism by which we move around. What we decide, be it consciously or subconsciously, to place our faith in is what differentiates every belief system in the world. Maybe atheism isn't a belief system in this way or maybe it is, but even if its not, all atheists act on beliefs which they are confident are true. And again that's all faith is by the Greek definition of the word.

The problem with the English translation of Pisteo is that we didn't properly carry over the verbal meaning of the word form of the word belief (pistis) from the Greek. Had we done so then we would now have words like Faithing and Faithed and so on. From this very simple oversight via translation came all the confusion when it comes to a proper understanding of the two words. It is a simply matter of grammar.

But now that we know better, let us proceed with our discussion.

Dades

This is a subset of the Religion & Spirituality forum - no matter what wordplay you get up to "faith" as it applies to religious matters is not the same as belief. So take your 'lesson' elsewhere.

Religious people have faith - atheists do not.

It could not be any simpler and yet again and again and again, some religious try to hammer this square peg into that round hole, as if by going so would score them some kind of victory. Is this a tacit admission that believing certain things on faith is tenuous?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Guys, it wasn't my intention to get all this with ye but its like ye are not satisfied until I do.

OK, a Lesson on the word Faith.

Faith in the English bares no difference in meaning as such from the word belief.

That isn't quite true, if by that you meant faith is just a belief in something. Faith speaks to the origin of the confidence in the belief. It is a belief who's confidence stems from trust rather than determining.

Faith a name for belief based on trust in a person, object or idea, rather than determination (which would be knowledge). It is a belief that is determined through the past performance and trust of the person object or idea rather than determination of the future event.

I have faith my girlfriend won't cheat on me. I have faith in the belief because I trust her and I trust her based on her past interactions with me.

If on the other hand if I drug her and lock her in a basement I know my girlfriend won't cheat on me.

I have faith that the source code my work college gave me will work as planned because he is a code programmer and thus I trust his work.

If on the other hand I went through the code myself I would know it will (or won't).

Knowing something and having faith in something are both aspects of belief but mean different things as faith implies that the confidence in the belief is only as good as the trust it is based upon where as knowing something implies that it has been determined accurately. While I still believe my gf won't cheat on my because I have faith in her, I wouldn't say I know she won't. With faith there is an implied clause that the belief is only as strong as the trust. My gf could cheat on me if my trust is misplaced.

Where as if my gf got hit by a bus (man my poor gf is coming off bad in these analogies) I know she won't cheat on me.

This is why we have the term leap of faith. It means trust someone even if you have doubts. We have doubts because we cannot determine to the point of knowing something but we put faith in the someone or something and hope that it works out as we hoped.

That is what faith means in English. How closely that relates to faith as used in the Bible I will leave to the experts

Soul Winner

Dades wrote: »

This is a subset of the Religion & Spirituality forum - no matter what wordplay you get up to "faith" as it applies to religious matters is not the same as belief. So take your 'lesson' elsewhere.

Religious people have faith - atheists do not.

It could not be any simpler and yet again and again and again, some religious try to hammer this square peg into that round hole, as if by going so would score them some kind of victory. Is this a tacit admission that believing certain things on faith is tenuous?

Hey Dades, you persisted in burrowing down this rabbit hole not me. I made it quite clear in my earlier posts that I didn't want to go into it, that I just wanted the opinions of the A&As on the OP and to point out where they would put themselves on the scale. If you didn't want to debate our obvious differences of opinion on this issue then you shouldn't have made an issue out it - I didn't.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

That is what faith means in English. How closely that relates to faith as used in the Bible I will leave to the experts

As we are concerned with Biblical usage of certain words then I'll focus just on this part of your post. I've no problem with the other points you made in your posts about the English meaning of the word faith in todays language because I know that it has taken on a lot of varying meanings over the centuries.

But if we just focus on the biblical usage of these words then we will find that in the Old Testament there are quite a few words translated into the English as faith. These words include Hasa - to run to the shelter of, Batack - to lean on a staff and Amen - a state of mind where there is absolutely no doubt in your mind that what you are trusting is true.

When it came time to translate the Old Testament into Greek all these words were translated with the words Pistis, Pisteo and various derivatives thereof. But the words Pistis and Pisteo were already in general use in the Greek speaking world so they were not strictly religious or Christian terms.

Now because English came about much later than the Greek, many hundreds of years in fact, and the English translation of the Old and New Testaments even later again. Why should we go by the now modern English meanings of these words when they didn't have those meanings in the original languages? If we are going to scrutinize the words faith and belief as they pertain to the Bible then let us do it in a way that focuses on what the Biblical meanings of those words actually were and not the modern meanings of them.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

As we are concerned with Biblical usage of certain words then I'll focus just on this part of your post. I've no problem with the other points you made in your posts about the English meaning of the word faith in todays language because I know that it has taken on a lot of varying meanings over the centuries.

But if we just focus on the biblical usage of these words then we will find that in the Old Testament there are quite a few words translated into the English as faith. These words include Hasa - to run to the shelter of, Batack - to lean on a staff and Amen - a state of mind where there is absolutely no doubt in your mind that what you are trusting is true.

When it came time to translate the Old Testament into Greek all these words were translated with the words Pistis, Pisteo and various derivatives thereof. But the words Pistis and Pisteo were already in general use in the Greek speaking world so they were not strictly religious or Christian terms.

Now because English came about much later than the Greek, many hundreds of years in fact, and the English translation of the Old and New Testaments even later again. Why should we go by the now modern English meanings of these words when they didn't have those meanings in the original languages? If we are going to scrutinize the words faith and belief as they pertain to the Bible then let us do it in a way that focuses on what the Biblical meanings of those words actually were and not the modern meanings of them.

I'm not suggesting we do.

But equally I think we should look at what people say in modern times. When a Christians says I have faith in God I assume they are using faith as it means, and most likely they are because I don't think most Christians are experts in ancient Greek.

When you say it requires faith to believe there is no god the simple answer is no it doesn't. Saying well lets look at the Biblical usage of faith is irrelevant to this

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not suggesting we do.

But equally I think we should look at what people say in modern times. When a Christians says I have faith in God I assume they are using faith as it means, and most likely they are because I don't think most Christians are experts in ancient Greek.

When you say it requires faith to believe there is no god the simple answer is no it doesn't. Saying well lets look at the Biblical usage of faith is irrelevant to this

Where/when (in this thread) did I say that it takes faith to believe that there is no God? I never accused anyone of believing that there was no God. I started this thread asking people's positions and how they would define atheism and agnosticism. I never put words in anyone's mouth. what I said is that even atheists have faith in something. Not necessarily that there is no God, but other things that they believe are true. When these beliefs are acted upon then even atheists are acting in faith. Again the everyday analogies I gave should suffice to make this point.

However, now that you've brought it up. I will concede that if you do believe that there is no God and act accordingly then you have faith that there is no God. By definition, acting on what you believe (be that there is a God or isn't a God) then you are acting in faith. But even by that definition you cannot accuse me of saying that by what I have described as faith in this thread, atheists need to have in order to believe that God doesn't exist. Its the other way around.

When you come to believe in something and act according thereon, only then have you got faith by the Greek definition of the word. Belief is just a mental accent to an idea, it has no further need of anything else to remain belief. Faith however (the verb) is the action part of the process. When you act as though a belief you have is true, then and only then, do you have faith.

Dades

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you didn't want to debate our obvious differences of opinion on this issue then you shouldn't have made an issue out it - I didn't.

Do you really think this particular debate was going to stay dormant in this thread?

Also...

Soul Winner wrote: »

Where/when (in this thread) did I say that it takes faith to believe that there is no God?

Soul Winner wrote: »

I agree but it does require faith to believe that there is no God(s)

Zing!

stevejazzx

So atheism is a religion in and of itself and I have faith becasue I believe in facts. This line of rargument seems to be closely modelled on the 'your ma' retort one often sees in the after hours section..only in that forum it is said with humor or at least the want thereof.

strobe

If you say, "I know there is/are no god(s)" then you are a gnostic atheist.

If you say, "I believe there is/are no god(s) but I don't know for sure" then you are an agnostic atheist.

If you say, "I know there is/are god(s)" then you are a gnostic theist.

If you say, "I believe there is/are god(s) but I don't know for sure" then you are an agnostic theist.

Gnosticism deals with knowledge.

Theism deals with belief.

How do some people find it so difficult to understand this?

Soul Winner

Dades wrote: »

Do you really think this particular debate was going to stay dormant in this thread?

I was really hoping that it would...

Dades wrote: »

Also...




Zing!

Got me there. All I can say is that it was a Freudian slip and my apologies for it. You don't need faith to believe that there is no God. If you believe such a thing - and most of the atheists here at least have not admitted as much, most of ye leave open the possibly that there might be a God - then its only when you act as though that belief is true do you have faith in it by the definition that was given. Again apologies for the slip.

Soul Winner

strobe wrote: »

If you say, "I know there is/are no god(s)" then you are a gnostic atheist.

If you say, "I believe there is/are no god(s) but I don't know for sure" then you are an agnostic atheist.

If you say, "I know there is/are god(s)" then you are a gnostic theist.

If you say, "I believe there is/are god(s) but I don't know for sure" then you are an agnostic theist.

Gnosticism deals with knowledge.

Theism deals with belief.

How do some people find it so difficult to understand this?

Quite true but as you can see from this thread alone there's no general consensus. Most atheists don't agree with the Dictionary definition of the term atheist, which is why I wanted to know where ye all stand.

Soul Winner

stevejazzx wrote: »

So atheism is a religion in and of itself and I have faith becasue I believe in facts. This line of rargument seems to be closely modelled on the 'your ma' retort one often sees in the after hours section..only in that forum it is said with humor or at least the want thereof.

I'll give a proper reply to that if you give me a proper reply to the OP like others have done.

stevejazzx

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'll give a proper reply to that if you give me a proper reply to the OP like others have done.

As the op has been answered - Here's the best reply I can muster without losing it

I've heard it from many religious people that believing in god is hard and sometimes they lose that belief. Atheists also dint believe in god so what's the difference?

Beruthiel

Soul Winner wrote: »

most of ye leave open the possibly that there might be a God

I don't. In my mind, without question, a god does not exist.
If an omnipotent being exists, his name is Q*



*

CerebralCortex

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

This showed up today in my youtube subscriptions, very pertinent I think.

Soul Winner

CerebralCortex wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

This showed up today in my youtube subscriptions, very pertinent I think.

Very good up to 1:51 when he states that Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief or unbelief. If that is correct then why is this forum called the Atheism and Agnosticism forum? and subtitled: "Oh we of Little faith." Why not just call it the Atheism Forum?

This is why I wanted your own opinions of these two terms because it seems that there is no general consensus for their meanings out there as such. Posting a Youtube vid is nice and all but it doesn't really tell me where you stand unless you state that the video expresses your own view. Does it?

Plus he also states @ 3:10 that he would dismiss the claim for a Biblical God on the basis of the following:

"No being can be perfect if it needs to be worshiped."

I agree with this statement but it has no relevance in the case of the God of the Bible. Where in the Bible does it state that God needs to be worshiped? He also cites other self refuting statements but gives no specific examples of them except this one so I can't really pull him up on any them.

But he also implies that there is no evidence that a supernatural God exists. I said this before, supernatural claims required supernatural evidence. I believe that this evidence was revealed in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. It was recorded and testified to and even at pain of horrific torture and death was held up as true by those who claimed to be eyewitness of it.

I submit that this alone doesn't prove anything, it is a matter of whether you believe their testimony or you don't. But in order to ascertain the truth or falsity of such claims one would have to research the subject and draw a conclusion based on what one regards as the best explanation of the facts that have been encountered. If you come back from such a study either convinced or unconvinced of what the reporters gave as the explanation then you have made an attempt at least to resolve the problem.

But what cannot be claimed - in the case of the Christian message at least - is that the God of the Bible did not provide evidence for His existence in a supernatural way, so on both this and his other point the Youtuber is also wrong, and shows two of his main objections for rejecting the God of the Bible to be simply false.

I submit that his reasons for having such a false basis is due to a very bad understanding of what the Bible actually says, and that I also submit is simply due to an intellectual laziness on his part. He needs to do better research of all the facts before basing his faith what he concludes from them.

Anyway getting back to the OP. How would you define the terms Atheism and Agnosticism? And where do you put yourself on that scale? Or do you agree with the Youtuber's assessment of the terms?

CerebralCortex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Very good up to 1:51 when he states that Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief or unbelief. If that is correct then why is this forum called the Atheism and Agnosticism forum? and subtitled: "Oh we of Little faith." Why not just call it the Atheism Forum?

This is why I wanted your own opinions of these two terms because it seems that there is no general consensus for their meanings out there as such. Posting a Youtube vid is nice and all but it doesn't really tell me where you stand unless you state that the video expresses your own view. Does it?

Plus he also states @ 3:10 that he would dismiss the claim for a Biblical God on the basis of the following:

"No being can be perfect if it needs to be worshiped."

I agree with this statement but it has no relevance in the case of the God of the Bible. Where in the Bible does it state that God needs to be worshiped? He also cites other self refuting statements but gives no specific examples of them except this one so I can't really pull him up on any them.

But he also implies that there is no evidence that a supernatural God exists. I said this before, supernatural claims required supernatural evidence. I believe that this evidence was revealed in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. It was recorded and testified to and even at pain of horrific torture and death was held up as true by those who claimed to be eyewitness of it.

I submit that this alone doesn't prove anything, it is a matter of whether you believe their testimony or you don't. But in order to ascertain the truth or falsity of such claims one would have to research the subject and draw a conclusion based on what one regards as the best explanation of the facts that have been encountered. If you come back from such a study either convinced or unconvinced of what the reporters gave as the explanation then you have made an attempt at least to resolve the problem.

But what cannot be claimed - in the case of the Christian message at least - is that the God of the Bible did not provide evidence for His existence in a supernatural way, so on both this and his other point the Youtuber is also wrong, and shows two of his main objections for rejecting the God of the Bible to be simply false.

I submit that his reasons for having such a false basis is due to a very bad understanding of what the Bible actually says, and that I also submit is simply due to an intellectual laziness on his part. He needs to do better research of all the facts before basing his faith what he concludes from them.

Anyway getting back to the OP. How would you define the terms Atheism and Agnosticism? And where do you put yourself on that scale? Or do you agree with the Youtuber's assessment of the terms?

In response to your post... ...I don't know ask the guy who posted the video, he's better at dealing with your line of thought than I am.

ColmDawson

I agree that the forum ought to be simply named the Atheism Forum.

Soul Winner

ColmDawson wrote: »

I agree that the forum ought to be simply named the Atheism Forum.

That might go some way to alleviating the confusion alright...