Agnostic Atheism

[alexey]

But I think if you look historically (post 1700s), that is in fact what atheism has been used to describe.

What we're seeing is a redefinition of the word atheism (from without god to without belief). It might be a more useful defintion, but it also creates a hole in our terminology. I think it would be more useful to have created a new word.

The more neutral position that you seem to be claiming as reasonable has been described as agnostic. However, I also understand the problem that some people, such as yourself, have with being described as agnostic, which is why I'd support creating a new word.

And I'm pretty sure if you read this thread that the "traditional" atheist definition is pretty much exactly the position that Bang and others have outlined in this thread.

The absence of evidence that god does exist is very strong evidence that god does not exist.

7

I guess you might find their positions ridiculous, but in my opinion, it is a position worth having a word to describe and to take the word that traditionally means that and redefine it seems counter productive and designed to confuse large numbers of people.

Which makes me wonder why it is being done.

Sometimes people hold positions others find ridiculous. Just because you think it is ridiculous doesn't mean that we shouldn't have a word to describe it.

I found your claim about historical usage of the word "atheism" to be questionable and did some basic research (mainly I just read wiki ):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism

I do not agree that atheism was historically used to describe an affirmative belief that no God exists. I think it was used to describe a refusal to believe in God's existence. It is very easy to confuse these, and I am sure that many people throughout history did make that mistake. I call it a mistake because because Greek prefix "a" indicates absence of something.

Now, if your argument is that so many people make this mistake that a new, clearer word is needed to describe a lack of belief in God, then I can go along with it. I am all for clearing up confusions. I just do not think it is realistic to expect something like this to actually happen... I think a realistic course of action is to try to address the mistake rather then invent and try to popularize a new word.

---------- Post added August-5th-2012 at 03:41 PM ----------

Because if God exists, then surely faith is a prerequisite to understanding and knowing His existence. Besides, who's to say that there already isn't "tons of very convincing ways" being demonstrated of His existence right now?...Because when we say "prove God exists", we are by default saying we have experienced no evidence of His existence yet. And what proof would honestly convince everyone on earth that God does indeed exist? Even if the skies opened up and a guy with a big grey beard poked his head through the opening and said "Hi, guys...this is God. Just checking in.", there would be an infinite number of reasons and explanations given as to what we experienced individually and collectively. Hell, even deeply religious people would not all agree that it was proof-positive of God lol...

Just as the argument can easily be made that this world--with all it's supposed "flaws" and ills and horrors--is actually the perfect world for humans to live and evolve within, the argument can also be made that God created humans to believe and have faith in His existence...not to be convinced of it.

Default position is not to have a belief. I ask "why should I believe?" I am open to a possibility that I have been experiencing evidence for God. I just do not agree that there is a good reason to believe it.

What kind of evidence could work? Well, how about actually turning water into wine? How about actually walking on water for all of us to see? I do not believe this stuff actually happened. If you want to convince me, provide evidence. Stories are not evidence.

[PeterMP]

I found your claim about historical usage of the word "atheism" to be questionable and did some basic research (mainly I just read wiki ):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism

I do not agree that atheism was historically used to describe an affirmative belief that no God exists. I think it was used to describe a refusal to believe in God's existence. It is very easy to confuse these, and I am sure that many people throughout history did make that mistake. I call it a mistake because because Greek prefix "a" indicates absence of something.

Now, if your argument is that so many people make this mistake that a new, clearer word is needed to describe a lack of belief in God, then I can go along with it. I am all for clearing up confusions. I just do not think it is realistic to expect something like this to actually happen... I think a realistic course of action is to try to address the mistake rather then invent and try to popularize a new word.

In its original form, atheism actually mean not believing in the God of the prevailing population.

By that definition, wicans would be atheits and that's not what you mean.

So you don't want the original defintion.

From there, in about the 1800s, the definition was primarily used to mean people that deny the existance of God and today is certainly used to include people that do actively deny the existance of God in almost any source you use.

Including wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] ."

So when you say you are atheists most people are used to what wiki refers to as the narrow sense of the word.

I was actually curious the last time this came up and ended up reading wiki reference 11.

So many people make the mistake because it is how the words were used commonly historically.

Even look at Burgold's use of the terms atheism and agnostic in this thread.

[grego]

To your first question, I think it's fair to question arrogance there--to at least examine the matter. I don't think being an atheist means inherently having a high level of arrogance in the matter.

i think thats sort of what i was thinking. its kind of, if youre agnostic, youre at least open to the possibility of a god, but, as an atheist, youre almost saying 'god, you have to prove you exist, and if i dont see any evidence that meets my standards, i'm not going to believe.' theres almost inherently an attitude that goes along with taking that stance.

Relatedly, there is certainly a commonly found (but not inherent) high level of arrogance IME among many members of some particular religions (Notably Islam and Christianity for me). Such folk can frequently be quite arrogant in the fervor, finality, and assuredness of their claims

no question about that.

[alexey]

In its original form, atheism actually mean not believing in the God of the prevailing population.

By that definition, wicans would be atheits and that's not what you mean.

So you don't want the original defintion.

There is no original definition - there is original usage. You mean that I do not want the word "atheism" to mean the same thing people originally meant by it. This is correct because it appears that the word "atheist" was originally used to as an insult that implies lack of moral restraint.

From there, in about the 1800s, the definition was primarily used to mean people that deny the existance of God and today is certainly used to include people that do actively deny the existance of God in almost any source you use.

Including wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] ."

So when you say you are atheists most people are used to what wiki refers to as the narrow sense of the word.

I was actually curious the last time this came up and ended up reading wiki reference 11.

So many people make the mistake because it is how the words were used commonly historically.

Even look at Burgold's use of the terms atheism and agnostic in this thread.

And so here we are, discussing these things and trying to clear up mistakes.

What is a minimal condition for somebody to be called an "atheist"? Is it sufficient not to believe that God exists?

I do not believe that God exists. This is all the information that you have about me. Am I an atheist?

[Mr. Nostril]

It seems to me that the only conclusion anyone can come to that's based on pure logic is one of agnosticism, because obviously both the existence and non-existence of god are unprovable. If you aren't willing to take extra-logical steps, the only conclusion you can draw is that you can only make negative existence claims concerning god. I think you could get even the most devoutly religious person or most hardcore atheist in the world to admit this, if you could force them to think logically and be truthful.

This isn't to say that theism and atheism are untenable positions, only that they both make assumptions that go beyond pure logic, and this is fine because some assumptions are reasonable.

[alexey]

It seems to me that the only conclusion anyone can come to that's based on pure logic is one of agnosticism, because obviously both the existence and non-existence of god are unprovable. If you aren't willing to take extra-logical steps, the only conclusion you can draw is that you can only make negative existence claims concerning god. I think you could get even the most devoutly religious person or most hardcore atheist in the world to admit this, if you could force them to think logically and be truthful.

This isn't to say that theism and atheism are untenable positions, only that they both make assumptions that go beyond pure logic, and this is fine because some assumptions are reasonable.

I am an agnostic atheist. Yes it is possible. There should be a rule to auto-ban people who post in a thread without even reading the OP. :evilg:

[Bang]

I am an agnostic atheist. Yes it is possible. There should be a rule to auto-ban people who post in a thread without even reading the OP. :evilg:

Did you just stick you finger in Mr Nostril?

yuck

~Bang

[Mr. Nostril]

I am an agnostic atheist. Yes it is possible. There should be a rule to auto-ban people who post in a thread without even reading the OP. :evilg:

I read the op and most of the other posts before posting my own comment. So, I second the motion for an auto-ban.

[PeterMP]

There is no original definition - there is original usage. You mean that I do not want the word "atheism" to mean the same thing people originally meant by it. This is correct because it appears that the word "atheist" was originally used to as an insult that implies lack of moral restraint.

And so here we are, discussing these things and trying to clear up mistakes.

What is a minimal condition for somebody to be called an "atheist"? Is it sufficient not to believe that God exists?

I do not believe that God exists. This is all the information that you have about me. Am I an atheist?

It depends on what source and what definition you are using from that source.

You can worry about telling about 75% of the population that they have the wrong defintion of atheism, especially when they will be able to go to most sources and see a definition that matches their pre-conceived notion of what an atheist is.

If it were me, I'd refer to myself as a non-believing agnostic or some other word that would make them pause and ask me what that was.

If your going to refer to yourself as an atheists and have conversations in that context, then a lot of sources that include a definition that doesn't fit what you are and that is the definition that many people know and people are going to infer that definition to you.

Even in this thread many people are using the "normal" defintions. I'd just avoid the issue.

But its your time and your life.

[alexey]

I read the op and most of the other posts before posting my own comment. So, I second the motion for an auto-ban.

In that case you must be aware that simply not having a belief in God is sufficient to be an atheist.

---------- Post added August-5th-2012 at 06:49 PM ----------

It depends on what source and what definition you are using from that source.

You can worry about telling about 75% of the population that they have the wrong defintion of atheism, especially when they will be able to go to most sources and see a definition that matches their pre-conceived notion of what an atheist is.

If it were me, I'd refer to myself as a non-believing agnostic or some other word that would make them pause and ask me what that was.

If your going to refer to yourself as an atheists and have conversations in that context, then a lot of sources that include a definition that doesn't fit what you are and that is the definition that many people know and people are going to infer that definition to you.

Even in this thread many people are using the "normal" defintions. I'd just avoid the issue.

But its your time and your life.

If you agree that I am using the word "atheist" correctly, then you should acknowledge it. Raising an issue about it, hearing my arguments, and then moving on without a peep seems a bit dishonest.

Not having a belief in God is sufficient to be an atheist. Do you agree?

I agree about problems with so many people misunderstanding the term. I support "all of the above" strategy. Education about what "atheism" means, attempts to establish better terms like "non-believing agnostic", and so on. I do not have to settle on one strategy there.

[Mr. Nostril]

In that case you must be aware that simply not having a belief in God is sufficient to be an atheist.

I think that based on pure etymology agnosticism would a subset of atheism rather than a separate thing. However, I also think that etymology is only part of how words are defined, and that social agreement is usually more important. For example, the word dashboard originally referred to a wooden panel (board) to protect a horse drawn carriage rider from debris being kicked by the horse (dash). However, socially, we have begun referring to any instrument panel as a dashboard even though that doesn't make sense etymologically.

What has happened to the terms atheist and agnostic isn't as drastic, but it has happened. Atheist has come to mean a person who believes there are no gods, while someone who claims to not believe in god and not believe in no gods is agnostic. While it's not etymologically perfect, it is what the terms actually mean when most people are using them.

If a person is trying to redefine terms in a way that's closer to what is etymologically prescribed, they are resigning themselves to have to explain their how their own definitions differ every time they use the term. This is fine, but the reasons why usually have nothing to do with a desire for etymological purity. It's because as a proselytizing atheist like the guy in the video you linked, he has a motivation to redefine atheism so that it's more inclusive, and so that more people will self-identify as atheists. Which again is fine, but let's not pretend like he's trying to clear up a misconception about a word's definition, when he is in fact redefining a word so it better fits with his personal goals.

[Mr. Nostril]

double post

[Mr. Nostril]

triple post (the website was being weird. Sorry)

[Enter Apotheosis]

I think that based on pure etymology agnosticism would a subset of atheism rather than a separate thing.

Etymologically speaking, agnosticism is completely independent from both atheism and theism. Agnosticism concerns itself with knowledge whereas atheism and theism are each primarily concerned with belief. The fact that the term's originator is known makes this a pretty black and white issue in my eyes.

[Mr. Nostril]

Etymologically speaking, agnosticism is completely independent from both atheism and theism. Agnosticism concerns itself with knowledge whereas atheism and theism are each primarily concerned with belief. The fact that the term's originator is known makes this a pretty black and white issue in my eyes.

But isn't knowledge a just a subset of belief. You know something is true and not believe that it's true. So, perhaps the terms are independent, but they're not unrelated.

[alexey]

I think that based on pure etymology agnosticism would a subset of atheism rather than a separate thing. However, I also think that etymology is only part of how words are defined, and that social agreement is usually more important. For example, the word dashboard originally referred to a wooden panel (board) to protect a horse drawn carriage rider from debris being kicked by the horse (dash). However, socially, we have begun referring to any instrument panel as a dashboard even though that doesn't make sense etymologically.

What has happened to the terms atheist and agnostic isn't as drastic, but it has happened. Atheist has come to mean a person who believes there are no gods, while someone who claims to not believe in god and not believe in no gods is agnostic. While it's not etymologically perfect, it is what the terms actually mean when most people are using them.

If a person is trying to redefine terms in a way that's closer to what is etymologically prescribed, they are resigning themselves to have to explain their how their own definitions differ every time they use the term. This is fine, but the reasons why usually have nothing to do with a desire for etymological purity. It's because as a proselytizing atheist like the guy in the video you linked, he has a motivation to redefine atheism so that it's more inclusive, and so that more people will self-identify as atheists. Which again is fine, but let's not pretend like he's trying to clear up a misconception about a word's definition, when he is in fact redefining a word so it better fits with his personal goals.

Is there a word to describe people who do not believe that any Gods exist?

Can you provide a source that says something like "not believing in God is insufficient to be called an atheist"?

[Mr. Nostril]

How can you tell the difference between redefining the word and clearing up confusion about it?

Better yet, can you actually provide a source that says something like "people who do not believe in God are not atheists"?

Of course I can't, because a definition would be stated positively rather than negatively. Mirriam-Webster defines atheism as "a disbelief in the existence of deity" and "the doctrine that there is no deity." (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism) So, based on the dictionary a person who does not have a disbelief in the existence of deity or does not ascribe to the doctrine that there is no deity is an atheist.

So, if there are 2 claims:

Claim A: There is a god

Claim B: There is no god

based on the Mirriam-Webster online dictionary, an atheist is someone who believes Claim B to be true. What you and Matt Dillahunty are trying to do is redefine it so that an atheist is someone who does believe Claim A to be true. And I believe the motive for this is to convince people to accept this and have a larger number of people self identify as atheists without actually changing anybody's beliefs. But this is not the most accepted definition.

[alexey]

Of course I can't, because a definition would be stated positively rather than negatively. Mirriam-Webster defines atheism as "a disbelief in the existence of deity" and "the doctrine that there is no deity." (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism) So, based on the dictionary a person who does not have a disbelief in the existence of deity or does not ascribe to the doctrine that there is no deity is an atheist.

So, if there are 2 claims:

Claim A: There is a god

Claim B: There is no god

based on the Mirriam-Webster online dictionary, an atheist is someone who believes Claim B to be true. What you and Matt Dillahunty are trying to do is redefine it so that an atheist is someone who does believe Claim A to be true. And I believe the motive for this is to convince people to accept this and have a larger number of people self identify as atheists without actually changing anybody's beliefs. But this is not the most accepted definition.

No. Based on Mirriam-Webster online dictionary, an atheist is somebody who does not believe in God. I do not have to believe claim B to be an atheist.

[Mr. Nostril]

No. Based on Mirriam-Webster online dictionary, an atheist is somebody who does not believe in God. I do not have to believe claim B to be an atheist.

Where do you get that from the definition? The second definition (the doctrine that there is no deity) certainly implies an acceptance of Claim B, and while I admit that there is some wiggle room in the first definition (a disbelief in the existence of deity), it seems to also imply that a belief that god does not exist.

[PeterMP]

No. Based on Mirriam-Webster online dictionary, an atheist is somebody who does not believe in God. I do not have to believe claim B to be an atheist.

Not to burst your bubble, but you are completely wrong:

"ATHEIST

: one who believes that there is no deity "

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

They have a positive belief that there is no god.

[Mr. Nostril]

double post

[alexey]

Not to burst your bubble, but you are completely wrong:

"ATHEIST

: one who believes that there is no deity "

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

They have a positive belief that there is no god.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Same dictionary defines atheism as:

2

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

What do you think about this? Why is there a difference between these definitions?

Options:

1) People who subscribe to atheism are not necessarily atheists.

2) Definition of atheist is lacking another entry.

3) Definition for atheism has an extra entry.

I will tentatively hang onto my bubble while waiting for your answer.

---------- Post added August-5th-2012 at 09:29 PM ----------

Where do you get that from the definition? The second definition (the doctrine that there is no deity) certainly implies an acceptance of Claim B, and while I admit that there is some wiggle room in the first definition (a disbelief in the existence of deity), it seems to also imply that a belief that god does not exist.

I agree that a disbelief in God seems to imply a belief in no God.

Do you agree that a disbelief in God does not actually mean a belief in no God?

[Mr. Nostril]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Same dictionary defines atheism as:

What do you think about this? Why is there a difference between these definitions?

Options:

1) People who subscribe to atheism are not necessarily atheists.

2) Definition of atheist is lacking another entry.

3) Definition for atheism has an extra entry.

I will tentatively hang onto my bubble while waiting for your answer.

The answer is that when you get into minutiae of dictionaries you're bound to find some level of contradiction. The definition of atheism is at odds with the definition of atheist in very small ways. Defining words is complicated, and even the dictionary is at times not ultimately authoritative.

But we have 3 definitions of 2 related words. 2 of those definitions absolutely describe an atheist or atheism as a person or a belief system that accepts Claim B.

Also, I would cite this thread as a source that a rejection of Claim A is not sufficient to make someone an atheist. If the most relevant understanding of a word's definition is social agreement, then the fact that the majority of this thread has been in opposition to this definition is evidence that the definition is incorrect.

[alexey]

The answer is that when you get into minutiae of dictionaries you're bound to find some level of contradiction. The definition of atheism is at odds with the definition of atheist in very small ways. Defining words is complicated, and even the dictionary is at times not definitive.

But we have 3 definitions of 2 related words. 2 of those definitions absolutely describe atheism or an atheist as a person who accepts Claim B.

Also, I would cite this thread as a source that a rejection of Claim A is not sufficient to make someone an atheist. If the most relevant understanding of a word's definition is social agreement, then the fact that the majority of this thread has been in opposition to this definition is evidence that your definition is incorrect.

What breakdown of answers would you expect if I start a poll asking: "Do you agree that somebody who does not believe in any Gods is an atheist?"

Do you think a majority of people would say NO, it is not correct to use the word "atheist" to describe somebody who does not believe in any Gods?

[Mr. Nostril]

What breakdown of answers would you expect if I start a poll asking: "Do you agree that somebody who does not believe in any Gods is an atheist?"

Do you think a majority of people would say NO, it is not correct to use the word "atheist" to describe somebody who does not believe in any Gods?

I would expect that the vast majority of people would answer "yes" in that poll. But I don't think that poll is honest. I think it's based on a linguistic trick. I think a better poll that more accurately represents a response to what we are debating about is:

Which of the following phrases is a better definition of an atheist:

A.) A person who does not believe any god or gods exist

B.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist