Agnostic Atheism

[alexey]

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

Remove the word " better," add a C) All of the above, and I'm game.

I think option C would get most votes. What do you think?

[PeterMP]

Your poll is going to be baised based on this thread.

21% of all atheist in poll say they believe in god.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/23/new-pew-survey-21-of-atheists-believe-in-god/

Realistically, it will have no value to this discussion.

[alexey]

Your poll is going to be baised based on this thread.

21% of all atheist in poll say they believe in god.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/23/new-pew-survey-21-of-atheists-believe-in-god/

Realistically, it will have no value to this discussion.

How can we test your and Mr. Nostril's assertion that most people would disagree that atheism is a mere disbelief in God?

[Mr. Nostril]

Remove the word " better," add a C) All of the above, and I'm game.

I think option C would get most votes. What do you think?

I get why you would want an option C. It turns option C into an easy way out of actually answering the question. But the people who option B describes are a subset of the people who option A describe. There is no sensible person believes that no god or gods exist that does not also not believe that any god or gods exist. It's an absurd and contradictory conclusion. So, option A and option C are already the same thing.

btw, I just posed this question (the way I stated it) to my roommate who is not familiar with the debate we're having and he chose option B. So, 1 point for me! (I'm of course just kidding about this being a relevant aspect to our conversation. Please don't treat it as a serious part of what I'm saying. I just thought a little levity might be nice.)

[alexey]

I get why you would want an option C. It turns option C into an easy way out of actually answering the question. But the people who option B describes are a subset of the people who option A describe. There is no sensible person believes that no god or gods exist that does not also not believe that any god or gods exist. It's an absurd and contradictory conclusion. So, option A and option C are already the same thing.

Do you understand the difference between not having a belief in existence and having a belief in non-existence?

btw, I just posed this question (the way I stated it) to my roommate who is not familiar with the debate we're having and he chose option B. So, 1 point for me! (I'm of course just kidding about this being a relevant aspect to our conversation. Please don't treat it as a serious part of what I'm saying. I just thought a little levity might be nice.)

If you think that a disbelief in God is the same as belief in no God, then you should include yourself and make that 2 points. As I said, a lot of people confuse disbelief in existence and belief in nonexistence, so I have no doubt you will get a lot of points.

[PeterMP]

How can we test your and Mr. Nostril's assertion that most people would disagree that atheism is a mere disbelief in God?

I don't care if you test it.

It is my personal experience, and the fact that you started this thread is evidence that it has been a good part of your personal experience.

In addition, look at the comments in this thread.

Look at posts by intelligent and educated people like Burgold and how they use the word agnostic vs. atheism.

If you are using atheism to define what you believe, you are using a word that describes and includes active denying of god in the definition of many sources.

And that is the definition many people know and apply when they hear atheism and atheist.

In those cases that there is another defintion, isn't really going to be relevant.

But it is your life and your time.

I don't really care.

[Mr. Nostril]

Do you understand the difference between not having a belief in existence and having a belief in non-existence?

If you think that a disbelief in God is the same as belief in no God, then you should include yourself and make that 2 points. As I said, a lot of people confuse disbelief in existence and belief in nonexistence, so I have no doubt you will get a lot of points.

I think I have demonstrated that I do know the difference between these two things. I also think I have reached a point where I've stated what I think sufficiently, and that I sufficiently understand what you think. And if we move any further we're just two bright people arguing over the minutiae of linguistics and accomplishing nothing. So, I'm out. If we were speaking in person I would offer a handshake.

[alexey]

I don't care if you test it.

It is my personal experience, and the fact that you started this thread is evidence that it has been a good part of your personal experience.

In addition, look at the comments in this thread.

Look at posts by intelligent and educated people like Burgold and how they use the word agnostic vs. atheism.

If you are using atheism to define what you believe, you are using a word that describes and includes active denying of god in the definition of many sources.

And that is the definition many people know and apply when they hear atheism and atheist.

In those cases that there is another defintion, isn't really going to be relevant.

But it is your life and your time.

I don't really care.

I was also confused about these terms up until very recently. Then I learned that "agnosticism" deals with truth claims and "atheism" deals with beliefs. I learned that it is possible to be an agnostic atheist. Then I felt compelled to share this knowledge with others.

Many intelligent and educated people do not realize that "agnosticism" deals with knowledge and "atheism" deals with beliefs. Pointing at that fact proves nothing.

I started this thread to share information and discuss with people who care. If you do not really care, then you do not belong here.

[alexey]

I think I have demonstrated that I do know the difference between these two things. I also think I have reached a point where I've stated what I think sufficiently, and that I sufficiently understand what you think. And if we move any further we're just two bright people arguing over the minutiae of linguistics and accomplishing nothing. So, I'm out. If we were speaking in person I would offer a handshake.

Atheism is lack of theism. Thanks for stopping by.

[alexey]

Even Wikipedia has an article on this:

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

Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.[

[PeterMP]

Atheism is lack of theism. Thanks for stopping by.

I don't care if you try and make your life more difficult.

I do care when people try and change the definitions of words (that is one of my pet peeves).

Atheism isn't JUST the lack of theism.

It also includes actively denying the exsistance of god.

If I say based on most sources, atheist actively deny god, I'm right too.

You and others are trying to remove part of the defintion of atheism and atheist.

[alexey]

I don't care if you try and make your life more difficult.

I do care when people try and change the definitions of words (that is one of my pet peeves).

Atheism isn't JUST the lack of theism.

It also includes actively denying the exsistance of god.

If I say based on most sources, atheist actively deny god, I'm right too.

You and others are trying to remove part of the defintion of atheism and atheist.

1) Atheism is not just lack of theism.

2) Lack of theism is called atheism.

Atheism may include actively denying the existence of God, but it does not have to.

[GibbsFactor]

The sum quality of your life is equal to every decision you've ever made.

:kickscan:

[Califan007 The Constipated]

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.

The default position is, and always has been, to believe there may be something "more" than what we experience physically. We're born with that in us. As humans we have always wondered what else exists beyond the physical we experience, even if it's just wondering what lays beyond the mountain range in the distance. Our entire evolution is fueled by this innate need to know what "else" there is, and to figure out what our physical surroundings actually are.

We don't need to be convinced to believe there is something "else" to our existence...we were designed to do just that. The conclusions we reach are another story.

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.

Yeah, right...like turning water into wine would have you suddenly looking up local churches to attend lol ...nonetheless having 6 billion other people on the planet doing so.

There literally is nothing that will convince everyone of God's existence...and I believe it was meant to be that way. The belief that there is something greater than our physical existence is a far, FAR more powerful one when it is taken individually based on our own unique experiences. It's kind of like being in love...when you know you're in love, it's based on your individual experiences telling you the reality of what exists...you can't ask someone to prove to you that you're in love lol.

[Enter Apotheosis]

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.

Knowledge isn't a subset of belief, either. The two are closely related as it can be difficult to believe without knowledge in most circumstances and knowledge infers belief more often than not. However, you can ultimately still choose to believe without knowledge (belief is not a subset of knowledge) and you can choose to believe in spite of knowledge (knowledge is not a subset of belief, courtesy of denial).

1) Atheism is not just lack of theism.

2) Lack of theism is called atheism.

Atheism may include actively denying the existence of God, but it does not have to.

This is awfully tedious. I can see what you're trying to say but I have a very difficult time believing that it serves any constructive purpose whatsoever.

[alexey]

The default position is, and always has been, to believe there may be something "more" than what we experience physically. We're born with that in us. As humans we have always wondered what else exists beyond the physical we experience, even if it's just wondering what lays beyond the mountain range in the distance. Our entire evolution is fueled by this innate need to know what "else" there is, and to figure out what our physical surroundings actually are.

We don't need to be convinced to believe there is something "else" to our existence...we were designed to do just that. The conclusions we reach are another story.

Yeah, right...like turning water into wine would have you suddenly looking up local churches to attend lol ...nonetheless having 6 billion other people on the planet doing so.

There literally is nothing that will convince everyone of God's existence...and I believe it was meant to be that way. The belief that there is something greater than our physical existence is a far, FAR more powerful one when it is taken individually based on our own unique experiences. It's kind of like being in love...when you know you're in love, it's based on your individual experiences telling you the reality of what exists...you can't ask someone to prove to you that you're in love lol.

I have no problem believing that there may be something more. I actually DO believe that there is always something more. I just do not believe that any Gods exist.

Believing that possibilities exist is the default position. Believing that a specific possibility is the case is not a default position. I believe it is possible that God exists. I do not believe that God exists.

Seeing water actually turned into wine will not prove Chrisitian theology to me (which one btw?), and it will not cause me to run to the local church. It will, however cause me to reverse my position that the part about breaking natural laws is completely made up. That could be a good way to start changing my mind about the whole thing.

---------- Post added August-6th-2012 at 07:09 AM ----------

you can't ask someone to prove to you that you're in love lol.

I can ask somebody with an fMRI machine to scan my brain, but I do not see a reason to do that. I can feel my feelings without having to scan my brain.

---------- Post added August-6th-2012 at 07:13 AM ----------

This is awfully tedious. I can see what you're trying to say but I have a very difficult time believing that it serves any constructive purpose whatsoever.

Tedious it is. I think there is a useful purpose. Prior to this discussion, if somebody told Mr. Nostril that they are an atheist, Mr. would understand that to mean a person is making arrogant statements about unknowable things. Now, after our discussion, Mr. would understand that other possibilities exist.

[PeterMP]

1) Atheism is not just lack of theism.

2) Lack of theism is called atheism.

Atheism may include actively denying the existence of God, but it does not have to.

As I've already stated in this thread, it is going to depend on what source you use and when it is from and what defintion in that source you use.

As I've already stated in this thread, we are under going a re-defintion of atheism and atheist to include what you call atheism and atheist, but that isn't the common and historical usage of the word in this country.

However, almost every major source for over the last 100 years or so has included the defintion that is denying the exsistance of god.

I have a Webster's Random House dictionary copy right 1992 (it has a red cover).

atheism: The doctrine or belief that there is no god.

By that defintion, what you are describing is not atheism.

atheist: "A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings"

By that definition, you MIGHT be an atheist depending on how we want to define the word disbelieves.

However, it also goes on and says:

"An atheist denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic believes it is impossible to know whether there is a God without sufficient evidence."

By that explanation, you aren't an atheist.

I'm also looking at an Oxford Dictionary of Current English copy right 2001.

atheism

"the belief that God does not exist"

Based on that defintion, what you are describing as atheism is not atheism.

Your "defintion" of atheism might be a better defintion of atheism (though I will again point out at its root atheism is without god not without belief (based on wikipedia and the Oxford Dictionary of Current English.)).

But it isn't the common (I'm not saying nobody ever used it in the sense you are trying to use it, but it wasn't what was common even in reference sources like dictionaries) post-1800s use of the word in this country, and it does leave a gap in our vocabulary to specifically describe people that deny the exsistance of God.

Now, realistically and personally, I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to group myself with people that I thought held a ridiculous (your word) point of view based on what has been the long term defintion of a word in common usage and most reference sources.

**EDIT**

But it is your life.

I'm done in this thread.

[Corcaigh]

Now, realistically and personally, I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to group myself with people that I thought held a ridiculous (your word) point of view based on what has been the long term defintion of a word in common usage and most reference sources.

Like "marriage"?

I don't get the insistence by theists that atheists are denying god. In my personal experience, there's a complete absence of the supernatural. I'm "denying" god exactly as much as I'm "denying" paisley patterned flying unicorns. I don't really spend a lot of time on it.

[alexey]

....

As long as you understand what it means to be an agnostic atheist.

[Koolblue13]

I firmly believe that there is no God or Godly beings and find the idea of that being possible laughable at best.

I believe in something, but it's closer to the Force or whatever that feeling in Avatar was. Everything is from the same energy and everything is all equal in being.

Namaste

[renaissance]

I always thought that atheism = you believe no god exists, and agnostic = you have no belief either way.

In my opinion, atheists are tacitly acknowledging that a god can exist.

I describe myself as agnostic because I do not know for sure either way.

[Jumbo]

Whether it's palatable or not to whomever, the main thrust of alexy has said on these terms is pretty much correct. And he simply addresses matters of defining viewpoints that this minority has long tried to describe, but being such a small (and often unfavorably received) minority, the process hasn't gone very far in widespread social discourse (it's long been accepted in more limited venues) until lately.

This is likely to be at least partially due to the fact that many atheist/agnostic minded people are notably less likely to organize and advocate regarding their philosophies than many other demographic groups.

Having a belief in "God"---or belief in a likelihood of the existence of some “supreme” conscious entity as we understand consciousness and then “what‘s the nature of that entity“---can have so many nuances that even specific major religions have their various (sometimes many) sects and denominations. And the people who do so believe, find it very important to delineate and define all those nuances.

So do most atheists and agnostics within their “umbrella.” Like others, they share their commonalties, and yet find their differences even among themselves important to identify and acknowledge. The depth and variety of viewpoints and constructs that fall under the umbrella of agnosticism and atheism are not well-represented by the simplistic frames many Christians (not only, but in particular in this culture) like to apply to them.

Even just (as has been pointed out in the past-to-present and met with often emotionally reactive resistance) the classical definition of the terms atheist and agnostic logically and linguistically allow for nuance. That “freedom” often seems stingily withheld, IMV, by others, for whatever reasons (motives), consciously or subconsciously. Certainly, restricting how some can define their core beliefs and disrespecting rational and civil efforts to do so is a way of minimizing and marginalizing their potency, which is a natural inclination should they be part of something found undesirable or activating even stronger negative reactions---just an observation.

PeterMP stated his pet peeve is someone trying to reinvent words, yet people are the only agents who invent or reinvent words. I share Peter's feeling there, actually, and "hate" how people often misuse words, so I have to check myself for consistency at times like this. Here the argument is just (at least) as strong that there is exisiting "room" already there in the existing definitions for nuance as not, but there's an increasingly active attempt to expand a more detailed awareness of such nuances and their nature.

But even if there was not this existing nuance "properly allowed", I'd think "ok, that's cool" (<---that usage a reinvention in the form of adding to the meaning of that word I highly favor. :cool: :pfft:) given the importance of the issue and the (to me) clear logic and legitimacy of actual proposed usage and intent of those terms.

Another thing I have long meant to write on in a related matter, is how the discussion on "belief in God--yes or no", in this forum specifically, should be more often approached as "belief in Christianity--yes or no", since that for most here is really what's being discussed when you cut to the chase.

There is plenty of room for, in just one example, positions like: “as an agnostic, I am not convinced there is evidence to prove the existence or non-existence of some supreme being who created ‘everything’, but I will say that "either way", I don’t believe what Christianity claims to be the story to be so.”

---------- Post added August-6th-2012 at 11:19 AM ----------

alexy...read rule 11 and edit the post right above accordingly, and don't violate it again or you'll get a week off

it's often an "automatic" time out but we've been being more merciful since the problem's abated.

[PeterMP]

PeterMP stated his pet peeve is someone trying to reinvent words, yet people are the only agents who invent or reinvent words. I share Peter's feeling there, actually, and "hate" how people often misuse words, so I have to check myself for consistency at times like this. Here the argument is just (at least) as strong that there is exisiting "room" already there in the existing definitions for nuance as not, but there's an increasingly active attempt to expand a more detailed awareness of such nuances and their nature.

I wanted to be clear, I do sympathize with the inability to briefly describe ones views easily.

As I stated, I'd support inventing a new word. In addition, I believe alexey and people like him could put together other short word combinations that would describe his beliefs w/o rendering the dictionaries I have used for the majority of my life incorrect.

And creating a situation where people that write posts based on those definitions are now "wrong".

I believe that if alexey described himself as an agnostic non-believer, he'd accuartely describe his positions without any more effort then saying he's agnostic atheist.

In addition, he wouldn't create a situation where people that are atheist (based on the "old" definition of the term), now don't have a label to describe themselves.

One of the reason why this is a pet peeve of mine is this is what they modern political "conservative" movement has done to me.

I believe I am "conservative" based on the traditional and dictionary based definition of it.

However, politically, the term "conservative" has been highjacked to describe a group of views that aren't really conservative.

And while I guess that's great for the people that have those views, it leaves me w/o an easy and recognizable label to describe my veiws.

[DjTj]

Tedious it is. I think there is a useful purpose. Prior to this discussion, if somebody told Mr. Nostril that they are an atheist, Mr. would understand that to mean a person is making arrogant statements about unknowable things. Now, after our discussion, Mr. would understand that other possibilities exist.

What word would you use to describe someone who affirmatively believes there is no God?

Atheist Atheist? Strong Atheist? Anti-theist? Fundamentalist atheist?

I don't get the insistence by theists that atheists are denying god. In my personal experience, there's a complete absence of the supernatural. I'm "denying" god exactly as much as I'm "denying" paisley patterned flying unicorns. I don't really spend a lot of time on it.

Maybe you're an apathetic atheist.

[Jumbo]

I empathize with your position here, Peter. I find myself in similar straits on this and other matters. The English language is a fun and beautiful thing to me (I'd like to think that's obvious) but it can also be damn frustrating. Of course, that's also the nature of communication in general. :pfft: