Does atheism differ from agnosticism?

[Apology]

This post had a number of really good points...

Many people are arguing that atheism means the lack of belief. Does that mean the complete lack of belief? After all, for most people, belief is not an "on/off" type thing...there are degrees

I certainly believe the table in front of me exists more than I believe, say, in the existence of life beyond this planet. And I believe in life beyond this planet moreso than intelligent life beyond this planet. So what is someone who somewhat believes in god? I'd argue that Apology is not an atheist at all. He has some belief, and atheism is a lack of belief.

As to the "original" atheists...please don't speak for all of us. I personally don't care HOW people use the terms. I just insist that terms are clearly defined before arguing.

That being said, if the term is watered down enough to include rocks, trees, dirt, heat, morality, blue, etc...then IMHO it really is not a very useful definition.

I guess "productivity" is also an atheist. After all, "productivity" is a noun which does not have a belief in god. It is also apparently ammoral, asymmetric, asymptomatic, apathetic, and apolitical. Saying a rock (or a baby) lacks a belief in god is like saying linguistics lacks a belief in hockey. It`s meaningless.

This is also a well-thought out post. I don't have anything really that I disagree with.

I do have an opinion though. Honestly I think the strong atheists should chill out a little bit and let some of the other atheists be more agnostic about it if they want to. I don't think that everyone who acknowledges that God might potentially exist even if they really don't think so should be forced to stop using the word "atheist" or be forced to append "agnostic" to the front.

 

[Beth]

So at this point we seem to be in agreement that the term "agnostic" serves no real purpose--at least in terms of strict definitions for the purposes of philosophical argument.

I don’t know that I agree. I’m actually not very clear on what you mean by a strict definition for the purpose of philosophical argument. But any sort of argument is okay by me.

Actually, it pretty quickly becomes apparent that you don't believe that that (i.e. that any statement as to the probability of god's existence is meaningless) is what I believe. It's interesting--both you and Apology have been quite defensive about being "told what to believe" when in fact all I (and most of the others) am trying to do is define (not change) what you believe. But it does seem that you're willing to outright tell me what I must "really" believe.

Uh, no. I do believe that you believe what you say you believe and I’m not telling you what you ‘really’ believe. My apologies if I came off that way. I’m telling you how I assess your words. In this particular case, I see a conflict between two different things that you are saying: 1 – you are an atheist and 2 – that you are make no assessment of the probability of god. In my opinion, an atheist is someone who assesses the probability of god as being very low. This is slightly different from the assessing the meaningfulness of the subjective probability.

Is there any point in my saying, once again, that my point is not to say "you shouldn't believe what you believe" but simply to say "I don't think agnostic vs. atheist" is a useful way of describing the differences between the positions we're discussing.

Usefulness is dependent on the user. Just because you don’t find a categorization scheme useful doesn’t mean that no one does.

Someone's personal conviction that Jesus appeared to them at a time when they are on drugs and undergoing severe physical and mental trauma has precisely the evidentiary value in relationship to Jesus's actual existence as an imaginative four-year-old's account of having ridden a dinosaur to school does to the present-day existence of dinosaurs. It is certainly possible, but it is easier to explain by well-understood mechanisms.

We’ll simply have to disagree on this point. I think there is some evidentiary value in an adults description of something that occurred to them, even under such circumstance than there is to a preschoolers account. Adults know the difference between dreams and imaginings. Preschoolers don’t necessarily. You certainly aren’t obliged to take such anecdotal evidence seriously, but it’s not unreasonable for another person to weigh such evidence differently . That’s my whole point about subjective probability assessments. You look at such anecdotes and reject them as evidence. I look at such anecdotes and go “hmmm….interesting”.

That's a reasonable enough definition of "agnosticism," I agree--the problem is that none of the self-described agnostics in this thread would agree with it.

Actually I do. I though you were the one who objected to using agnosticism to represent knowledge and theists/atheist for belief. Darth Rotor brought it up in post #2, but Zalbik did phrase it quite nicely.

By the way, I’d like to say welcome to the forums to Zalbik.

 

[Irony]

Would it be fair to characterize the rock as "dead" because it does not possess the capabilities to be "alive"?

No, because death is defined as the end of life, so for something to be dead it had to have been alive at some point. On the other hand, characterizing a rock as non-living would be perfectly accurate.

 

[Yoink]

The fact that deism and atheism both make claims and use analogies that I find rather dubious doesn't make my decision any easier.

Atheism makes no claims whatsover. Please, please try to understand this. Atheism is simply the state of not having adopted a belief. An atheist's attitude to other people's beliefs in god is that they are unwarranted (i.e., not supported by evidence) not that they are necessarily false (who could know?).

Most of my objection to implicit atheism is because it conflicts with secular philosophy, and I found their arguments about consciousness more compelling than the "lack of belief in God" dictionary argument. I found, from studying ethics, the philosophy of consciousness, and other secular subjects, that their arguments about consciousness were more compelling arguments than implicit atheism.

I don't know what you mean here. Atheism has no bearing whatsoever on claims about consciousness.

It doesn't matter what the root word "Atheism" means. Atheism began as an irreligious philosophical group.

No. It didn't.

The fact that atheism has redefined itself into a softer position than "God does not exist" does not undo what Atheism, the irreligious philosophical group, did, which was bravely and proudly declare that they believed that God did not exist.

There never was any such group.

Rather than stand down from that statement, it might have been better to fight from the position that your belief was as valid as anyone else's belief rather than try to back away from the goal of the original Atheist group.

*Sigh*. We DON'T HAVE A BELIEF!!! Atheists are opposed to believing in the absence of evidence. We don't say "our belief is as valid as anyone's belief." Seriously--how many times do you have to be told this? All we say is that no compelling evidence for the existence of god has been presented yet. It might be presented tomorrow. Who could possibly say?

As a matter of fact, the original Atheist group does still exists, and they don't care for being marginalized out of existence either, so they strongly disagree with the "lack of belief" definition.

What "original atheist group" are you talking about? I haven't noticed any of their members contributing to this thread, so they can't be very large--or they can't be very troubled by the arguments we've been making.

I believe that one of the three definitions I linked, "God does not exist", came from a strong atheist website. They objected for entirely different reasons than I do, of course, and they still call themselves "Atheists" because they feel they had the original claim to the name or something---I don't really know, ask them. A lot of the strong atheists I met didn't care if they just believed God didn't exist, in spite of the lack of evidence and the impossibility of proving a negative. They felt it was a valid belief and were willing to fight for it anyway.

I'm prepared to believe that there are some people out there who adopt "no-god-ism" as a belief system. To be honest, I don't think "atheist" is a very good term for such people, though I wouldn't make a big fight about it. They have a faith-based view of the metaphysical underpinnings of the universe, just as religious people do. In fact, it seems impossible to me to distinguish the beliefs of "no-god-ists" from the beliefs of Deists. If you change the name of the Deist god to "no-god" or "Nature" everything else is the same, right?

All I can say is that I've been an atheist for most of my adult life and I've only ever met one person, that I can think of, who defined his atheism as an absolute insistence upon the impossibility of the existence of any god.

 

[bignickel]

In that respect the term "agnostic atheist" is redundant.

However, there is also a percentage of people who claim to "know" god exists (e.g. through personal experience). This divides the theists into two sets: agnostic theists, who have belief but lack knowledge, and (lacking an appropriate term here) "strong" theists who "know" god exists.

One can be an agnostic atheist (redundant as atheism implies agnosticism), or an agnostic theist, or a NON-agnostic theist.

I'd have to say you're skimping on 'agnostic'; it's not simply that you don't have knowledge, it's that you can't.

There are quite a few here who are gnostic atheists. Just check any "what would it take for you to believe in god" threads. There are a few posters in there who set up conditions that they would accept that show the existence of god/s. This would definitely be a gnostic position: the ability to know that a being outside the universe exists.

An agnostic would say no such evidence could be persuasive; we don't have the capability to recognize a being outside the universe. Occam's Razor would go with an alien hoax, or insanity, every time.

 

[Yoink]

I'd have to say you're skimping on 'agnostic'; it's not simply that you don't have knowledge, it's that you can't.

That's just one form of what people sometimes call "agnosticism." It is often labeled "strong agnosticism" to distinguish it from the "weak agnosticism" of someone like Apology.

There are quite a few here who are gnostic atheists. Just check any "what would it take for you to believe in god" threads. There are a few posters in there who set up conditions that they would accept that show the existence of god/s. This would definitely be a gnostic position: the ability to know that a being outside the universe exists.

An agnostic would say no such evidence could be persuasive; we don't have the capability to recognize a being outside the universe. Occam's Razor would go with an alien hoax, or insanity, every time.

This always strikes me as a silly argument. An omnipotent god, by definition, is able to compel (and justify) absolute belief in his/her existence. To claim "strong agnosticism" is to in fact claim knowledge of the types of divinity that might or might not exist, and of their limits. If there's a god he doesn't have to persuade me that he exists (changing water into wine etc.), he can just make it so that I know he exists ("hey, presto!").

 

[Apology]

No, because death is defined as the end of life, so for something to be dead it had to have been alive at some point. On the other hand, characterizing a rock as non-living would be perfectly accurate.

Does the term "deaf" not imply that someone should have had the ability to hear in the first place?

 

[Apology]

Atheism makes no claims whatsover. Please, please try to understand this. Atheism is simply the state of not having adopted a belief. An atheist's attitude to other people's beliefs in god is that they are unwarranted (i.e., not supported by evidence) not that they are necessarily false (who could know?).

By your definition it's the state of not having adopted a belief. By other people's definition its a state of believing that God doesn't exist.

I don't know what you mean here. Atheism has no bearing whatsoever on claims about consciousness.

If it's willing to claim babies and rocks as atheist, it certainly does have claims about consciousness---that unaware beings and inanimate objects can be categorized into groups that are based on states of consciousness.

No. It didn't.

Yes, it did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism

There never was any such group.

http://www.atheistalliance.org/aai/index.php

*Sigh*. We DON'T HAVE A BELIEF!!! Atheists are opposed to believing in the absence of evidence. We don't say "our belief is as valid as anyone's belief." Seriously--how many times do you have to be told this? All we say is that no compelling evidence for the existence of god has been presented yet. It might be presented tomorrow. Who could possibly say?

Some atheists do have a belief---the belief that God doesn't exist.

What "original atheist group" are you talking about? I haven't noticed any of their members contributing to this thread, so they can't be very large--or they can't be very troubled by the arguments we've been making.

http://www.atheistalliance.org/library/NeedForOrgs.php

There are more of them, you know. I just got lazy, and this particular group seems well-organized and popular so I quit googling. They think you're part of the problem rather than part of the solution. That's their issue though, because I'm not an atheist. Apparently they have their own ideas and plans on the promotion of atheism that doesn't include posting on the JREF forums.

I'm prepared to believe that there are some people out there who adopt "no-god-ism" as a belief system. To be honest, I don't think "atheist" is a very good term for such people, though I wouldn't make a big fight about it. They have a faith-based view of the metaphysical underpinnings of the universe, just as religious people do. In fact, it seems impossible to me to distinguish the beliefs of "no-god-ists" from the beliefs of Deists. If you change the name of the Deist god to "no-god" or "Nature" everything else is the same, right?

I agree with you. Atheism isn't the right term for people who simply reject Theism. That's why there are terms like Deism, which rejects Theism but still believes in the existence of the aloof God.

All I can say is that I've been an atheist for most of my adult life and I've only ever met one person, that I can think of, who defined his atheism as an absolute insistence upon the impossibility of the existence of any god.

That person's opinion was still valid, and they were still an atheist, no matter how badly you'd like to distance yourself from them.

 

[Apology]

That's just one form of what people sometimes call "agnosticism." It is often labeled "strong agnosticism" to distinguish it from the "weak agnosticism" of someone like Apology.

Wikipedia says I'm a "model agnostic" so you're just wrong here. Way to miscategorize. Maybe you should stop doing that.

 

[Yoink]

By your definition it's the state of not having adopted a belief. By other people's definition its a state of believing that God doesn't exist.

Yes, and this is a discussion about which definitions are most useful. You can make an argument that the "believing God doesn't exist" definition is useful if you wish. So far, though, your only argument seems to be "if I call myself an atheist, people will think I'm that kind of atheist." That doesn't prove that it's a useful definition--indeed, it just seems to be more evidence that it isn't a very useful one.

If it's willing to claim babies and rocks as atheist, it certainly does have claims about consciousness---that unaware beings and inanimate objects can be categorized into groups that are based on states of consciousness.

The argument being advanced is that "atheist" can be used as a label for people and things regardless of states of consciousness. Therefore for you to say the term is "based on states of consciousness" is just begging the question. Again, you're clinging (desperately) to a definition of atheism which your interlocutors reject. That's just pointless.

Yes, it did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism

Apparently you didn't read your own link here. This article does not say that that atheism "began as an irreligious philosophical group." Therefore it supports my rejection of your bizarre historical claim.

http://www.atheistalliance.org/aai/index.php

http://www.atheistalliance.org/aai/index.php
Seriously? You think atheism was invented by the atheist alliance? A group founded in 1991? Seriously?

By the way--you know how the atheist alliance defines atheism? You'll never guess:

An atheist is anyone who has no belief in any god

That's right--they define it the same way that I do, and that all the other self-described atheists in this thread do. They DO NOT say that atheism involves a positive claim about the ABSENCE of God. So...care to try again?

Some atheists do have a belief---the belief that God doesn't exist.

Care to give an example of some? I've already agreed that such people exist--but they are marginal, and, as I've said, have more in common with theists than with most atheists.

http://www.atheistalliance.org/library/NeedForOrgs.php

Please, Apology, read things before you link to them. This linked page makes no claims ANYWHERE about the nonexistence of God. It makes claims that religious organizations have socially bad effects. That claim in no way depends upon the claim that the existence of god is impossible. There are plenty of theists who think that organized religion is bad, after all.

There are more of them, you know. I just got lazy, and this particular group seems well-organized and popular so I quit googling.

You quit googling after you found a group whose definition of atheism is the same as mine, involves none of the claims that you believe to be characteristic of atheism, and does not premise its actions upon those claims. Yes, I can see why you thought that this would suffice.

They think you're part of the problem rather than part of the solution. That's their issue though, because I'm not an atheist. Apparently they have their own ideas and plans on the promotion of atheism that doesn't include posting on the JREF forums.

Again--please actually READ what they write, and don't just leap to assumptions about it.

I agree with you. Atheism isn't the right term for people who simply reject Theism. That's why there are terms like Deism, which rejects Theism but still believes in the existence of the aloof God.

And please read what I wrote. You don't agree with me, you've just misread me. I said that atheism is a poor term for people who claim absolute knowledge in the non-existence of God. The people that you think are "typical" atheists, but who you can't seem to find any evidence of.

That person's opinion was still valid, and they were still an atheist, no matter how badly you'd like to distance yourself from them.

That person's opinion was "valid" in the same way that any religious believers opinion is "valid." And, sure, they are in some sense an "atheist"--just as They also represent a minor fringe element in atheism which is quite unlike the majority position. Your belief that because some tiny percentage of atheists hold this position therefore all atheism is somehow "corrupted" by that belief is just as absurd as saying that because some theists believe that Jesus is the Son of God, therefore ALL theists must believe this.

 

[Yoink]

Wikipedia says I'm a "model agnostic" so you're just wrong here. Way to miscategorize. Maybe you should stop doing that.

Wikipedia's definition of a weak agnostic: "the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available."

Wikipedia's definition of a model agnostic: "A model agnostic would say "I don't know, but maybe it can be figured out.""

Yes, I see the startling difference between these positions.

By the way, don't tell wikipedia, but "model agnosticism" isn't actually a term from theology--it's from physics. Somebody's either yanking Wikipedia's chain or just got confused. If you go to the discussion page you'll see that somebody has pointed out that there's no substantive source for "model agnosticism"--I suspect that it will disappear from Wikipedia in the not too distant future. Maybe then you'll disappear in a puff of logic?

 

[Macoy]

The knowledge of the non-existence of god or lack of knowledge of god?

Where does knowledge and belief separate?

 

[Dogdoctor]

Atheism has nothing to do with religion.

Hmm perhaps in theory atheism has nothing to do with religion but most atheists are not ignorant of religion and have consciously considered and rejected religion.

 

[Apology]

Yes, and this is a discussion about which definitions are most useful. You can make an argument that the "believing God doesn't exist" definition is useful if you wish. So far, though, your only argument seems to be "if I call myself an atheist, people will think I'm that kind of atheist." That doesn't prove that it's a useful definition--indeed, it just seems to be more evidence that it isn't a very useful one.

No it's not. It's a discussion about whether atheism differs from agnosticism. I don't have a definition of atheism. There is no one mutually agreed-upon definition of atheism. Your definition tries to redefine agnosticism as a form of atheism, so I object to your definition.

The argument being advanced is that "atheist" can be used as a label for people and things regardless of states of consciousness. Therefore for you to say the term is "based on states of consciousness" is just begging the question. Again, you're clinging (desperately) to a definition of atheism which your interlocutors reject. That's just pointless.

I believe that the concept that people and things can accurately be labeled as atheists "regardless of states of consciousness" is a ludicrous concept. Rephrasing it into a more passive statement doesn't make it any more reasonable to me. One must still be conscious in order to believe or disbelieve.

Apparently you didn't read your own link here. This article does not say that that atheism "began as an irreligious philosophical group." Therefore it supports my rejection of your bizarre historical claim.

I admit I only skimmed it. I don't have a bone to pick with atheists' disagreements with each other. The only reason that strong atheism is relevant to me at all is that they strongly disagree with weak atheism. If you want to learn more about atheism, maybe you should study atheism a bit more deeply.

Seriously? You think atheism was invented by the atheist alliance? A group founded in 1991? Seriously?

By the way--you know how the atheist alliance defines atheism? You'll never guess:

That's right--they define it the same way that I do, and that all the other self-described atheists in this thread do. They DO NOT say that atheism involves a positive claim about the ABSENCE of God. So...care to try again?

Apparently you didn't read the wiki I posted. It said that the idea of atheism is as old as theism itself. That doesn't suggest that I think that atheism was created in 1991. If I'd have found a group of strong atheists from 1950 you would have said, "Yes, but people don't believe that any more."

Care to give an example of some? I've already agreed that such people exist--but they are marginal, and, as I've said, have more in common with theists than with most atheists.

Well, we've gotten somewhere from "atheists don't believe this" to "some of them do, but they're fringe groups."

Please, Apology, read things before you link to them. This linked page makes no claims ANYWHERE about the nonexistence of God. It makes claims that religious organizations have socially bad effects. That claim in no way depends upon the claim that the existence of god is impossible. There are plenty of theists who think that organized religion is bad, after all.

I think the headline "Why Strong Atheists are needed" pretty much says it all. Of course, their definition "An atheist is anyone who has no belief in any god" differs significantly from the weak atheist definition, "Anyone who lacks a belief in God." Under their definition, no atheist can have any belief in God, so weak Deists and agnostics are not Atheists.

You quit googling after you found a group whose definition of atheism is the same as mine, involves none of the claims that you believe to be characteristic of atheism, and does not premise its actions upon those claims. Yes, I can see why you thought that this would suffice.

Fine If you want to talk philosophy that neither of us believes in, here you go:

Holyoake: "Morality I regard, but I do not believe there is such a thing as a god." http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/roots/holyoake/ He went to jail because he didn't believe in God. He didn't say he "lacked belief". I like Holyoake, not because of his stance on religion, because he said this:


"I love the world in spite of its frowning moods. For years I have felt neither anger nor hatred of any living being, and I will not advisedly resuscitate those distorting passions through which we see the errors of each other as crimes."

From an article re: Culbert. L: Olson: "In his short recountings of this period of his life, he referred to his older brother, Emmet, who "shared his disbelief" and who, in fact, "became an Atheist himself." His father he described as "certainly . . . not orthodox in religion, and . . . not very much dedicated to religious activities." His other siblings "were not orthodox." Wikipedia said that Olson was a secularist, but this website claims him as an atheist:

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/roots/

If you look at the list on the right hand side of the page, a lot of those people are secularists or agnostics, not atheists. Since atheism now equals antitheism, they've been recategorized as atheist by atheists.org.

How about Michael Martin: "Keller's comments betray a misunderstanding concerning the structure of my argument and a failure to appreciate my strategy of using positive atheism as a fall-back position. The only way I can understand his perplexity is that he mistakenly interprets me to be making two categorical claims about the sentence "God does not exist (p)":

(a) p is neither true nor false.

(b) p is true.

If fact, however, I am making one categorical claim--albeit tentatively--and another hypothetical claim:

(a) p is neither true nor false

(c) If p is either true or false, then p is true.http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/meaningless.html

Herb Silverman attempts to explain himself to Unitarians: "Many atheists, however, are uncomfortable with the negative word, and not just because it's been demonized in our culture. It says what we don't believe, rather than what we do believe. After all, we don't go around calling ourselves A-Easterbunnyists or A-Tooth Fairyists. Other labels that some atheists prefer include humanist, secular humanist, agnostic, rationalist, freethinker, skeptic, and materialist. While there may be fine distinctions among these words, which most of us like to argue about, I think it comes down more to a matter of taste than to deep theological or philosophical differences. And I even know a number of atheists in this very church who proudly call themselves Unitarians." He is also a secularist but is claimed as an atheist by atheists.org.

This guy apparently believes that God doesn't exist: http://www.iamanatheist.com/arguments.html

I'm sure you can join him if you want. He also sees agnostics as a seperate group:

"An atheist may be someone who says that deities definitely don't exist, but an atheist can also be someone who just doesn't have reason to believe deities exist. I am the latter type of atheist. I don't say I can prove that God (for example) doesn't exist, but I have no reason to believe that He does.

An agnostic is someone who doesn't think that proof or disproof of the existence of a deity is possible (and personally may or may not believe such beings exist). Since I do not rule out the possibility of proof of a deity's existence, I'm not an agnostic.

I agree that nobody has proven or disproven the existence of a deity in a compelling way. And since the burden of proof is on those who say that deities exist, I'm an atheist."

I like this guy's style. He claims weak atheism but still sees a difference between weak atheism and agnosticism. What a guy.

Finally, please refer to these two articles, which explains the dichotomy much more eloquently than I can, particularly the first one:

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/definitions.html
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=atheist&defid=2652688&page=2

Again--please actually READ what they write, and don't just leap to assumptions about it.

You read it. You're the atheist. It's relevant to you, not to me. You're the one that needs to look into what the other atheists believe. I've talked to enough atheists and read enough about atheism to realize that there isn't one definition.

And please read what I wrote. You don't agree with me, you've just misread me. I said that atheism is a poor term for people who claim absolute knowledge in the non-existence of God. The people that you think are "typical" atheists, but who you can't seem to find any evidence of.

I never said they were "typical atheists". I said they exist, and they predate weak atheism.

That person's opinion was "valid" in the same way that any religious believers opinion is "valid." And, sure, they are in some sense an "atheist"--just as They also represent a minor fringe element in atheism which is quite unlike the majority position. Your belief that because some tiny percentage of atheists hold this position therefore all atheism is somehow "corrupted" by that belief is just as absurd as saying that because some theists believe that Jesus is the Son of God, therefore ALL theists must believe this.

You are not in a position to decide who's arguments are valid or invalid unless you can prove them wrong or find a provable fallacy in their argument.

 

[Mobyseven]

Does the term "deaf" not imply that someone should have had the ability to hear in the first place?

No. Babies can be born deaf, and animals that naturally lack the ability to 'hear' are also described as deaf.

Another swing and a miss.

Wikipedia says I'm a "model agnostic" so you're just wrong here. Way to miscategorize. Maybe you should stop doing that.

Argumentum ad Wikipedium. An interesting tactic, and one that has rather backfired on you - as Yoink has already pointed out.

Hmm perhaps in theory atheism has nothing to do with religion but most atheists are not ignorant of religion and have consciously considered and rejected religion.

I understand that. My point was that the opposite of 'atheism' isn't 'religion' - it's 'theism'.

It is perfectly possible to be an 'areligious theist', and it is also possible to be a 'religious atheist'. There is of course a high correlation between religiousity and theism, but one is not conditional on the other.

 

[Apology]

No. Babies can be born deaf, and animals that naturally lack the ability to 'hear' are also described as deaf.

Both had the potential to hear, but could not. Rocks never had that potential.

Argumentum ad Wikipedium. An interesting tactic, and one that has rather backfired on you - as Yoink has already pointed out.

Yoink miscategorized me using one dictionary definition. I disputed him by pointing out that there was another.

I understand that. My point was that the opposite of 'atheism' isn't 'religion' - it's 'theism'.

I simply disagree. I don't believe that the world can be sorted into two simple groups. I insist there must be at least three: Atheist, theist, and agnostic. If Claus wants to argue Deism should be a fourth group, that's his argument to make. I'd let Buddhists choose their own, since they're not uniformly theistic or atheistic. I can suggest a category for the Raelians who are atheists but believe in aliens: Lunatists. They're not required to accept that label, but it would help you distance yourself from atheist groups that believe in aliens, so you ought to be in favor of that one at least.

It is perfectly possible to be an 'areligious theist', and it is also possible to be a 'religious atheist'. There is of course a high correlation between religiousity and theism, but one is not conditional on the other.

How many religious atheists do you know? I don't know any. I'd be interested to see a website for a religious atheistic site. This is the first I've heard of them.

Unless you're talking about the Buddhists again. Then you're just trying to force Buddhism into the atheist/theist model by misinterpreting their religion.

 

[Yoink]

No it's not. It's a discussion about whether atheism differs from agnosticism. I don't have a definition of atheism. There is no one mutually agreed-upon definition of atheism. Your definition tries to redefine agnosticism as a form of atheism, so I object to your definition.

"It is not a discussiong about defintions! It's a discussion about how I object to your definition!"

I admit I only skimmed it. I don't have a bone to pick with atheists' disagreements with each other. The only reason that strong atheism is relevant to me at all is that they strongly disagree with weak atheism. If you want to learn more about atheism, maybe you should study atheism a bit more deeply.

I should study atheism more strongly because you are ignorant about its origins and didn't bother reading the article that you falsely thought supported your absurd claim that atheism was "invented" by some special "group" of philosophers?

Apparently you didn't read the wiki I posted. It said that the idea of atheism is as old as theism itself. That doesn't suggest that I think that atheism was created in 1991. If I'd have found a group of strong atheists from 1950 you would have said, "Yes, but people don't believe that any more."

You cited the Atheism Alliance as being the "group of philosphers" that invented atheism. Again, you seem to think that whenever you say something demonstrably false it is somehow evidence of my lack of research.

Well, we've gotten somewhere from "atheists don't believe this" to "some of them do, but they're fringe groups."

Yes, we got there somewhere back on page one of this thread. Again, I can't be responsible for your problems of reading comprehension.

I think the headline "Why Strong Atheists are needed" pretty much says it all.

That's hilarious. They're not using the term "strong atheists" in the technical philosophical sense you idiot. They're using it in the literal sense. Why atheists need to be a strong voice. Gah!

Of course, their definition "An atheist is anyone who has no belief in any god" differs significantly from the weak atheist definition, "Anyone who lacks a belief in God." Under their definition, no atheist can have any belief in God, so weak Deists and agnostics are not Atheists.

How does "lacks" differ significantly from "has no"? If I "lack" money it is because I "have no" money. You seem to be having more and more problems with simple English. There is absolutely no difference between those two statements.

Fine If you want to talk philosophy that neither of us believes in, here you go:

Holyoake: "Morality I regard, but I do not believe there is such a thing as a god." http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/roots/holyoake/ He went to jail because he didn't believe in God. He didn't say he "lacked belief".

Again, what is the difference between saying "I do not believe" and "I lack belief in"??? Saying "I do not believe in God" is NOT THE SAME THING as saying "I believe that there is not and must not be a God." Holyoake is an atheist in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as me and as the Atheist Alliance.

From an article re: Culbert. L: Olson: "In his short recountings of this period of his life, he referred to his older brother, Emmet, who "shared his disbelief" and who, in fact, "became an Atheist himself." His father he described as "certainly . . . not orthodox in religion, and . . . not very much dedicated to religious activities." His other siblings "were not orthodox." Wikipedia said that Olson was a secularist, but this website claims him as an atheist:

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/roots/

If you look at the list on the right hand side of the page, a lot of those people are secularists or agnostics, not atheists. Since atheism now equals antitheism, they've been recategorized as atheist by atheists.org.

So you can't quote anything about him at all that says whether or not he was a "strong atheist" or a "weak atheist." So how is this relevant?

How about Michael Martin: "Keller's comments betray a misunderstanding concerning the structure of my argument and a failure to appreciate my strategy of using positive atheism as a fall-back position. The only way I can understand his perplexity is that he mistakenly interprets me to be making two categorical claims about the sentence "God does not exist (p)":

(a) p is neither true nor false.

(b) p is true.

If fact, however, I am making one categorical claim--albeit tentatively--and another hypothetical claim:

(a) p is neither true nor false

(c) If p is either true or false, then p is true.http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/meaningless.html

Wow--you're really desperate now. He says of "c" that it is a "hypothetical claim" premised upon the uncertain possibility if p is "true or false." The most you get there is that he is saying that he doesn't know if God exists, but he thinks it probable that if it could be determined that God would turn out not to exist. Oh yes, "strong atheist" there.

Herb Silverman attempts to explain himself to Unitarians: "Many atheists, however, are uncomfortable with the negative word, and not just because it's been demonized in our culture. It says what we don't believe, rather than what we do believe. After all, we don't go around calling ourselves A-Easterbunnyists or A-Tooth Fairyists. Other labels that some atheists prefer include humanist, secular humanist, agnostic, rationalist, freethinker, skeptic, and materialist. While there may be fine distinctions among these words, which most of us like to argue about, I think it comes down more to a matter of taste than to deep theological or philosophical differences. And I even know a number of atheists in this very church who proudly call themselves Unitarians." He is also a secularist but is claimed as an atheist by atheists.org.

Again--there is no statement here of a positive "faith" in the nonexistence of God. What we "don't believe" is the same as "what we lack belief in." Many wild swings and misses here. Seriously--you can't find a single admitted "strong atheist"? And yet you are so sure that this is the "typical" atheist?

This guy apparently believes that God doesn't exist: http://www.iamanatheist.com/arguments.html

I'm sure you can join him if you want. He also sees agnostics as a seperate group:

"An atheist may be someone who says that deities definitely don't exist, but an atheist can also be someone who just doesn't have reason to believe deities exist. I am the latter type of atheist. I don't say I can prove that God (for example) doesn't exist, but I have no reason to believe that He does.

Dude--he flat out says that he is a "weak atheist": didn't you even read the very words you cut and pasted into your quotation? "An atheist can also be someone who just doesn't have reason to believe deities exist. I am the latter type of atheist." Maybe you just don't know what "latter" means? Look it up.

I never said they were "typical atheists". I said they exist, and they predate weak atheism.

You said that a special group of them invented atheism. Back in 1991, I believe it was. Turns out that after hours of googling you can't even find ONE "strong atheist."

You are not in a position to decide who's arguments are valid or invalid unless you can prove them wrong or find a provable fallacy in their argument.

Oh, I think I've demonstrated plenty of fallacies in your arguments, Apology.

 

[Apology]

"It is not a discussiong about defintions! It's a discussion about how I object to your definition!"


I should study atheism more strongly because you are ignorant about its origins and didn't bother reading the article that you falsely thought supported your absurd claim that atheism was "invented" by some special "group" of philosophers?


You cited the Atheism Alliance as being the "group of philosphers" that invented atheism. Again, you seem to think that whenever you say something demonstrably false it is somehow evidence of my lack of research.


Yes, we got there somewhere back on page one of this thread. Again, I can't be responsible for your problems of reading comprehension.


That's hilarious. They're not using the term "strong atheists" in the technical philosophical sense you idiot. They're using it in the literal sense. Why atheists need to be a strong voice. Gah!

How does "lacks" differ significantly from "has no"? If I "lack" money it is because I "have no" money. You seem to be having more and more problems with simple English. There is absolutely no difference between those two statements.

Again, what is the difference between saying "I do not believe" and "I lack belief in"??? Saying "I do not believe in God" is NOT THE SAME THING as saying "I believe that there is not and must not be a God." Holyoake is an atheist in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as me and as the Atheist Alliance.


So you can't quote anything about him at all that says whether or not he was a "strong atheist" or a "weak atheist." So how is this relevant?


Wow--you're really desperate now. He says of "c" that it is a "hypothetical claim" premised upon the uncertain possibility if p is "true or false." The most you get there is that he is saying that he doesn't know if God exists, but he thinks it probable that if it could be determined that God would turn out not to exist. Oh yes, "strong atheist" there.


Again--there is no statement here of a positive "faith" in the nonexistence of God. What we "don't believe" is the same as "what we lack belief in." Many wild swings and misses here. Seriously--you can't find a single admitted "strong atheist"? And yet you are so sure that this is the "typical" atheist?


Dude--he flat out says that he is a "weak atheist": didn't you even read the very words you cut and pasted into your quotation? "An atheist can also be someone who just doesn't have reason to believe deities exist. I am the latter type of atheist." Maybe you just don't know what "latter" means? Look it up.


You said that a special group of them invented atheism. Back in 1991, I believe it was. Turns out that after hours of googling you can't even find ONE "strong atheist."

Oh, I think I've demonstrated plenty of fallacies in your arguments, Apology.

I'm not going to bother responding to you any more. Since you can't make a civil argument, I think it's pointless to try. Your attitude is much worse than any disagreement I have with the message that you're trying to convey. I don't come here to be called an idiot, I come here to discuss things rationally. I will continue to do so with others who can maintain a civil bearing and attack the argument without attacking the arguer, but I don't feel a need to respond to you any longer. I'm not putting you on ignore; I'm doing it the old fashioned way by not responding to your posts any longer. I'm actually sorry it's come to this, since I've managed to agree to disagree with other atheists in this thread, but oh, no, that's not for you. Oh well.

 

[Egg]

How does "lacks" differ significantly from "has no"? If I "lack" money it is because I "have no" money. You seem to be having more and more problems with simple English. There is absolutely no difference between those two statements.

I've no idea if this affects your argument at all, but if you lack money, it can mean that you don't have enough, not necessarily no money. As in, "I lack the money I need to buy that car".

 

[Mobyseven]

Both had the potential to hear, but could not. Rocks never had that potential.

A newborn octopus has, "...the potential to hear..."? Mind explaining how that would happen, short of a drastic evolutionary change that would likely result in a new species?

Yoink miscategorized me using one dictionary definition. I disputed him by pointing out that there was another.

Actually, you cited a dictionary definition to support your argument. Yoink then cited another dictionary definition for the exact purpose of demonstrating to you that arguing from a dictionary definition is pointless. And so you went to Wikipedia to find another definition - but not only is this going right back to square one for you, you mistook a term used in physics for a theological term.

Yoink and I don't care what the dictionary says. We just wish that you'd stop using it to support your arguments as though it was the be all and end all of things.

I simply disagree. I don't believe that the world can be sorted into two simple groups. I insist there must be at least three: Atheist, theist, and agnostic. If Claus wants to argue Deism should be a fourth group, that's his argument to make. I'd let Buddhists choose their own, since they're not uniformly theistic or atheistic. I can suggest a category for the Raelians who are atheists but believe in aliens: Lunatists. They're not required to accept that label, but it would help you distance yourself from atheist groups that believe in aliens, so you ought to be in favor of that one at least.

I believe the world can be sorted into two simple groups in a number of ways. Male and not male. White and not white. Shorter than 100cm and not shorter than 100cm. Theist and not theist.

The fact that you don't like that the word that means "not theist" is "atheist" will not change it from being so. The fact that you don't like that there is a dichotomy will not turn a true dichotomy into a false one.

And I don't give two bits about the Raelians. Do they believe in god? No. So they're atheists - it doesn't stop them from also being complete nutcases.

How many religious atheists do you know? I don't know any. I'd be interested to see a website for a religious atheistic site. This is the first I've heard of them.

Unless you're talking about the Buddhists again. Then you're just trying to force Buddhism into the atheist/theist model by misinterpreting their religion.

Ugh. Would you kindly go out and actually do some research into Buddhism? Perhaps visit an ashram and talk to the people there?

Whether you like it or not, Buddhists can be theists or athiests. I personally know some atheist Buddhists. I also know some theist Buddhists. That you don't like this does not make it incorrect.

Confucianism is another system that, if one considers it a religion (it is often classed as a 'secular ethical system' rather than a religion, which somewhat seems to be talking around matters a bit) could contain both atheist adherents as well as theist adherents.

Put simply: You can be a religious atheist. Deal with it.