Does atheism differ from agnosticism?

[Trakar]

TShaitanaku,
I'm still curious about the order of affix precedence.

((a theos) ism) vs. (a (theos ism))

Can you point me to a reference?

Actually, I'm not sure that I can!

It was the manner I was taught with respect to both Latin and Greek, and is generally in line with mainstream concensus translations. Its the holiday season and I may have a little extra time for a project, I'll give a little look online and failing that, through my library, and see if I can't find something a little more definitive.

If I don't turn up more substantive support for my statement, I will gladly modify it to a position of "my understandings/considerations" and discuss/argue it on that basis.

 

[the PC apeman]

Actually, I'm not sure that I can!

It was the manner I was taught with respect to both Latin and Greek, and is generally in line with mainstream concensus translations. Its the holiday season and I may have a little extra time for a project, I'll give a little look online and failing that, through my library, and see if I can't find something a little more definitive.

If I don't turn up more substantive support for my statement, I will gladly modify it to a position of "my understandings/considerations" and discuss/argue it on that basis.

TShaitanaku,
I will not be at all surprised if you are exactly correct on the matter. I am genuinely curious. Anything you can find will be appreciated.

 

[Beth]

What if you switch out unicorns and replace it with witches? The existence of witches has been attested by numerous people throughout history and continues to be seriously asserted by many people throughout the world today. Does this make a belief in witches reasonable?

I know a few witches. Interesting ladies. Yes, I think belief in witches is quite reasonable. Now, I suppose you meant witchy powers, right? Like ESP, premonitions, magic potions, etc? Yes, those beliefs are more reasonable than belief in a teapot orbiting Saturn.

By the bye--I don't think a yes or no answer to this question helps shed any light at all on the issue at hand in this thread. That is, the point of this thread is not "is atheism more sensible than theism?" This thread is about whether "agnostic" is a useful or merely confusing term when discussing various possible positions that people may take up with regard to the question of the existence of god. The question of whether or not belief in god is "reasonable" seems to me to have absolutely no bearing on that issue.

I think it does. Agnostic is used to describe someone without a firm position on the existance of god. You want to divide everyone into one of two complementary groups. If you're a member of one, you're not in the other.

But no one can reliably determine what someone else believes regarding the existance of god. You have to depend on how people self-identify themselves. But not everyone knows into which group they ought belong. I don't. I have no firm conviction that any god exists. I kinda sorta lean towards deism or maybe pantheism or maybe....well, you get the picture. I think agnostic makes sense as the self-identification for those people who do not know which group they belong to.

 

[cafink]

That's right, no one has asked me, they're telling me what I am, in total disregard for my feelings on the issue or my actual beliefs or lack thereof. Frankly it's rude.

They're not doing it with disregard for your actual beliefs, they are doing it because of your beliefs. You have said, in this very thread, "I do not believe God exists." That makes you an atheist, by the definition of the word.

You can say that you're seven feet tall if you want, but don't be surprised if someone corrects you and tells you that you are not.

 

[qwert]

They're not doing it with disregard for your actual beliefs, they are doing it because of your beliefs. You have said, in this very thread, "I do not believe God exists." That makes you an atheist, by the definition of the word.

You can say that you're seven feet tall if you want, but don't be surprised if someone corrects you and tells you that you are not.

But the problem here is that many seem to be defining atheist very differently than is commonly accepted. It seems to defined here as "non-theist".

It is pretty clear Apology is an atheist by that definition. He's a non-theist, so THAT definition makes him an atheist.

However, as far as I can tell, the generally accepted definition is: "One who actively disbelieves in the existence of god" or "One who denies that god exists"

By that definition, Apology is obviously NOT an atheist.

IMHO, the statments "I do not believe in God" and "I believe that God does not exist" are NOT equivalent. One is an active belief, whereas the other is the denial of a belief. There seems to be a logical issue in that people are insisting that if I don't believe X then I must believe ~X.

The problem is, I can just withhold belief on either.

Take the question "Do you believe I am bald?" i.e. Hairism.

You can be a Hairist (believe I have hair). Yoiu can be an Ahairist (believe I DON'T have hair), or you can withhold judgement (believe neither pending further evidence).

Apology seems to fall into the latter camp (regarding god, not regarding hair ). I think his hair stance is up for debate...but by the definitions around here, that makes me an Aapologyhairist.

 

[cafink]

But the problem here is that many seem to be defining atheist very differently than is commonly accepted. It seems to defined here as "non-theist".

It is pretty clear Apology is an atheist by that definition. He's a non-theist, so THAT definition makes him an atheist.

However, as far as I can tell, the generally accepted definition is: "One who actively disbelieves in the existence of god" or "One who denies that god exists"

By that definition, Apology is obviously NOT an atheist.

Both believing that there is no god and not believing that there is a god are forms of atheism. The former is called "strong" atheism; the latter, "weak" atheism. Weak atheism is a kind of "catch-all" category for all forms of non-theism (except for strong atheism, of course). Apology is obviously not a strong atheist, but, according to his beliefs as he has outlined them in this thread, he is most definitely a weak atheist, whether he chooses to acknowledge it or not.

 

[Apology]

Both believing that there is no god and not believing that there is a god are forms of atheism. The former is called "strong" atheism; the latter, "weak" atheism. Weak atheism is a kind of "catch-all" category for all forms of non-theism (except for strong atheism, of course). Apology is obviously not a strong atheist, but, according to his beliefs as he has outlined them in this thread, he is most definitely a weak atheist, whether he chooses to acknowledge it or not.

You can play the definition game all you want. Rewriting the definition does not make Agnosticism cease to exist, nor change my opinion. Here's a few definitions of "Atheist":

1. athe·ist
Pronunciation:
\ˈā-thē-ist\
Function:
noun
Date:
1551

: one who believes that there is no deity

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

2. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
a·the·ist /ˈeɪθiɪst/
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

3.Atheism is the philosophy that there are no gods ("a" = without, "theos" = god)

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ATHEISM.html

You can call it "lack of belief in a deity" rather than "a belief in no deity" and dice it up into different shades of atheism all you want but I'm free to reject your re-re-redefinitions. "Weak Atheism" is "I don't know if there's a God or not, but I think there probably isn't." That is different from just not knowing. I'm honestly not sure what any of you are trying to prove. Agnosticism doesn't affect atheism until you start trying to force atheism on agnostics. Not knowing if there is a deity and not believing there is a deity are still two different kettles of fish. If you don't agree, too bad. The more you redefine, the more dangerously close you step to establishing dogma. That's why I don't play the redefinition game.

 

[Taffer]

You can call it "lack of belief in a deity" rather than "a belief in no deity" and dice it up into different shades of atheism all you want but I'm free to reject your re-re-redefinitions. "Weak Atheism" is "I don't know if there's a God or not, but I think there probably isn't." That is different from just not knowing. I'm honestly not sure what any of you are trying to prove. Agnosticism doesn't affect atheism until you start trying to force atheism on agnostics. Not knowing if there is a deity and not believing there is a deity are still two different kettles of fish. If you don't agree, too bad. The more you redefine, the more dangerously close you step to establishing dogma. That's why I don't play the redefinition game.

I'm afraid that philosophy of religion, as it was taught to me, made the distinction presented by cafink.

The difference comes because there is a difference between the following two logical statements:

Let B = Belief
Let G = God

B = ~G
~ (B = G)

The former is strong athiesm and the latter is weak atheism.

Oh, and by the way, agnocticism isn't limited to theistic arguments. Anyone can be agnostic, or not, about anything. Agnosticism is an epistemic statement. Namely "I do not have knowledge of a god" (weak agnosticism) and "It is impossible to have knowledge of a god" (strong agnosticism).

 

[cafink]

You can call it "lack of belief in a deity" rather than "a belief in no deity" and dice it up into different shades of atheism all you want but I'm free to reject your re-re-redefinitions. "Weak Atheism" is "I don't know if there's a God or not, but I think there probably isn't."

This is simply not correct.

Weak atheism is not the belief that there probably isn't a god, as you assert; rather, it is the absence of belief in a god. As you have repeatedly stated that you do not have a belief in a god, you are indeed a weak atheist, according to the definition of the term. No semantic games here; feel free to peruse any of the links below or conduct your own research on the subject since you obviously won't take my word for it.

"Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition, 'gods do not exist.' Weak atheism refers to any type of non-theism which falls short of this standard."

"Weak atheism...is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods."0

"Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the 'weak atheist' position..."

"Weak atheism is defined negatively as the absence of belief in God."

Not knowing if there is a deity and not believing there is a deity are still two different kettles of fish. If you don't agree, too bad.

Actually, I do agree. Whether one can know if god exists is an entirely different question than whether he happens to believe that god exists. The problem is that you are confusing the two questions. You have repeatedly been asked the latter, but continue supplying the answer to the former. Not knowing if there is a god and not believing that there is a god are two different things, but they are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Apology]

I'm afraid that philosophy of religion, as it was taught to me, made the distinction presented by cafink.

The difference comes because there is a difference between the following two logical statements:

Let B = Belief
Let G = God

B = ~G
~ (B = G)

The former is strong athiesm and the latter is weak atheism.

Oh, and by the way, agnocticism isn't limited to theistic arguments. Anyone can be agnostic, or not, about anything. Agnosticism is an epistemic statement. Namely "I do not have knowledge of a god" (weak agnosticism) and "It is impossible to have knowledge of a god" (strong agnosticism).

One of the principle proponents of the concept that agnosticism is the same as atheism was Antony Flew, who now says he's a theist. My philosophy of religion classes taught me that I didn't have to accept this concept or any labels that I didn't care to use. I like my classes better. They were less dogmatic.

If we redefined deism to say, "There may be a creator that keeps itself aloof from its creations, but you may lack a belief in any creator and still be a Deist," would you start calling yourself a deist because deism now incorporates some aspects of atheism? Or would you insist on still calling yourself an atheist, no matter what the deists said?

 

[H3LL]

Ah - I understand now. It's the teapot around Saturn argument - can you disprove anything? Does anything have a 0% probability?

That said, I agree the evidence is to put the probability so low that for all intents and purposes we may discard the concept, and I think that is what most people that identify as "atheist" actually do.

You managed to put all my waffle into a couple of paragraphs.

Annoying, but yes, that's just about what I meant.

.

 

[cafink]

One of the principle proponents of the concept that agnosticism is the same as atheism was Antony Flew, who now says he's a theist. My philosophy of religion classes taught me that I didn't have to accept this concept or any labels that I didn't care to use. I like my classes better. They were less dogmatic.

It is not "dogmatic" to use words according to their actual, accepted definition. That you "don't care to use" the label of "atheist" has no bearing on whether or not you actually are an atheist. That you lack belief in god does.

If we redefined deism to say, "There may be a creator that keeps itself aloof from its creations, but you may lack a belief in any creator and still be a Deist," would you start calling yourself a deist because deism now incorporates some aspects of atheism? Or would you insist on still calling yourself an atheist, no matter what the deists said?

I would call myself whatever words were appropriate per their definition. Deism, as it is currently defined, does not describe my beliefs, but if it were somehow re-defined to include a lack of belief in god, then yes, I would call myself a deist. I would continue to call myself an atheist, as well, because that word fits, too. It doesn't have to be one or the other--you can be agnostic on the question of whether or not we can know that god exists, and also be atheist in that you do not have a positive belief in any god.

 

[Taffer]

One of the principle proponents of the concept that agnosticism is the same as atheism was Antony Flew, who now says he's a theist. My philosophy of religion classes taught me that I didn't have to accept this concept or any labels that I didn't care to use. I like my classes better. They were less dogmatic.

It is not a matter of dogma. It is a matter of commonly accepted definition. You may call yourself whatever you wish, as long as you properly define your terms. I have done so, as is most commonly accepted in philosophy.

If we redefined deism to say, "There may be a creator that keeps itself aloof from its creations, but you may lack a belief in any creator and still be a Deist," would you start calling yourself a deist because deism now incorporates some aspects of atheism? Or would you insist on still calling yourself an atheist, no matter what the deists said?

As cafink says, I will call myself whatever is appropriate per the definition of the words. I have no problem being a deist if deism accurately describes my viewpoint.

 

[Apology]

It is not "dogmatic" to use words according to their actual, accepted definition. That you "don't care to use" the label of "atheist" has no bearing on whether or not you actually are an atheist. That you lack belief in god does.



I would call myself whatever words were appropriate per their definition. Deism, as it is currently defined, does not describe my beliefs, but if it were somehow re-defined to include a lack of belief in god, then yes, I would call myself a deist. I would continue to call myself an atheist, as well. It doesn't have to be one or the other--you can be agnostic on the question of whether or not we can know that god exists, and also be atheist in that you do not have a positive belief in any god.

You're using atheism as a catchall term for all non-theistic beliefs. I think Buddhists would object to being called atheists more than agnostics do. I gave you three definitions of atheism in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3177825&postcount=187

Please tell me which one is the "actual, accepted definition" and by whom it is accepted. Please remember that you're speaking for all atheism when you do this. If that's not dogmatic, then what is? Here's the definition of dogmatic, courtesy Webster's:

1 : characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts <a dogmatic critic>

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

I would have no argument with atheism if it weren't for the other claims I'm also expected to accept without question along with atheism, such as atheist babies and agnosticism's non-existence. None of this is inherent in the definition of atheism. It is just insisted upon by some of its proponents.

I would never let someone else's new definitions change my own beliefs They can call themselves agnostic if they want, but that doesn't mean I have to take on their name.

I also don't "lack a belief in God." I just don't know if there is a God or not, so I don't know if I should believe in one or not. When I know if there's a God or not, I'll know whether or not I should believe in it, won't I? That's why I keep saying I'm not an atheist.

 

[Taffer]

We are not saying the accepted definition of atheism should change your view. We just ask that we all use the same definition when having a discussion.

Philosophy defines atheism as literally "without theism". Agnosticism is defined as, literally, "without gnosticism". Agnosticism quite simply is not the same as atheism, as it deals with epistemology. Atheism, on the other hand, does not.

 

[Taffer]

I also don't "lack a belief in God." I just don't know if there is a God or not, so I don't know if I should believe in one or not. When I know if there's a God or not, I'll know whether or not I should believe in it, won't I? That's why I keep saying I'm not an atheist.

Yet again, lacking a belief in a god is exactly what you are doing! Atheism means, literally, without a belief in a god. Anyone who does not have a belief in a god is an atheist by definition. One can be agnostic and atheistic. You, it appears, are both, but the very definition of the words. Why are you so against being called an atheist? You appear to belief exactly what atheism entails. Quite simply, you do not have a belief in god, therefore you are an atheist.

 

[cafink]

I also don't "lack a belief in God." I just don't know if there is a God or not, so I don't know if I should believe in one or not. When I know if there's a God or not, I'll know whether or not I should believe in it, won't I? That's why I keep saying I'm not an atheist.

It seems to me that you are confusing disbelief with lack of belief. Because you don't know for sure whether there's a god or not, you have sensibly chosen neither belief nor disbelief. Because you have not chosen belief, you lack belief by definition. To have not chosen belief is precisely what is meant by "lack of belief," which you have, and which is distinct from disbelief, which you do not have.

 

[Yoink]

But the problem here is that many seem to be defining atheist very differently than is commonly accepted. It seems to defined here as "non-theist".

It is pretty clear Apology is an atheist by that definition. He's a non-theist, so THAT definition makes him an atheist.

However, as far as I can tell, the generally accepted definition is: "One who actively disbelieves in the existence of god" or "One who denies that god exists"

Yes, I pointed this out in the OP. My whole point, however, is that "strong atheism" is an absurd position. It makes a positive claim about something for which by definition it cannot have evidence. To say "I know for a fact that a god who gives no evidence of his existence cannot exist" is an inherently absurd claim. Thus we're left with only one valid and coherent kind of atheism (weak atheism), and this cannot be usefully and coherently separated from "agnosticism." Given that "agnosticism," then is either a redundant term (if it just means "weak atheism"--or, I would say "valid atheism") OR a merely unhelpful term (if it is defined in such a way as to include ALL atheists and MOST theists) I propose that we abandon it.

I do realize (and stated in my OP) that atheism is often used in such a way that it is very distinct from agnosticism. My claim is that when it is used in that way it describes an incoherent position.

 

[Yoink]

I know a few witches. Interesting ladies. Yes, I think belief in witches is quite reasonable. Now, I suppose you meant witchy powers, right? Like ESP, premonitions, magic potions, etc? Yes, those beliefs are more reasonable than belief in a teapot orbiting Saturn.

That wasn't the comparison I cared about. Is belief in religion more or less reasonable that belief in "witchy powers"?

I think it does. Agnostic is used to describe someone without a firm position on the existance of god. You want to divide everyone into one of two complementary groups. If you're a member of one, you're not in the other.

Yes, I want terms that actually define positions, rather than terms that simply confuse people.

But no one can reliably determine what someone else believes regarding the existance of god. You have to depend on how people self-identify themselves. But not everyone knows into which group they ought belong. I don't. I have no firm conviction that any god exists. I kinda sorta lean towards deism or maybe pantheism or maybe....well, you get the picture. I think agnostic makes sense as the self-identification for those people who do not know which group they belong to.

But how people "self-identify" is no help at all if the terms they use can't be adequately defined. If person A says "I'm a theist--I don't believe in the existence of any god" and person B says "I'm an agnostic--I believe in the divinity of Jesus" then someone is simply confused. I don't see what is wrong with saying that you, by your description, are an atheist who hopes for evidence of a deist or pantheist god.

 

[Btodd]

I also don't "lack a belief in God." I just don't know if there is a God or not, so I don't know if I should believe in one or not. When I know if there's a God or not, I'll know whether or not I should believe in it, won't I? That's why I keep saying I'm not an atheist.

You're still confusing knowledge with belief. Is there any instance where you could know there's a God, but still not believe in Him? I don't see how that's even logically possible.

It really is this simple: If you cannot say, "I believe in a God", then you are an atheist. You appear to be a weak atheist who doesn't want the label. That's fine if you want to change the labels, but you should understand why many people object.

It's not about recruitment to the cause (haha), but adhering to the definitions.