Agnosticism is not Athiesm

Esmereldina

HealingBlight wrote:

I've hade the idea, since I was about 16, that god is really just a subjective title much akin to 'King' and that there is nothing really that would ever make a being god except for the worshipers behind it and the amount brute force it can muster to perpetuate and maintain said idea? In essence, just like no 'true' king can seem to exist, would such be the case that no 'true' god can either?

o.o;

I think that something like this was the idea behind 'Small Gods' by Terry Pratchett... I read it about 4 years ago so I only have a very vague memory of it, but it was definitely an amusing take on religion and the way that people worship gods ...

Esmereldina

sorry if that was slightly off topic... I should get myself to the literature forum!

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

Hang on - so you're defining the God you don't believe in yourself? Doesn't that necessarily make your atheism a personal statement of belief rather than a statement of non-belief? As in "I don't believe in this God that I define thus (however you define God)" rather than "I have no belief in Gods, however defined".

But before you can say you disbelieve, or have a lack or belief, or even believe, you have to define what it is you're talking about. I'm simply saying that the definition at the centre of the argument is somewhat subjective.

Anyhoo I'm off on my Christmas party.

nesf

The Atheist wrote:

nesf, I understand that you don't wish to have atheism defines from an etymological view, but what definition would you give it?

Its actual definition from usage, that being its lexical defintion. The etymological fallacy is someone saying that word X should be defined as Y not it's usual/majority/lexical definition Z because the etymology of X appears to be Y. Where a word comes from does not necessarily indicate how it should be used.

The Atheist wrote:

You told me recently that atheism is closer to theism than agnosticism, does that mean you believe that real atheists know there is no god(s) with the same certainty that devout theists know there is?

I said, or at least meant to say, that atheism is as far from agnosticism as theism is. I didn't mean to say that atheism is closer to theism than agnosticism.

The Atheist wrote:

Can a definition evolve? Perhaps the Oxford dictionary defintions are as they are because it has become accepted that a hardline atheist approach is as untenable as a theist approach.

A definition can most definitely evolve (The Shorter Oxford Dictionary is great since it lists meanings since the 17 century so you can see how meanings changed or fell out of use and so on) however this takes time and to reject a lexical definition in general discussion is intellectually dishonest. If you want to present an argument where you clearly define beforehand that atheism means lack of belief within the context of this argument then that's perfectly valid in my eyes.

But if you decide to have a general discussion or speak generally on the topic then it is intellectually dishonest to stray from the accepted lexical meaning of the word atheist while making a point or argument. If we aren't all working off the same meanings for words how are we meant to communicate?

pH

nesf wrote:

The other side of it is that the a- prefix in greek indicates negation. The negation of theism, defined as the belief in a God or gods, would be disbelief, not the lack of it. See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

The a- prefix can also just as validly mean 'without' in Greek, so atheism can equally mean lack of belief, many use it in that context all the time.

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

[edited to add]I see you rethought that and removed it in your edit

nesf

pH wrote:

The a- prefix can also just as validly mean 'without' in Greek, so atheism can equally mean lack of belief, many use it in that context all the time.

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

[edited to add]I see you rethought that and removed it in your edit

I removed it because I didn't want to get turn this into an argument about greek prefixes. I thought about clarifying what I meant originally but decided that it wasn't really that relevant to what I was saying and would distract from my actual argument. But since you caught me...

My point was that the etymology is ambigious in that it can mean the negation of theism or without theism both would appear to be equally valid if this is the only point of reference that we have. However we have another point of reference in the lexical definitions which take the a- prefix to mean negation in this context and this removes the ambiguity. It seems intially plausable to argue that a- means without in this context, but when you look at the other points of reference beyond the etymology it is no longer plausable.

SonOfPerdition

The Atheist wrote:

Except there's nothing simple about the definition of "god". In my experience that's usually where the disagreement comes about.

I missed this the first time around. Guess it's basically what i'm pondering over at the moment.

Is the personal definition of god(s) held by a single individual, no matter how strange that definition is, is it a valid definition? If not, why not?

lostexpectation

HealingBlight wrote:

I've hade the idea, since I was about 16, that god is really just a subjective title much akin to 'King' and that there is nothing really that would ever make a being god except for the worshipers behind it and the amount brute force it can muster to perpetuate and maintain said idea? In essence, just like no 'true' king can seem to exist, would such be the case that no 'true' god can either?

Then I guess that would make me apathetically agnostic, as well as atheist. I still lack a belief in the existence of god, of course the difficulty comes with, in respect to the title idea, if one asks if I were to believe that a theist has a god, or if a subject has a king. These, it would seem would really only amount to the existence pseudogods or pesudokings.

yeah im mean how many people belive in god and how many believe in religion.

is that deism?

its make you more athiest if you don't believe in the function of religions, most people I think don't believe in bearded man but the idea of the divine, the idea of purpose and meaning and way of life.


wht's the word for a-religious
I didn't suggest the bisexuals are more prone to fidelity, it was just the ol joke that they cheat by being able to be involved with both sexes, of course you knew that.

Zillah

SonOfPerdition wrote:

What if someone's definition of God is "The process that created the 'something' that eventually led to my existence."

'something' being the universe if we believe our senses.
Then,whatever created our universe or the cause that created it .... *IT* can labeled as "God".

Definitions such as the above render the word "God" completely useless. We may as well say "X". God implies an intelligence, an entity, self aware in the same manner as a human, or more.

Definitions of God that fail to include that have successfully defined themsevles out of existence; we're back to "x".

SonOfPerdition

Zillah wrote:

Definitions such as the above render the word "God" completely useless. We may as well say "X". God implies an intelligence, an entity, self aware in the same manner as a human, or more.

Definitions of God that fail to include that have successfully defined themsevles out of existence; we're back to "x".

OK,.... so you are saying the discussion of God in regards to atheism must be a sentient god?

Would you hold the same view of Pandeism? Is pandeism just as useless as a discussion for atheists? i know in this case it was a sentient God, but it would appear to me that such a discussion of pandeism would be equally as useless for you.

hmmm .. i must think on this further .. to be honest i'm just voicing some of the thoughts churning around in my head. I'm not sure if i agree or disagree with you.

and apologies if i don't make sense, i rarely make sense to myslef.

Dades

SonOfPerdition wrote:

OK,.... so you are saying the discussion of God in regards to atheism must be a sentient god?

Frankly, yes. Otherwise we could be talking about space dust, the wind or a cup of hot tea.

SonOfPerdition wrote:

Would you hold the same view of Pandeism? Is pandeism just as useless as a discussion for atheists? i know in this case it was a sentient God, but it would appear to me that such a discussion of pandeism would be equally as useless for you.

Well pandeism is a belief in a specific incarnation of "god". At least it is defined in some fashion. That way you can either subscribe to it or not.

Tar.Aldarion

Scofflaw wrote:

Alatrism = non-worship.

Describes me every day of the week, whether I'm feeling assertively atheist or assertively agnostic. Covers my position with respect to all known gods.

repetitively,
Scofflaw

Well this is also me, an alatrist.
A question though, with alatrism, nothing can be a god to us, nothing can satisfy the requirements of being a god to us, therefore a god can not exist.
You see, a god can exist to satisfy other peoples definitions of one, which is why I was agnostic, but nothing can exist that I would deem a god/worship etc.
Does this make us inherently atheistic or agnostic as a 'god' can exist by a definition?

Zillah

SonOfPerdition wrote:

OK,.... so you are saying the discussion of God in regards to atheism must be a sentient god?

What is a non-sentient God other than a completely normal thing that just happens to have been really really badly renamed?

Like the ficitonal second moon of Earth? Its now what I call God. Is someone an Atheist if they don't believe in Luna 2?

Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Well this is also me, an alatrist.
A question though, with alatrism, nothing can be a god to us, nothing can satisfy the requirements of being a god to us, therefore a god can not exist.
You see, a god can exist to satisfy other peoples definitions of one, which is why I was agnostic, but nothing can exist that I would deem a god/worship etc.
Does this make us inherently atheistic or agnostic as a 'god' can exist by a definition?

I know what you mean - it seems terribly solipsistic to simply determine by ourselves that no gods can exist, when it is clear that other people believe they do - the atheist position.

Yet at the same time we are admitting that gods certainly seem to exist to other people, and these people may or may not be right for themselves - the agnostic position.

I would say the alatrist is closer to the agnostic - taking a few thought-experiment examples:

1. the Biblical literalist's God - this would be, say, Brian's God. I accept that he is Brian's god insofar as Brian worships him, and I can see why Brian worships him, given the very unpleasant penalties claimed for not doing so - but I wouldn't worship him myself, and don't believe he's real anyway (at the very least he's been dead or missing for a couple of thousand years). The only proof for him is a badly-written, contradictory text of uncertain provenance and meaning, which shows every sign of tampering. I consider Brian deluded, and am atheist about his god..

2. the deist God - a being so vague as to mean almost anything, but in general considered to be benevolent. I accept that this is, say, John's God insofar as John worships him, although I can't really see why he bothers, since such a God is likely no more aware of his worship than an elephant would be of a particularly respectful gut microbe. His God is non-falsifiable. I regard John as wanting to be a better person, needing a reason for doing so, and slapping a humanoid face over the top of it to give himself a personal trainer - one that cannot be dispelled by logic. I consider John harmless and am agnostic about his god.

3. the personal God - something I would not usually consider to fall under the heading of deity at all, but that is worshipped as such by, say, Steve. It might be another person, or an idol, or a corporation, or a monarch, or anything else which I can clearly state that Steve treats as holy and passes responsibility for his life over to. I consider Steve weird, and am atheist about his god.

So I, at least, would be atheist about some gods, and agnostic about others - a case-by-case basis. I'm happy with that - essentially, I cobbled together 'alatrist' because neither atheist nor agnostic was entirely applicable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion

Ah yes that will do, poor weird steve.
The three examples you use, are how I feel about them.
1)Atheistic towards any 'Earthly' religion.
2)Agnostic to something that could be considered by a lot of people to exist and be a god, benevolant or otherwise.
Like superman, but more powerful. We'll call them the ancients.
3) I will call 3 the Significant Other.

Now, for one and two, I can be athiestic/agnostic towards their gods but even if one or the other exists it does not make it a god to me. That meaning, I am atheistic towards any 'god' with 'god' being a namby-pamby terma s it can not exist for me.
Therefore I would say to myself I am an alatrist, a handy way to describe it.
An atheist because a god can't exist to me, but to another person an agnostic, because I believe their god(Number 2.) could exist under their definition of a god.

Asiaprod

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

An atheist because a god can't exist to me, but to another person an agnostic, because I believe their god(Number 2.) could exist under their definition of a god.

Nicely put. I would prefer this amendment to the latter:
because I believe their god(Number 2.) could exist, to them, under their definition of a god.

Dades

I kind of concur. Although number 2 does leave itself open to abuse of the system...

Tar.Aldarion

Asiaprod wrote:

Nicely put. I would prefer this amendment to the latter:
because I believe their god(Number 2.) could exist, to them, under their definition of a god.

I didn't put that in, because if it exists, it exists to me too.
The only difference being that it is a god under their definition, not under mine.

I kind of concur. Although number 2 does leave itself open to abuse of the system...

But...but..malevolant gods are the best ones!

pH

the entry under GOD in the Guide to Humanistic Judaism wrote:

After Kant, theology shifted its emphasis from proofs to the religious
experience, the experience of God as a psychological phenomenon.
Ultimately, theology degenerated into discussions about the "need to
believe." God was no longer an objective being with an independent
existence. He became a subjective being, a convenient illusion for people
who could not bear to live without him.

As a just Supreme Being became less credible, theology turned to redefining
the word God. God became nature, love, goodness, positive power. The
motivation for this redefinition is questionable. If God refers to a unique
supernatural being, then the need for the word is obvious. But if God refers
to powers and values for which other terms exist, then the usefulness of the
word God is doubtful. If God is love, why not simply use the word love? If
God is nature, why not use the word nature? Most modern theology is an
intellectual version of the "emperor's clothing" -- words without real
meaning.

http://home.teleport.com/~hellman/archive/whoisgod.shj

I think that folks seem to get confused in these arguments, they end up defining God in a wishy-washy way, but still are convinced that belief or not in God matters (thinking about God as a more traditional biblical God).

If God created us, gave us a soul and everlasting life, loves us and wants us to follow his rules, then whether I believe or not in such an entity is genuinely important. My eternal soul could be at risk, there's more to life that the 70 odd years we get on this planet.

If however your God is something more vague, something that may have created everything but hasn't revealed himself here on earth, nor has he given us souls, nor does he have any requirements for our behaviour, then surely belief, non-belief or a philosophical position of 'unprovable' are all equal. Neither one makes any difference to our lives here on earth.

The God doesn't require worship, nor does he expect us to live by any standards, nothing exists after death, so a believer and a non-believer both live life in exactly the same way. Being agnostic to such a 'God' seems to be an obscure and contrary position, one of intellectual snobbery, the sole purpose for which seems to be 'clever' philosophical debate.

Dades

Good points pH.

For the definition of either atheism or agnosticism to have any relevance, it must relate to something tangible. Or at least that's how I read it...

Zillah

pH wrote:

The God doesn't require worship, nor does he expect us to live by any standards, nothing exists after death

I think thats the point at which you diverge from most people's views. Those who subscribe to a wishy washy God tend to subscribe to an equally wishy washy afterlife.

pH

From a yesterday's Independent.

The A-Z of Atheism

Agnostic Those who neither affirm nor deny the existence of a creator, a creative cause or an unseen world, believing them either unknown or unknowable. See also: Wanting all the options


The rest is not bad too.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2074321.ece

Valmont

Before reading the athiesm/agnosticism forum, I considered myself an athiest. Then after reading the 'most logical belief' thread, I think I jumped ships but then I wasn't sure and now this alatrist 'non-worship' thing seems good but I think I'll just consider myself as standing to the side for the whole religion god thing.

I go about my day to day business for all manners and purposes as someone who does not believe in a God/Gods. I don't follow a religion, I don't fear any reprisals from a higher power for anything bad I might have done. I don't really buy the whole creationism thing. So looking at my behaviour, I would consider myself as someone who is pretty sure that God doesn't exist but I don't deny the existence of God and I agree with the agnostic viewpoint.

Basically I don't have a clue what to ism I am after reading the various arguments for each one here (very clever arguments at that) but I know for sure that I am a 100% non-worshipper.

I think it is important that we don't lose sight of the fact that despite our isms we are all (I think) non-worshippers.

I really enjoy the technical debates here and I always follow them with interest even though I get rather confused at times.:D

Tar.Aldarion

Alatrist +1.

Dades

Valmont wrote:

Basically I don't have a clue what to ism I am after reading the various arguments for each one here (very clever arguments at that) but I know for sure that I am a 100% non-worshipper.

Well said. Comments that are written and the arguments that are made here don't change what any of us believe. They just fuel the "labelling" debate, which is what we're left with in the absence of a god.

bonkey

pH wrote:

From a yesterday's Independent.

The A-Z of Atheism

Agnostic Those who neither affirm nor deny the existence of a creator, a creative cause or an unseen world, believing them either unknown or unknowable. See also: Wanting all the options


The rest is not bad too.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2074321.ece

I'm perpetually amused and oft-times amazed by the presistent negative light in which agnostics are cast in.

It would seem to me that theist and atheist alike generally join in agreement about agnostics, with said agreement generally being in the "bloody fence-sitters" direction.

I've thought about this quite a lot and can only come up with one conclusion:

For the vast majority taking part in the debate, it is more important to show the otehr side to be wrong than to make a compelling case for one's own correctness. After all, its apparently a binary situation, right? Either there is, or is not, a God. And if we can amke a compelling argument as to why the other side is wrong, then we must be correct by default.

Theists explain calmly and rationally why those atheists have missed the point. Atheistrs, likewise, concentrate more on explaining why theism makes no sense than on why atheism is correct.

Unfortunately, agnosticism isn't open to this line of attack. How can you argue that one is wrong to say "its ultimately unproven" when, well, it is ultimately unproven? One can't....so a different line of attack is needed.

The result? Don't even try and explain why agnosticism is wrong...just make it out to be a non-position...the weak fence-sitter who wants to believe in both sides.

I find it strange. If there are two competing hypotheses about something in science, but neither has reached the status of theory, it is not considered a poor, weak, wants-both-to-be-true stance to simply admit that the jury is still out and that the answer is as yet unknown. But move into the realm of discussing theism/atheism, and all of a sudden its a bad thing to say that the jury is out.

pH

bonkey wrote:

I'm perpetually amused and oft-times amazed by the presistent negative light in which agnostics are cast in.

It would seem to me that theist and atheist alike generally join in agreement about agnostics, with said agreement generally being in the "bloody fence-sitters" direction.

I've thought about this quite a lot and can only come up with one conclusion:

For the vast majority taking part in the debate, it is more important to show the otehr side to be wrong than to make a compelling case for one's own correctness. After all, its apparently a binary situation, right? Either there is, or is not, a God. And if we can amke a compelling argument as to why the other side is wrong, then we must be correct by default.

Personally, I find the agnostic argument, as proposed by Huxley, unintelligible and ultimately very uninteresting. I also consider it useless as a term as it covers both the wishy-washy theists who are in two minds about their beliefs, and those who are clearly atheists but due to being enamoured with arguing and philosophy will argue the position all night.

The other side to this is if you view this all as a philosophical debate or more a court of public opinion.

Dawkins has found that this is NOT a debate, and I think this is the central confusion that the OP has. Humour, satire and personal attacks are not part of a structured philosophical debate, but are very much part of the war in changing public opinion. Tearing up and mocking your opponents cherished beliefs are very much fair game, and a valid technique (used by all sides).

So I guess what I'm saying is that this isn't a debate with rules where the philosophers in here can smugly say 'Ooh, Ad-hominen', tut tut and shake their heads knowingly.

You can see from politics today that sound-bites do work. No one wants long winded polemics, it's all about 'Read my lips - no more taxes' and 'Governerators'. This is the world the fence-sitter comments come from.

bonkey

pH wrote:

Personally, I find the agnostic argument, as proposed by Huxley, unintelligible and ultimately very uninteresting.

So "uninteresting" is more of a reason to attack and denigrate a position than "wrong"? I ask because both a theist and atheist should agree that the agnostic is wrong...but you don't see agnosticism often attacked for being wrong, but merely for being anything but wrong.

I also consider it useless as a term as it covers both the wishy-washy theists who are in two minds about their beliefs, and those who are clearly atheists but due to being enamoured with arguing and philosophy will argue the position all night.

Theist covers sheep who believe because its they were raised that way and have never questioned anything, as well as those who've genuinely questioned their beliefs, educated themselves on the issues, and come up with the answer that they feel is correct for them.

Atheist is also no different. It covers those who reject the existence God for the most trivial, ill-though-out reasons, just as much as those who hold an informed, reasoned position.

Surely this should mean that theist and atheist are equally useless as terms?

The other side to this is if you view this all as a philosophical debate or more a court of public opinion.

Dawkins has found that this is NOT a debate, and I think this is the central confusion that the OP has.

I agree that its not a debate. Thats fundamentally why agnosticism just gets the backhanded denigration.

Humour, satire and personal attacks are not part of a structured philosophical debate, but are very much part of the war in changing public opinion. Tearing up and mocking your opponents cherished beliefs are very much fair game, and a valid technique (used by all sides).

With respect, I don't believe they are used by all sides. Agnostics tend not to get involved in this self-aggrandized war for public opinion, particularly not in telling either side that they are fundamentally wrong (given that their position prevents them from saying this)

You can see from politics today that sound-bites do work. No one wants long winded polemics, it's all about 'Read my lips - no more taxes' and 'Governerators'. This is the world the fence-sitter comments come from.

Indeed - the world where fact is less important than perception. The type of world that allows a religious perspective to effectively challenge a scientific one....on science's turf.

Its just funny to see the atheists embracing this notion, whilst fundamentally arguing that the entire issue is one where fact should trump perception, where rationality is king.

Do as I say...not as I do, eh?

In my opinion, the current groundswell of more vocal atheism is not significantly taking any "believers" from the religious field. Rather, it is simply gaining support from those who may have been nominally religious but in reality atheist up to now. The increased vocalness of the debate, if anything, is merely entrenching sides rather than really convincing anyone.

I believe that if it really is a battle to win public opinion, the battle will be won by those who find a new strategy, rather than those who rely on the tired old "soundbitism" that is admittedly fun but ultimately of limited effect.

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

The result? Don't even try and explain why agnosticism is wrong...just make it out to be a non-position...the weak fence-sitter who wants to believe in both sides.

It is a non-position.

The only issue I have with agnostics is why do agnositics take this non-position with the question of God yet most seem perfectly happly take certain positions towards equally unprovable events hundreds of times a day with little after taught (eg a train is not going to fall on my head).

An agnostic rarely goes through life being agnostic to anything other than God, otherwise they would probably go insane

We make judgements every mintue about what we accept and what we don't accept. The question of if what we accept can be scientifically shown to be true to a high standard is normally something to consider only after the inital decision has been made. Our decision might be wrong, or might evolve, but I know of no one who refuses to make a decision at all in the first place, either way, until after they have been presented with proof something will or will not happen ("I'm not leaving my house until I know for certain I will not be shot in my garden").

I'm an atheist. My position might be wrong, but I've make a judgement given the question. I personally feel it is quite a well thought out judgement. But the important factor is that it is not a judgement that I hold with any greater significance or weight than the judgement that my bus will eventually come tonight, or that when I get home my housemate will probably be out with her boyfriend. I might be wrong about all these judgements at all, but its not like I'm refusing to make them until I have checked with Dublin Bus, or rang my house mate.

It just seems a bizare position to take, and I don't really understand why the question of God is so special to warrent such a strict logical approach that is not used in any other area of personal belief. It is almost as if the agnoistic is saying "Oh my, this is such an important decision! What if I pick atheism and I'm wrong!"

Agnostics don't walk around refusing to make a judgements on everything unprovable, just God. Which is fair enough, I don't have any real problem with someone doing that. But it does seem a little strange, and where the idea that both atheists and theists feel agnositics are simply hedging their bets. To me the question "Why are you agnoistic?" seems more interesting that "Is there a god?"

Valmont

Always a fan of Wicknights shrewdness:D