Atheism and/or Agnosticism

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

That sounds more like a redefinition to me. If we look literally at the structure of the word atheism. Theism evidently being the belief in a God or gods, and "a" generally being used to indicate a lack of, atheism would most likely be the lack of theism.

Comes from the Greek privative ἀ and the word θεός, translated exactly as "absence of/lack of/not" + "god", with adjectives and the rest formed as usual in English. I'm defining the word in the context of the other adjectives, since the word on its own is so imprecise that it's not really very useful. Plenty of other people use these definitions in broad terms too -- see the wiki page on weak and strong atheism. (I'm ignoring the implicit/explicit categorization for the sake of simplicity.)

Jakkass wrote: »

I prefer to stick to a definition that is more apt to the word than to digress into redefining words to fit particular arguments or circumstances.

You're certainly free to use the word "atheism" in any way you like, but if you choose to define and use it in a way that's used by almost nobody else, you shouldn't expect to be understood all that often -- best of luck!

.

philologos

robindch's definition only seems perfect as it has been elaborated on to suit the argument that Christians are infact atheists about many gods. It doesn't really cut it. If I was defining democracy, I would find the most rigid way of defining it and the most apt to be looking at the Greek word demokratia split up of the words demos = people, and kratia = power. Other people could redefine it for themselves, but to get to the core of the issue people power seems to sum it up the best.

Atheists have consistently defined atheism as the lack of theism, or a belief in God or gods so I would see that as being a definition that conforms to most peoples understanding. Whereas your elaborated definition is merely to fit a certain context and a certain argument against Christians, "I'm atheist about one less god than you are" which is a poor argument in itself.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Robins definition only seems perfect as it has been elaborated on to suit the argument that Christians are infact atheists about many gods.

Er, well, you just said that you don't believe that Zeus and Thor exist (unless I didn't understand what you meant). If you don't believe in these two deities, then that makes you a "weak specific atheist" in general terminology.

I'm not, by the way, changing my definitions just so I can call you an "atheist" so that I can feel smug about it as it seems you appear to think.

I'm trying to define what we are talking about so that we can understand our respective positions accurately. Specifically, so that you can understand that you reject the existence of more deities than almost all of the the people who tend to self-describe as "atheist".

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

robindch's definition only seems perfect as it has been elaborated on to suit the argument that Christians are infact atheists about many gods. It doesn't really cut it. If I was defining democracy, I would find the most rigid way of defining it and the most apt to be looking at the Greek word demokratia split up of the words demos = people, and kratia = power. Other people could redefine it for themselves, but to get to the core of the issue people power seems to sum it up the best.

Atheists have consistently defined atheism as the lack of theism, or a belief in God or gods so I would see that as being a definition that conforms to most peoples understanding. Whereas your elaborated definition is merely to fit a certain context and a certain argument against Christians, "I'm atheist about one less god than you are" which is a poor argument in itself.

I agree with you about that saying "I'm just an atheist with respect to one more god than you are", or however it's phrased. It's a poor argument that doesn't make logical sense.

But, atheism needs to be defined very specifically because most atheists have varying degrees of conviction. Robins definition suits it well, in my opinion. But, you still can't be classed as a (3) or whatever, because you're theistic, therefore not atheistic in any way at all.

pH

Jakkass wrote:

So how on earth could they [Deists] be atheists?

Jakkass wrote: »

You don't get the point. Atheism is the lack of theism.

OK so you're either contradicting yourself or you've come round to the idea that deists are indeed atheists. Which is it?

philologos

pH wrote: »

OK so you're either contradicting yourself or you've come round to the idea that deists are indeed atheists. Which is it?

The latter. I had never thought of it that way before. Thanks for the correction. I am open to things if they are reasoned adequately.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

But, atheism needs to be defined very specifically because most atheists have varying degrees of conviction. Robins definition suits it well, in my opinion. But, you still can't be classed as a (3) or whatever, because you're theistic, therefore not atheistic in any way at all.

I reject 1 and 3 totally on the basis, that although people may disregard other concepts of God or panthenons doesn't make them atheist in any respect.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

I reject 1 and 3 totally on the basis, that although people may disregard other concepts of God or panthenons doesn't make them atheist in any respect.

I agree with you, reluctantly. Atheism doesn't concern itself with specific gods. If you're an atheist, you don't believe in theism. You can't be an atheist with respect to a specific god; if you're an athiest you don't believe in any gods, as you don't believe in theism. Of course none of what I said applies to a deist god.

sink

Thinking in terms of deists also being atheist and deism as an alternative to theism I would classify myself as a hard atheist. I reject totally and with absolute certainty the possibility of a interventionist god who listens to prayers and is concerned with human affairs. It simply does not fit with the world I see around me. For instance why would god create type 1 diabetes and the also give humans the capacity to treat it as some Christians believe, but then restrict it to only those who can afford it leaving the poorest to die a horribly painful death.

I am however completely ignostic towards deism. Whether a deist style god exists or not is unanswerable until we have a clear definition and understanding of what it is. And even then the question might be beyond our understanding.

Dades

sink wrote: »

I reject totally and with absolute certainty the possibility of a interventionist god who listens to prayers and is concerned with human affairs.

You do leave yourself open to accusations of 'faith', or the impossibility of proving a negative. But I'm not going to disagree with you, just not go quite as far!

Regarding the "atheist about every other god" phrase, of course it's a logical impossibility. It's like being a virgin except for this one time...

Of course the whole point of it is merely to highlight how (certain) theists reject out of hand hundreds of gods, while taking exception to someone rejecting their favourite one.

robindch

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I agree with you, reluctantly. Atheism doesn't concern itself with specific gods. If you're an atheist, you don't believe in theism. You can't be an atheist with respect to a specific god; if you're an athiest you don't believe in any gods, as you don't believe in theism.

That kind of sidesteps the distinction I made up above. What you're describing seems closer to non-theism, rather than atheism.

DinoBot

I dont like either term tbh and I refuse to be called either. Recently I was in hospital and I had marked "no-religion" on the form. The nurse proceed to say "so your atheist" I simply said "well i dont play football either, does that make me anti-football-ist"

My point is to use either terms defines you in terms of religion. Defines you in terms of rejection of theism. Its a negative term. There should be a word to express someone is pro-real-life, pro-natural-world. Even "non-theist" is better than "anti-theist" imo

I dont think I should be defined by something which is fictional. Its not done with anything else in life except religion.

"Hi my name is DinoBot and I dont play golf"

Goduznt Xzst

DinoBot wrote: »

My point is to use either terms defines you in terms of religion. Defines you in terms of rejection of theism. Its a negative term. There should be a word to express someone is pro-real-life, pro-natural-world. Even "non-theist" is better than "anti-theist" imo

A naturalist?

Also, DinoBot, you do realize that the "a" in atheist does not stand for "anti". Atheist can simply be understood as "not Theist", an anti-theist goes another step further than merely being Atheist in that they now have an objection to Theism. Atheist is the most neutral term. If you are applying pop-connotations to the word then that is due to your own misunderstanding of its meaning.

uncleoswald

"Non-theist" I like it, but then I guess it does also fall into the trap of defining yourself by religion. Atheist may not mean anti-theist but that is what many people hear.
What would we call a person who had never come into contact with any idea of God and had never entertained the notion himself? Technically an atheist but it hardly seems right to label him an atheist if he has no notion of theism. I guess that religion has had such an influence (both good and bad) over our existence we have to be defined by it in someway.

DinoBot

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

A naturalist?

Sounds rude :-)

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Also, DinoBot, you do realize that the "a" in atheist does not stand for "anti". Atheist can simply be understood as "not Theist", an anti-theist goes another step further than merely being Atheist in that they now have an objection to Theism. Atheist is the most neutral term. If you are applying pop-connotations to the word then that is due to your own misunderstanding of its meaning.

I know, I was more writing what people impression of the word is. People do not see the term as "godless" but rather an objection to Theism , which I do have but I dont feel I should be defined by it in a negative way.

Goduznt Xzst

DinoBot wrote: »

rather an objection to Theism , which I do have but I dont feel I should be defined by it in a negative way.

odd. You do realize that your view of this term having negative connotations is religiously driven. I find the term Atheist a positive title. If you have an issue with naturalist, maybe consider freethinker as a title, although its worth noting that theists can also be freethinkers (although the numbers that could be defined as such are exceptionally small)

Dades

uncleoswald wrote: »

What would we call a person who had never come into contact with any idea of God and had never entertained the notion himself?

Lucky?

uncleoswald

Dades wrote: »

Lucky?

Well according to some this person would be going to hell... Poor guy, can you imagine that? "I have to spend eternity writhing in agony because I don't believe in who?!" I'd be carrying a chip on my shoulder about that for centuries.

DinoBot

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

odd. You do realize that your view of this term having negative connotations is religiously driven.

No, I never thought about it that way. Thanks, I will have to rethink that one.

Handsome Bob

I am what I deem to be agnostic, and define that belief of mine as "not believing in any supernatural force put forward by any organized religion." I don't care if that isn't an official definition.;)

pH

I reread Wikipedia's etymology of atheism, this bit is great:

In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587.[11] The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God",[12] predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571.[13] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[14] Related words emerged later: deist in 1621,[15] theist in 1662;[16] theism in 1678;[17] and deism in 1682.[18] Deism and theism changed meanings slightly around 1700, due to the influence of atheism; deism was originally used as a synonym for today's theism, but came to denote a separate philosophical doctrine.[19]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Etymology

I'm not sure that any word can stand the highly structured analysis we try to bring to this one, I bet even for the word 'car', I can find pictures on the net that some would think "is one" and others would think "ain't".

I'm a great believer that a word's meaning is descriptive, not prescriptive, words mean what people want them to mean (though don't get me started on people using the world 'literally' when they really mean the opposite 'figuratively'.) As such atheism means (like any word really) what the users of it want it to mean, in the meantime, let's all be thankful that 'bright' never caught on

sink

Dades wrote: »

You do leave yourself open to accusations of 'faith', or the impossibility of proving a negative. But I'm not going to disagree with you, just not go quite as far!

I'm only open to accusations of 'faith' from the perspective of a non-naturalist or 'supernaturalist (not sure if that's a real word but it fits!)'. Believing in supernatural things is the epitome of 'faith' as the supernatural can't be observed, measured or tested in any shape or form so the only justification one can give for it's existence is what goes on in one's mind. If believing in the supernatural requires a tremendous amount of 'faith' then not believing the the supernatural (a naturalist) requires no 'faith' at all. A Supernaturist engages in circular reasoning when accusing a naturalist of having faith, for to attribute naturalists with faith one must first have faith in the supernatural and they are essentially using their own faith to justify the naturalists faith.

I am an unashamed naturalist and I only recognise that which can be observed, measured or tested, requiring no faith on my part. A diety which interacts with the natural world must by definition of the natural world be able to be observed, measured or tested. No such positive observational measurement or test has ever been recorded scientifically. Not only that but the claims made by religions on the power of prayer and miracles have been falsified scientifically over and over.

So we have the complete absence of any positive evidence for an interventionist god and we also have mountains of evidence against claims made by religion of god interacting with the natural world. So in conclusion it requires no more of leap of 'faith' to say that 'an interventionist god absolutely does not exist' than to say 'there is no teapot orbiting the sun between Mercury and Venus' as both appear to be a product of man's own imagination.

If that is faith then it is impossible to be without faith and the term 'faith' is essentially meaningless.

Dades

Jakkass, JammyD - update!
New thread created to clean this one up...
Tis a discussion worth having.

robindch

Sorry Dades!

robindch wrote: »

That kind of sidesteps the distinction I made up above. What you're describing seems closer to non-theism, rather than atheism.

I can see what you're saying, but, in my eyes there's a contradiction.

Is it possible to be an atheist with respect to certain gods, and be a theist with respect to others? I'm not actually sure; I've always thought that atheism declared you weren't theistic in any sense. As somebody else pointed out, it's similar to saying that you're a virgin with respect to some people, but that you're not with respect to others.

What are peoples opinions on this? It'd be good to get it cleared up, as it seems like a bit of a foggy area.

monument

Some more definitions from a thread on the DCU board, from the Cambridge Dictionary:

atheist
someone who believes that God or gods do not exist

agnostic
someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, whether a god exists

And the Compact Oxford Dictionary:

atheism
the belief that God does not exist

agnostic
noun a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God.

And the full Oxford English Dictionary:

atheist
Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism)

agnostic
One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

tba

I believe it is impossible to know if a god exists (by definition of god), but I also believe that there are no Gods, as such I think the "Agnostic Stance" is without merit being that most, if not all atheist would state that they do not know if gods exist.

thusspakeblixa

In my attempts to found a DCU atheist society, this kind of argument reared its head
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055468641

sink

As I am not a member of DCU rather than posting in the DCU thread I thought I would post my response here since the relevant posters seem to be active here.

monument wrote: »

An atheist is sure that there is no god/s. It's a clear position. It's not in any way open. While an agnostic is not sure, or does not think you can be sure, or leaves it open. It's not a clear position.

So, as far as I can see, the two terms are not compatible.

The atheist position is not open. It is locked into the idea that there is no god. Unless you can show something that firmly contradicts two of the most respected dictionaries above, then you (a) misunderstanding the meaning of the term, or (b) are you are distorting the English language.



Did I mention militant?



I'm confused how a firmly closed position such as atheism has anything to do with freethinking. Really, what has a closed position have to do with freethinking?

And, no, I'm not saying, nor implying, atheists are closed minded. But if they are open-minded, their atheist side (ie the closed position that there is no god) is most likely blinkered to their open-minded side.

Compared to agnostics, and even compared to most religious moderates, atheists are talking a clear unchangeable position. Compared to agnostics, and even compared to many religious moderates, atheists are extremists.

I label myself an atheist as I actively believe that an interventionist god does not exist and as I explained in the my previous post why this requires no leap of faith. My belief is reliant directly upon evidence and if new evidence come to light I will change my stance to fit the evidence. But I am technically ignostic in regards to all other forms of diety such as Diesm and Pantheism.

Evangelical atheism is a complete waste of time. Virtually all atheists/agnostics I know including on those this board seem to have arrived at their position completely independently through their own thought process. Most atheists report after reading atheistic books such as Dawkins and Dennet, that they already agree with the substance but enjoy having it clarified and solidified, so the books and their authors are 'preaching to the converted', for want of a better description. In my opinion it's near impossible to 'convert' someone to atheism or agnosticism as anyone who does not do so of their own accord either doesn't care or is a 'true believer' and no amount rational argument will sway them.

How you can call me an extremist, I don't know. I suspect it has more to do with your preconceptions of atheists than any direct observation of the diverse demographic who self identify as atheists.

Morbert

This is silly.

Monument, there is absolutely nothing in those definitions that implies that the atheist position is "not in any way open". I believe that God does not exist, but I accept the tentative nature of that belief. I meet the criterium as described by the Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries. *shrug*

Perhaps if the dictionaries declared that an atheist is

"Someone who believes that God or gods do not exist, and is not in any way open."

then you might have a point.

Actually, you wouldn't, because the dictionaries would be wrong.

Princessa

Agnosticism seems to be more socially exceptable. There is often social prejudice that coincides with atheism. Atheists are thought to be closed-minded because they deny the existence of a singlular God or plural Gods. Agnostics are in lay mans terms on the fence in relation to celestial matters etc. Agnosticism seems to me to be a form of agnostic theism. They are caught between the two spectrums. Personally i dont understand agnosticism, have an opinion, if you are torn between theism and atheism - research. Dont stay on the fence, form an opinion. I only became atheist recently from research and just basically getting older, im out of the catholic schoolgirl scene a few years so it was time to form my own opinion on the situation. Seems to me that religion is used as a control method. "If you do this our God/Gods will punish you by x,y,z". That and all the major religions seem to be scarily similiar... coincidence? Google the similiarities between Jesus Christ and the egyptian God Horus. Anyways i'll stop my rant now. Very interesting thread, cheers.

philologos

Princessa wrote: »

Google the similiarities between Jesus Christ and the egyptian God Horus. Anyways i'll stop my rant now. Very interesting thread, cheers.

For our sake, and for yours, also google how the documentary Zeitgeist has been effectively refuted. The dating of the accounts of Horus, and Osiris in comparison to that of the New Testament is dubious at best.