Atheism and/or Agnosticism

monument

sink wrote: »

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.

When you say 'you' are you talking about me? If so, can you please point out where I have called you an extremist?

Morbert wrote: »

This is silly.

Monument, there is absolutely nothing in those definitions that implies...

Ok, starting off with this is silly is a bit dismissive, but anyway...

Mr Z says he believes in X.

X is clearly defined.

Mr Z says he doesn't agree with how X is defined. He saying he believes X plus clause Z (in our case, I may be wrong).

In this case Mr Z is wrong or being misleading to say he believes in X alone, when he really believes in X plus clause Z.

I know politicians, companies, and others in the public eye have tried to twist their words for a long time, but when you say you believe in one thing that is all you are saying. If you in fact believe such matters are wide open, you should say such.

Just to make this clear: If you say you believe something you are not leaving it open, you are leaving it open when you say you are leaving it open.

sink

monument wrote: »

When you say 'you' are you talking about me? If so, can you please point out where I have called you an extremist?

Well you did not name me personally, but I believe my beliefs fall into the category 'atheist' in any real practical sense of the term.

monument wrote: »

Compared to agnostics, and even compared to many religious moderates, atheists are extremists.

monument wrote: »

Ok, starting off with this is silly is a bit dismissive, but anyway...

Mr Z says he believes in X.

X is clearly defined.

Mr Z says he doesn't agree with how X is defined. He saying he believes X plus clause Z (in our case, I may be wrong).

In this case Mr Z is wrong or being misleading to say he believes in X alone, when he really believes in X plus clause Z.

I know politicians, companies, and others in the public eye have tried to twist their words for a long time, but when you say you believe in one thing that is all you are saying. If you in fact believe such matters are wide open, you should say such.

Just to make this clear: If you say you believe something you are not leaving it open, you are leaving it open when you say you are leaving it open.

You will find almost no-one who 100% believes that there is no possibility that 'god' exists in any sense of the term. It is impossible to determine if a deist or pantheist styled entity exists so how can anyone be 100% certain. If someone does qualify under your stringent definition of the term I have no doubt that they hold some pretty strong and uncorroborated beliefs but I would not deem them extremists unless they carried out extreme actions in the name of their belief.

I don't know of any actions carried out by atheists that I would call 'extreme' unless debating in public and writing books, pushing a secular agenda counts as 'extreme' these days.

sink

Christian 'Extremists'



Islamic 'Extremists'



Atheist 'Extremists'

monument

sink wrote: »

Well you did not name me personally, but I believe my beliefs fall into the category 'atheist' in any real practical sense of the term.

Calling you an extremist and the general statement I made are two quite different things. And even saying I said simply "atheists are extremists" is taking what I said out of context.

sink wrote: »

You will find almost no-one who 100% believes that there is no possibility that 'god' exists in any sense of the term. It is impossible to determine if a deist or pantheist styled entity exists so how can anyone be 100% certain.

Indeed, thus a far more intelligent man than I, called Charles Darwin, once said:

"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic"

I don't know of any actions carried out by atheists that I would call 'extreme' unless debating in public and writing books, pushing a secular agenda counts as 'extreme' these days.

Again, just to make it clear, I did not say "atheists are extremists," I said:

"Compared to agnostics, and even compared to many religious moderates, atheists are extremists"

sink

monument wrote: »

Calling you an extremist and the general statement I made are two quite different things. And even saying I said simply "atheists are extremists" is taking what I said out of context.

I did quote the full sentence, I don't see how it's out of context.

monument wrote: »

Again, just to make it clear, I did not say "atheists are extremists," I said:

"Compared to agnostics, and even compared to many religious moderates, atheists are extremists"

I have no doubt atheists hold more conviction than agnostics or your average lapsed Christian, but does that qualify as extreme? The only way it does is if you water the term 'extreme' down to mean resolute.

monument

sink wrote: »

I did quote the full sentence, I don't see how it's out of context.

Sorry, you did indeed. I seen you had in your last post, but missed it in the second last post.

I have no doubt atheists hold more conviction then agnostics or your average lapsed Christian, but does that qualify as extreme? The only way it does is if you water the term 'extreme' down to mean resolute.

Again, I'm not calling atheists extrema.

I'm saying they are extrema compared to some others.

Two quite different things.

Maybe if you define what you mean by extreme it'll make things clearer: as this has just turned into an argument of semantics.

sink

monument wrote: »

Again, I'm not calling atheists extrema.

I'm saying they are extrema compared to some others.

Two quite different things.

That's like saying 'that dog is extremely big compared to that cat' ignoring the elephant in the room. While it might be literally correct it doesn't really convey a proper sense of proportion. Anyway we're just arguing semantics now.

monument

sink wrote: »

That's like saying 'that dog is extremely big compared to that cat' ignoring the elephant in the room. While it might be literally correct it doesn't really convey a proper sense of proportion. Anyway we're just arguing semantics now.

The context I said it in was in the thread on the DCU board, in the context of the topic being atheists and agnostics, in the middle of that thread.

In any case, when comparing pets -- for most people -- elephants don't come into the equation.

Húrin

pH wrote: »

OK - I'm going to do this one more time (mainly for my own amusement)

First - "Do you believe in a personal intervening type of God?"

If you answer yes to this question (and many do), then you are a theist. (Hopefully uncontroversial).

Now the controversial bit ... All those who didn't answer yes ... are atheists (i.e. a-theists ... not theists)

It doesn't matter what other answer you gave, "No", "maybe" or "Wibble", you haven't answered "yes", therefore not a theist, therefore atheist.

This is really simple, easy to get, you Agnostics and Deists, you mightn't like it, you might desperately want not to be an atheist, but you are.

Agnosticism and Deism are sub-groups of atheists (neither believe in a personal intervening God).

Atheists can't believe in any kind of God. Even if you don't believe in a personal intervening type of God you can still be a pantheist. Deists also believe in God, as a first cause.

Dades wrote: »

The following would be my nutshell definitions of both:

Atheism
An absence of belief in deities.

Agnosticism
The belief that the existence of god(s) is inherently unknowable.

Your definition of atheism is useless, because under it, it is no different to agnosticism. No agnostics believe in God, since it cannot be known as far as they are concerned.

A definition of atheism that differentiates it from agnosticism is that it's the belief that there is no god. Few atheists claim certainty but most come very close to it.

Húrin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

If someone says to me, "I don't really believe in god", I take it at face value. However, if they say "I'm an atheist", I take it to mean they believe they are right and theists wrong, they think religion is somewhere between silly and wicked, and I take it to mean they are socially liberal (I've never met a conservative atheist).

There are plenty of conservative atheists in Britain's Tory party, such as Matthew Parris.

Tyler MacDurden wrote: »

Jakass, what then of the notion that believing in your (or anyone's) own particular version of god is solely an accident of culture or timing? Relocate a believer geographically or temporally and wouldn't they just as strongly defend Thor or Zeus or Mithras as you have defended your own god?

Likewise, if you had been born in another time it is unlikely you would be an atheist. So what are you doing thinking there is no God? What is so special about our culture that it has given you truth where all other cultures have not?

Húrin

robindch wrote: »

4. "Strong non-specific atheism" in which the holder asserts that no deities exist at all.

In general, I'd imagine that most atheists here fall into category (1) and a few into (2) and (3) and there's nobody whom I know who falls into (4), though there are plenty of religious people who think that all atheists place themselves in (4).So, by these more precise definitions, you're a (3), a strong specific atheist with respect to Zeus and Thor, which is what I meant by my post up above.

Then why do most atheists contend that nothing exists but physical matter and energy? Surely that would discount all deities?

pH

Húrin wrote: »

Atheists can't believe in any kind of God. Even if you don't believe in a personal intervening type of God you can still be a pantheist. Deists also believe in God, as a first cause.

Of course they can, didn't you read my post?

In a very simple world, there would be atheists and theists, those that believe in God and those that don't. That's pretty much the simple world where the word atheist was first used.

However, the arrival of Deism as an (intellectual?) position, belief in a wishy washy non intervening, no matter what you do completely untestable, goalpost shifting entity confuses the issue.

It's far simpler to say that atheism is simply what is left if you remove theism, and then if required split those atheists (ie non-theists) into sub groups of agnostics, deists etc.

Then why do most atheists contend that nothing exists but physical matter and energy?

I think you'll find they're the same thing, and if you add it all up it comes to zero, so pretty much nothing exists anyway.

Húrin

pH wrote: »

Of course they can, didn't you read my post?

In a very simple world, there would be atheists and theists, those that believe in God and those that don't. That's pretty much the simple world where the word atheist was first used.

Pantheism has existed for thousands of years in Indian religions. Both it and monotheism are subcategories of theism. Most posters here seem to think that all theism is monotheism or polytheism (e.g. ancient Greece).

However, the arrival of Deism as an (intellectual?) position, belief in a wishy washy non intervening, no matter what you do completely untestable, goalpost shifting entity confuses the issue.

It's far simpler to say that atheism is simply what is left if you remove theism, and then if required split those atheists (ie non-theists) into sub groups of agnostics, deists etc.

Deism was articulated in the 18th century. It is a subcategory of theism. Any worldview that has a God in it is theistic.

No, atheism and agnosticism are separate, because atheism is not silent on the God question: it denies that God exists.

I think you'll find they're the same thing, and if you add it all up it comes to zero, so pretty much nothing exists anyway.

Thus, atheists must dismiss all deities.

sink

Húrin wrote: »

Pantheism has existed for thousands of years in Indian religions. Both it and monotheism are subcategories of theism. Most posters here seem to think that all theism is monotheism or polytheism (e.g. ancient Greece).


Deism was articulated in the 18th century. It is a subcategory of theism. Any worldview that has a God in it is theistic.

No, atheism and agnosticism are separate, because atheism is not silent on the God question: it denies that God exists.


Thus, atheists must dismiss all deities.

So I guess i'm not an atheist yet I would bet my life that any god that anyone has ever prayed to or worshipped does not exist. In regards to anything else that could be construed as a deity I would say it's pointless even discussing it until we have a clear idea of what we are talking about.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

Your definition of atheism is useless, because under it, it is no different to agnosticism. No agnostics believe in God, since it cannot be known as far as they are concerned.

A definition of atheism that differentiates it from agnosticism is that it's the belief that there is no god. Few atheists claim certainty but most come very close to it.

What's the material difference between an absence of belief in gods, and believing there are no gods?

Also, agnosticism does not state a belief in gods either way, it only really states that the question is unknowable. An agnostic can therefore believe there might well be some sort of god, or that in fact, although unknowable, there probably isn't (making them at least a weak atheist).

ChocolateSauce

Húrin wrote: »

There are plenty of conservative atheists in Britain's Tory party, such as Matthew Parris.

Yes, but you kind of missed my point. They probably wouldn't want to be identified as "atheists", because it would group them together with radical liberals like Dawkins and...well, myself. My point was although the definition means one thing, the day to day usage means a lot more.