Definition of "Atheism" and "Agnosticism"

Ickle Magoo

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Personally I prefer the more classical definition

atheism ~ the doctrine or belief that there is no god(s)

All this weak, strong, second cousin of, etc only serves to muddy the waters further. You're over analysing the word imho.

Perhaps you could give a description of the doctrine of atheism?

JimiTime

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Okay, go back to the isolated tribe, imagine one that revels in multiple partners with either sex. They have never heard of the laws or religions that exist out-with their tribe. Are they immoral or amoral?

Define moral first.

JimiTime

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Perhaps you could give a description of the doctrine of atheism?

The doctrine that God or gods do not exist. Just because the word 'doctrine' is usually associated with religion does not mean it must be avoided.

El_Duderino 09

iUseVi wrote: »

This.

Bringing in the question of agnosticism is just confusing, you can be agnostic and atheist, or gnostic and atheist. You can be agnostic and theist, or gnostic and theist. And before anyone argues with this think about it a bit first, all these states are valid; therefore agnosticism is not contained in either of the atheist or theist sets (in set theory terms).

Yes you can be gnostic and theist (knowledge of god's existance) or gnostic and atheist (Knowledge of gods non existance). Also you can be Agnostic and theist or agnostic and Atheist by the same reasons as above.

My understanding is that atheism is a lack of a belief in any kind of god. In literal terms 'A' meaning absence of or without, theistic belief. It does not speak about the beliefs of the atheist. It is similar to how being amoral does not mean you are imoral, it just says you lack moral beliefs.


As far as i know atheism is not a vert specific term in that anyone who cannot say 'I believe in a Diety' is an atheist. It covers more people than is usually thought.


My understanding is that agnostic literaslly means 'A' meaning same as above and 'gnostic'meaning knowledge, so without knowledge. They believe knowledge of god is unknown or unknowable. By that definition agnostics also fall under the umbrella term atheist.


I think atheist is a much less exciting term than it is often used as. It means lack of a belief in god where it is used too often as a belief in the non existance of god.

Zombrex

I personally think it is necessary to define atheism in terms of theistic belief, rather than in terms of what they believe.

This would be my take on it, comments welcome

1. "Weak explicit atheism" in which the holder rejects the assertions of a particularly group of theists in relation their god or gods
2. "Weak non-explicit atheism" in which the holder rejects all assertions by all theists in relation to their god or gods.
3. "Strong explicit atheism" in which the holder rejects and asserts that the assertions of a particularly group of theists in relation to their god or gods are untrue.
4. "Strong non-explicit atheism" in which the holder rejects and asserts that all assertions by all theists in relation to their god or gods are untrue.
5. "Implicit atheism" or "organic atheism" in which a person is not aware of any assertions of any group of theists and thus does not accept them by default

I personally think it is very important for me to define my atheism this way.

I do not believe that God doesn't exist Let me just clarify that again. I do not believe that God doesn't exist

I believe that theists have no idea if God exists or not, and invented the concept. I reject human theism the human assertions about gods. There is always the possibility that by some fluke they got it dead on correct, but that would be pure coincidence, like someone guessing the score for the last Liverpool match and getting it correct.

My atheism does not assert anything about the universe beyond the idea that humans invent gods and that is most likely where concepts like the Christian god come from. I have no idea if something did or did not create the universe. I've no idea if something did or did not create life on Earth. I've no idea if that this is the Christian concept of God or not. Such things are by definition unknowable.

This avoids all this nonsense that atheism is just another religion because it asserts truths about the origins of the universe (it wasn't a god), or how can atheists know there is no god, etc etc.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

The doctrine that God or gods do not exist.

The problem is that this is not actually what atheism means to a lot of people.

See my post above.

Ickle Magoo

JimiTime wrote: »

Define moral first.

Use whatever definition rocks your boat.

JimiTime wrote:

The doctrine that God or gods do not exist. Just because the word 'doctrine' is usually associated with religion does not mean it must be avoided.

Yes, doctrine is also used in regards to legal principles & foreign policy but what it always means is something that is taught or that which is taught, teaching or instruction; as in indoctrination. Neither being born without a belief in a god nor coming to such a minority conclusion later in life, could be considered something which is taught nor indoctrinated...

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

B]"Implicit atheism" or "organic atheism"[/B] in which a person is not aware of any assertions of any group of theists and thus does not accept them by default

Again, why would you define someone like this? We wouldn't do it with anything else. So why with theism and its derivitives?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, why would you define someone like this? We wouldn't do it with anything else. So why with theism and its derivitives?

Well I'm in two minds myself as to this, but I can see the logic for it. Theism are human assertions about the universe. If you are not aware of these assertions you will naturally not accept them in that you will not be in the current state of accepting them as true.

This is of course not the same thing as rejecting them, which is why there is a separation of the different types of atheism.

Can you think of a better term?

JimiTime

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Use whatever definition rocks your boat.

Really? Me, a Christian? Use my definition of morality? Fair enough.

As morality is defined by our creator and is objective, this tribe would be immoral.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Well I'm in two minds myself as to this, but I can see the logic for it. Theism are human assertions about the universe. If you are not aware of these assertions you will naturally not accept them in that you will not be in the current state of accepting them as true.

This is of course not the same thing as rejecting them, which is why there is a separation of the different types of atheism.

Can you think of a better term?

Why not just 'ignorant of the concept'? From simply a linguistic point of view, I think calling it atheism is deceptive. It does not communicate the facts very effectively IMO. Atheist, Theist, and ignorant of the concept are the best descriptions IMO.

If we change it to astrology. You believe, you don't believe, or you're ignorant of the concept. I think they are the most acceptable, and most accurate terms.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

The problem is that this is not actually what atheism means to a lot of people.

See my post above.

Then we need to ask, does it have a precise definition? or is it a fairly meaningless term? I personally think that the word 'Christian' has become a fairly meaningless term due to the many guises of Christendom. If someone says, 'I'm a Christian', I tend to assume very little about them. Similarly with atheism. If someone says 'I'm atheist', I tend to assume very little. (Apart from being nerdy, arrogant, hedonistic baby eaters of course:))

Tigger

there would be a very long list if i had to make oneof all the things i don't believe in
but here are some

magic
gods
homeopathy
santa
satan
birthday cards
all the new age spirituality stuff
tooth fairy
spellchecker

see my point is that belief is objective

however i am of the opinion that the idea of religion comes under the blanket cognititive process "how things work" that makes humans able to do such marvelous things compared to say dogs.

humans have always tried to explain to each other how stuff works

for example if you go on the motors forum and type some thing like "red light for the battery is on and my powersteering wont work on my astra "
lots of people will tell you its because the alternator is broken or a fuse is gone. they are wrong they have a limited understanding yet they are allowed say thier piece. same as when the americian evangalists say that god has struck stuff down with weather cos its annoyed with us, they are also wrong.
scientific method will tell us that by examining the engine bay we can clearly see the fan belt is broken so those that were sure that it was the alternator etc were wrong but we let them go on. same as the weather it wasn't god it was just weather but we let them talk because its a human trait to just state opinion as fact.

ages ago when people didn't understand lightning or dyptheria or any of the un-understandable stuff that went on they stated as fact that it was god , or magic opr dead people . this can be seen in every culture wars have been fought over these imaginary friends.

nowadays we can use scientific method and can see that in all probability that there is no magic no imaginary friend that can help us yet people refuse to accept that its all gibberish, peer pressure and fear of death combined with stubbornness, tradation and that need to be able to explain that humans have inside mean that eevn now in the 21st centruary religion is still widspread. so what type of athiest am i ?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Why not just 'ignorant of the concept'?

Because it is the same thing.

At its most basic an atheist is simply someone who is not a theist. A person ignorant of the concept is not a theist.

If you want to differentiate between someone who is not a theist because they have rejected theism and someone who is not a theist simply because they have no clue what theism is you can use the different prefixes before atheist.

This is why calling atheism a doctrine or belief system or religion is rather nonsensical. Not being a theist is not a doctrine unless you know why they aren't a theist.

JimiTime wrote: »

From simply a linguistic point of view, I think calling it atheism is deceptive. It does not communicate the facts very effectively IMO. Atheist, Theist, and ignorant of the concept are the best descriptions IMO.

Only if you think that atheism is an assertion of a belief such as there is no god, which as we are endless you telling you, it isn't.

JimiTime wrote: »

If we change it to astrology. You believe, you don't believe, or you're ignorant of the concept. I think they are the most acceptable, and most accurate terms.

If an astrologer is someone who practices astrology and we say someone who doesn't is an a-astrologer then someone who has no clue what astrology is is an a-astrologer

It doesn't matter if they don't know what astrology is, they are not an astrologer.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

If someone says 'I'm atheist', I tend to assume very little.

That is a very very good thing

It is what we have been calling for for a long time.

Ickle Magoo

JimiTime wrote: »

Really? Me, a Christian? Use my definition of morality? Fair enough.

As morality is defined by our creator and is objective, this tribe would be immoral.

Okay, so define amorality.

If they are, to use your own words, ignorant of the concept then calling them immoral is, as you say, deceptive - and infers they are deliberately acting without morals when they are in fact not confirming to a behaviour code they had no idea existed. "a" - without, "im" - not.

Ickle Magoo

JimiTime wrote: »

It does not communicate the facts very effectively IMO. Atheist, Theist, and ignorant of the concept are the best descriptions IMO.

I think Theist - Atheist - Anti-theist would be the most accurate if you are looking for some kind of scale of terminology.

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

Indeed it does. My objection, is that you don't define people in certain ways. You don't define babies as A-astrology, A-simpsons, A-football. Similarly, you would not define a person who has never heard such concepts like this either. I would ask someone who insists on doing it, why you do this? Its not that I really care either way, but it does wrack my noggin when some people are so fervant about it.

I wish there was no need for the term atheist. The only reason it exists is because there are so many theists that it is necessary to define yourself as not belonging to that group. You might have heard of the term non-stamp collector (and the youtube user by that name) that takes the piss out of this.

JimiTime wrote: »

If you are atheist, you have made the decision that I am in fact wrong. Simply putting a cavaet in saying that 'If something convincing arrises I'll change my mind', makes no odds. Your position is not neutral.

You seem to be missing the point. I haven't decided that you're wrong, I simply say that neither I nor you have any way of knowing if you're right. As I said, you might be right but if you are it'll simply be dumb luck.

An example: someone tells me that they know what next week's lotto numbers are going to be and lists them to me. I'm not going to say "you're wrong, those are not going to be the lotto numbers" because those numbers are just as likely to come up as any other and he may well turn out to be right. What I would say is that I don't believe him, ie I don't believe that he knows what the lotto numbers are going to be and I wouldn't let the fact that he claims to know effect my choice of numbers. It's not that he's wrong but that there is no way of determining if he's right. He's claiming to know something he cannot possibly know so his opinion is irrelevant. That's pretty much my position on world religions

JimiTime wrote: »

As this is irrelavent, I wont get into it.

The fact that you think that's irrelevant shows that you have missed my point.

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The fact that you think that's irrelevant shows that you have missed my point.

Faie enough so. I've read, and re-read and still see it as irrelavent, so I'll dwell in my ignorance of the point.

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

Faie enough so. I've read, and re-read and still see it as irrelavent, so I'll dwell in my ignorance of the point.

What about the example I gave:

"An example: someone tells me that they know what next week's lotto numbers are going to be and lists them to me. I'm not going to say "you're wrong, those are not going to be the lotto numbers" because those numbers are just as likely to come up as any other and he may well turn out to be right. What I would say is that I don't believe him, ie I don't believe that he knows what the lotto numbers are going to be and I wouldn't let the fact that he claims to know effect my choice of numbers. It's not that he's wrong but that there is no way of determining if he's right. He's claiming to know something he cannot possibly know so his opinion is irrelevant. That's pretty much my position on world religions"


Also, I think it's funny how you're talking about preconceptions that people have about other groups and saying that when someone says they're an atheist you assume very little, while refusing to let go of this preconception that a bunch of atheists are telling you you have.

edit: If I told the lotto guy that he was wrong, ie that those numbers were not going to come up I would be claiming to know something that I can't possibly know just as much as he was. That would be a non-neutral position and that's the position that you like to think atheists hold but it's not the position that I actually hold

JimiTime

I'll drop out of this guys. I simply think that its a bad use of the descriptive noun the way some of you are trying to use the word 'atheism'. I find it bizarre that you are trying to apply some special linguistic treatment of the word, and still scratch my head about it why you want to do it (though that could be fleas). The dictionary hits the nail on the head for me with its definitions. All the rest is the padding which comes from each individual. Like most doctrinal concepts, it becomes fairly meaningless as everyone applies their own meaning, thus I don't assume what someone who says they're an atheist believes or doesn't believe a certain thing. Though Wicknights list of different atheist Denominations (Oh yeah, I went there:)) seems to cover most of the bases, the 'organic atheist' concept is just bad English.

Then again, what would the guy who believes in magic bread, jewish zombies and sky faires know.

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Also, I think it's funny how you're talking about preconceptions that people have about other groups and saying that when someone says they're an atheist you assume very little, while refusing to let go of this preconception that a bunch of atheists are telling you you have.

What preconception is that? I don't like having false pre-conceptions, so I would appreciate knowing what you refer to so I can tend to it.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

What preconception is that? I don't like having false pre-conceptions, so I would appreciate knowing what you refer to so I can tend to it.

Do you accept that an atheist (a "a"-theist) is simply someone who is not a theist, for what ever reason?

Or do you think it means more than that?

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

What preconception is that? I don't like having false pre-conceptions, so I would appreciate knowing what you refer to so I can tend to it.

Ummmm, read the thread


I've told you what your preconception is, that you think that not believing in your god cannot be a neutral position and that I have made the decision that you are wrong. You said my point was irrelevant. Now you're deciding to drop out without defending your position but not without putting forward once more the position that everyone here is telling you is a misconception, you are reducing the position held by everyone here to "bad english" so you can keep your preconception of what you think we believe

bnt

pH wrote: »

Have to say I'm with Zillah here, i can't see any practical difference in the 2 statements

I do not believe God exists.
and
I believe God does not exist.

I suppose technically you could argue that the first allows the person the woolly "don't know" position where they neither believe nor disbelieve in God's existence, however for most people, most of the time, the statement "I don't believe God exists" has a very clear and singular meaning, and to attempt to argue there's a massive difference between it and "I believe God does not exist" seems an exercise in pedantry.

I have to bring this back up, since I don't think it has been adequately answered. The difference is the difference between not asserting an opinion (the first option) and asserting an opinion (the second option). The second option is an example of the "proving a negative" fallacy.

Can I prove that God (e.g. the Judeo-Christian one) does not exist, even in theory? No, I can't: to do so would require me to have complete and accurate knowledge of the entire universe, of things seen and unseen. I don't have that knowledge, and I don't expect I ever will.

Can I say that I don't believe in that God? Yes, it's a simple statement of fact. I don't believe in that God, or gods, or even the concept of gods as ever expressed by human beings on this planet.

This is far from pedantry, and goes to the heart of what we know and can know. It also relates to the concept of Agnosticism, which is a belief that we can never find out. (It does not mean "I don't know", a common misconception: in truth nobody knows, though some claim to. :cool:) It's a statement not about what you know, but about what you can know. I don't subscribe to the Agnostic view, but (as others have pointed out) it's quite reasonable to be both Atheist and Agnostic at the same time, without philosophical conflict.

PS: I am only ever going to have an opinion about something that is provable, even if actually proving it is beyond my particular skill set, but an opinion is not a "belief" in the religious sense. I have an opinion about e.g. the Big Bang Theory, but I don't "believe" in the Big Bang Theory. Why not? Well, what are the consequences of my opinion for me? None whatsoever. The Big Bang Theory might be proven totally wrong tomorrow, and my life would not change one bit, though I would be interested in hearing the theory that would replace it. Compare and contrast that with the demands that a religion makes on a person: change what you think, what you do, and who you associate with, based on ... someone else's words?

Dades

I believe God does not exist.

bnt wrote: »

The second option is an example of the "proving a negative" fallacy.

I'm baffled as to how the second option can be seen as "knowing" anything.

I believe God does not exist does NOT mean I know God does not exist.

Why people think otherwise I do not know.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

I believe God does not exist does NOT mean I know God does not exist.

But both are assertions about the universe and the way it is, just with different decrees of confidence.

I'm a dye in the wool atheist and I have no freaking idea if God does or does not exist, how can anyone even begin to determine a supernatural being doesn't exist?

Erren Music

JimiTime wrote: »

Thing is, atheism, came from theism, so it can't be neutral.

Theism comes from fiction, then superstition ......

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you accept that an atheist (a "a"-theist) is simply someone who is not a theist, for what ever reason?

Or do you think it means more than that?

Does having a definition of a word and its proper use in the English language mean I have a preconception of a person using that word to describe themselves?

I'll answer it, no. While I have an opinion on what its definition is in a strict sense, this does not impact on my ability to know that someone referring to themselves by such a term infers that they are using it by its proper definition.

I have a fairly strict definition of what a Christian is, but I certainly don't assume that someone saying 'I am a christian', uses this definition. This is exactly why I don't get pre-conceptions when people use such terms.

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

Does having a definition of a word and its proper use in the English language mean I have a preconception of a person using that word to describe themselves?

a-theist means someone who lacks theism, that is its proper use. You are using it to mean the opposite of theism. You are using it the way some dictionaries define it but many dictionaries were written by people just like you who like to think of atheism as a belief system and so define atheism in a way that very few if any atheists define it. There are actually a number of atheists writing to the publishers of dictionaries to get them to change their definition to what it actually is.