Definition of "Atheism" and "Agnosticism"

Daftendirekt

Erren Music wrote: »

This is a common issue with most religious - atheist debates, by discussing the bible or JC you are actually giving credence to their nonsense.

Come again? I don't think anyone was discussing the Bible or JC.

LeSageMignon

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Then I'm confused as to why they would deliberately use a prefix which means without. Why not anti-theist? Or contratheist? Or Countertheist? Detheist? Negtheist? Refuttheist? Oppotheist? Or any number of alternatives that mean actively against or denying theism rather than a choose a word that it's patently obvious - and known to mean - without?

I think without is perfect as it means that I, as an atheist, am without God (belief or interest in) but not against God.

I have no need or want for a God or gods in my life but am not against the idea (i.e. if you want to believe in it I really don't care). Just like the medical term amenorrhoea means the absence of menstrual periods (or absence of menorrhoea) but does not mean that the patient with amenorrhoea is anti-periods or hostile towards those who do menstruate.

At the time that modern English was developing to the standard we now use the norm was to believe in a god and so those who did not were without the belief.

It is only recently, in my opinion, that atheist began to mean a strong feeling that belief in god was dangerous nonsense. A bit like the twisting of the interpretation of feminist, from pro-equality to aggressive anti-men female-supremacy.

philologos

Yeah, the implicit atheism one isn't really valid. Atheos refers to a lack of theism. Christians have theism, so even when they do not believe in other systems that doesn't make them atheist in the slightest.

Also many people I know do differentiate atheism from agnosticism, perhaps it would be prudent to do so here also.

Flamed Diving

It has been, above.

Jakkass wrote: »

Also many people I know do differentiate atheism from agnosticism, perhaps it would be prudent to do so here also.

I am agnostic, and my personal definition is that one cannot claim to know whether the unknown (or not yet evidentially demonstrated) can exist or not.

Hope that helps.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Yeah, the implicit atheism one isn't really valid. Atheos refers to a lack of theism. Christians have theism, so even when they do not believe in other systems that doesn't make them atheist in the slightest.

they do lack belief in a god or gods though

Jakkass wrote: »

Also many people I know do differentiate atheism from agnosticism, perhaps it would be prudent to do so here also.

Oh well if many people you know straw man our position then I suppose we should too. I'm not an agnostic, I'm an atheist or to be precise an agnostic atheist and if people misunderstand the term then I will attempt to correct them

If many people I knew thought that all Christians were creationists would you stop calling yourself a Christian because of their mistake?

eoin5

iUseVi wrote: »

Hmm. Don't agree. I think "I don't know" is a perfectly valid proposition. I don't think that humans must hold only one of two binary positions - I believe or I don't believe.

If you think "I don't know" then you obviously don't believe. Its completely binary. Simples.

iUseVi

eoin5 wrote: »

If you think "I don't know" then you obviously don't believe. Its completely binary. Simples.

Nah don't agree, and I'm not just trying to be contrary. If I don't know then I'm not committing to yes or no. Admittedly this is usually only a momentary state, which collapses into either believe or non-belief.

I dunno how your mind works, but mine is not binary, I often find myself conflicted about something. Now you could say I'm just flip-flopping between the two binary states but I don't think so, I think there is an undecided state in the brain. If you go down to the neuron level then maybe there are groups of neurons that are competing, some believe, some don't. But the entire brain has not collapsed into one or your binary states.

eoin5

iUseVi wrote: »

Nah don't agree, and I'm not just trying to be contrary. If I don't know then I'm not committing to yes or no. Admittedly this is usually only a momentary state, which collapses into either believe or non-belief.

I dunno how your mind works, but mine is not binary, I often find myself conflicted about something. Now you could say I'm just flip-flopping between the two binary states but I don't think so, I think there is an undecided state in the brain. If you go down to the neuron level then maybe there are groups of neurons that are competing, some believe, some don't. But the entire brain has not collapsed into one or your binary states.

I see your point.

One thing that puzzles me lately is that people can believe completely opposite things at the same time. You often hear people say that part of them believes something. I guess things like compartmentaliazation can account for it. I think we need to think about assigning a belief to a person more closely, is it a valid statement to say that so and so is a theist when part of them believes there is no god? Hmmm

Sam Vimes

eoin5 wrote: »

I see your point.

One thing that puzzles me lately is that people can believe completely opposite things at the same timeu

it's called cognitive dissonance. The only way someone cannot see the ludicrousness inherent in the idea of a supposedly moral being whose only criteria for avoiding the punishment he has doomed you to for the crime of being born is to believe an old story about a man who walked on water

iUseVi

eoin5 wrote: »

I see your point.

One thing that puzzles me lately is that people can believe completely opposite things at the same time. You often hear people say that part of them believes something. I guess things like compartmentaliazation can account for it. I think we need to think about assigning a belief to a person more closely, is it a valid statement to say that so and so is a theist when part of them believes there is no god? Hmmm

Indeed. And excuse my breaking it down into brain activity but I think to say that something as complex as the human brain is binary isn't quite the whole picture, although of course its a good approximation for most of the time.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

Yeah, the implicit atheism one isn't really valid. Atheos refers to a lack of theism. Christians have theism, so even when they do not believe in other systems that doesn't make them atheist in the slightest.

It really depends on translation rather than personal claims of validity tbh...if you translate ἄθεος as godless then it only encompasses those lacking belief in any god but if you translate it, as many theists do, as denying gods or rejecting gods then many followers of monotheistic religions are also atheistic.

iUseVi wrote:

Nah don't agree, and I'm not just trying to be contrary. If I don't know then I'm not committing to yes or no. Admittedly this is usually only a momentary state, which collapses into either believe or non-belief.

There are obviously various shades of grey between active disbelief and lack of evidence failing to convince one to have a belief but I can see the point eoin5 is making. A lack of commitment to any position is still not a positive belief and so would come under the same banner of "without belief" as those who have decided there is nothing to believe in.

iUseVi

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

There are obviously various shades of grey between active disbelief and lack of evidence failing to convince one to have a belief but I can see the point eoin5 is making. A lack of commitment to any position is still not a positive belief and so would come under the same banner of "without belief" as those who have decided there is nothing to believe in.

Yeah I'm convinced. Agreed.

Erren Music

Sam Vimes wrote: »

it's called cognitive dissonance. The only way someone cannot see the ludicrousness inherent in the idea of a supposedly moral being whose only criteria for avoiding the punishment he has doomed you to for the crime of being born is to believe an old story about a man who walked on water

+1

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I am agnostic, and my personal definition is that one cannot claim to know whether the unknown (or not yet evidentially demonstrated) can exist or not.

Hope that helps.

Ok, I can see that there may have been a creator 13 billion odd years ago, but this christian god thing has nothing to do with that.

So are you agnostic to both of these entities called gods, or just the christian one. I am totally positive that the christian, jewish and muslim gods are fictional man made entities.

Jakkass wrote: »

Yeah, the implicit atheism one isn't really valid. Atheos refers to a lack of theism. Christians have theism, so even when they do not believe in other systems that doesn't make them atheist in the slightest.

Also many people I know do differentiate atheism from agnosticism, perhaps it would be prudent to do so here also.

I do not understand how a christian could believe Allah is a god, considering the instructions (commandment 1 and 2) you were given from your god.

How do you reconcile the different religions. Do muslims end up in the same place that atheists do after death. Does god punish us both?

At most only a small % are ever correct about religion.

Zombrex

It is important to differentiate between not believing someone, and asserting the opposite of their claim.

If someone says they know they are going to win the lotto on Wednesday I don't believe them. This is completely independent to whether or not I believe they are going to win the lotto.

If people want to get technically they could say that I am believing that they don't know what they are talking about, rather than believing they won't win.

I believe theists don't know what they are talking about, irrespective of whether or not that they are saying is actually correct or not.

To me that makes me an atheist.