Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial

[Senex]

I thought about that, but I wanted to distinguish between "the creator of the universe" versus "very powerful beings who operate outside of our known laws of physics". Very powerful spiritual beings might just be a highly evolved life form, but not really gods.

And this is a difference you believe qualifies one god to have a capital g and others to have a lower case g.

Write god with the lower case g. It will be a weight off your shoulders.

 

[Navigator]

This discussion (like 90% of others) is about the definition of words. I'm an atheist but I might choose to call myself an agnostic in certain company to lesson the tension. It's true I can't prove god doesn't exist, but I can't speak for that invisible unicorn sitting in the corner of the room either.

You may be correct.

Perhaps discussions need to focus on definitions of actions, rather than words.

Actions are easier to define.

ETA: as long as the words used are being true to the actual action being defined.

 

[Senex]

You may be correct.

Perhaps discussions need to focus on definitions of actions, rather than words.

Actions are easier to define.

ETA: as long as the words used are being true to the actual action being defined.

What are the actions of god? A world that has starving and atrocities performed daily? god lets a lot of people down.

 

[Navigator]

What are the actions of god? A world that has starving and atrocities performed daily? god lets a lot of people down.

I was speaking about the actions of human beings specifically.

I am an Agnostic and the actions of god(s) are here nor there.

 

[Meadmaker]

And this is a difference you believe qualifies one god to have a capital g and others to have a lower case g.

Write god with the lower case g. It will be a weight off your shoulders.

It's a proper noun. I capitalize Santa, too.

 

[ehcks]

It's a proper noun. I capitalize Santa, too.

Zeus is a proper noun. Odin is a proper noun. The word "god" that describes what these characters are is not a proper noun.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It's a proper noun. I capitalize Santa, too.

It only refers to one of the gods. Atheists lack belief in more than just one. Christians try to make it about just theirs.

 

[Navigator]

Zeus is a proper noun. Odin is a proper noun. The word "god" that describes what these characters are is not a proper noun.

It only refers to one of the gods. Atheists lack belief in more than just one. Christians try to make it about just theirs.

The title 'God' denotes what Christians (and other theists) think of as 'the one true god'

The biblical reference to the 'name' of 'the one true god' is not 'God' but something else.

Christians therefore don't refer to that god by name but by title.

If a title is not a proper noun then it can be accepted that the expression "god(s)" also includes the god of the bible.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The title 'God' denotes what Christians (and other theists) think of as 'the one true god'

Other monotheists do. Polytheists have more than one true god.

If a title is not a proper noun then it can be accepted that the expression "god(s)" also includes the god of the bible.

Exactly my point. That's why using the capitalized word is too artificially limiting. It gives more credit to monotheistic gods than they deserve.

I don't allow theists to limit me to lacking belief in only the god they made up.

 

[Navigator]

Other monotheists do. Polytheists have more than one true god.

Exactly my point. That's why using the capitalized word is too artificially limiting. It gives more credit to monotheistic gods than they deserve.

Yes. I didn't quote you because I was disagreeing with you. And I still agree with you.

I don't allow theists to limit me to lacking belief in only the god they made up.

My guess is that you are a 'strong atheist'.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yes. I didn't quote you because I was disagreeing with you. And I still don't disagree with you.

That's what confused me.

 

[ynot]

Theist - “Believes in a god or gods”.

Atheist - “Doesn’t believe in a god or gods”.

Does it matter why an atheist doesn’t believe in a god or gods? Isn’t an atheist simply not a theist?

What practical meaning and use would the term “atheist” have if there were no theists?

 

[Navigator]

Theist - “Believes in a god or gods”.

Atheist - “Doesn’t believe in a god or gods”.

Does it matter why an atheist doesn’t believe in a god or gods? Isn’t an atheist simply not a theist?

Yes it surely does matter.

It matters enough that the correct description of both are not:

Theist - “Believes in a god or gods”.

Atheist - “Doesn’t believe in a god or gods”.

But rather:

Theist - "argues for the existence of god(s)"

Atheist - "argues against the existence of god(s)"

(in both cases belief is what propels the opposing arguments.)

It matters because of this explanation.

 

[ynot]

Yes it surely does matter.

It matters enough that the correct description of both are not:

Theist - “Believes in a god or gods”.

Atheist - “Doesn’t believe in a god or gods”.

But rather:

Theist - "argues for the existence of god(s)"

Atheist - "argues against the existence of god(s)"

(in both cases belief is what propels the opposing arguments.)

It matters because of this explanation.

So to be a theist or atheist you have to "argue"? (rubbish)

 

[Navigator]

So to be a theist or atheist you have to "argue"? (rubbish)

Essentially the position itself is what 'argues' so I am not really incorrect.

For example, I would say that your position is 'atheist' and of the subset 'strong' and that you argue against the existence of god(s).

Would I be correct?

(The position of a human baby does not argue for or against, a baby is not an atheist or a theist, or for that matter an agnostic)

 

[ynot]

Essentially the position itself is what 'argues' so I am not really incorrect.

For example, I would say that your position is 'atheist' and of the subset 'strong' and that you argue against the existence of god(s).

Would I be correct?

(The position of a human baby does not argue for or against, a baby is not an atheist or a theist, or for that matter an agnostic)

So a theist is a position not a person? (still rubbish)

What about the position of a theist that merely believes with faith and admits there is no evidence. What argument is this position making.

 

[Brian-M]

Yes it surely does matter.

It matters enough that the correct description of both are not:

Theist - “Believes in a god or gods”.

Atheist - “Doesn’t believe in a god or gods”.

But rather:

Theist - "argues for the existence of god(s)"

Atheist - "argues against the existence of god(s)"

(in both cases belief is what propels the opposing arguments.)

It matters because of this explanation.

It doesn't matter how strongly you think the terms should be defined that way, everyone else is using the terms to describe what a person does or doesn't believe, regardless of what arguments they make.

 

[Meadmaker]

Zeus is a proper noun. Odin is a proper noun. The word "god" that describes what these characters are is not a proper noun.

The word "god" describes a lot of things. Dictionaries have lots of entries for that word because it is used in so many different ways.

When used as a proper noun, it refers to some sort of entity that created the universe. I wanted to make that distinction. God is not just the god that is described in the Bible. It's any creator deity described by any religion.

And I was trying to query ynot about that, but he didn't seem all that interested. Suppose I believed in the old gods of ancient Greece, but I believed that they were extraterrestrial beings. Would I be an atheist or a theist? What if I believed they were organisms that had outgrown the need for material bodies, existing as pure thought energy? (Think "Organians" on Star Trek) They still have powers in this world, and pay attention to it, and mate with humans and enter into warriors and fight as described in the Illiad. They have all the godlike properties that the myths describe, and get off on people killing domestic animals and burning them, but they didn't actually create the universe. If I believed in such entities, but not God, would I be an atheist, or a theist? There are only two categories, so I must be one of them, right?

 

[RickM]

Yes. It is an analog of the belief that all humans are born atheists and the belief that all agnostics are atheists in denial.

Another tidbit from Flint on ignorance & newborns from his book, Agnosticism:

“But merely to be ignorant is not to be an agnostic; ignorance, even if it were complete, would not be agnosticism. The new-born child is ignorant, but it is not an agnostic. The agnostic is not only one who does not know, but one who has convinced himself that the human mind lacks the powers necessary to enable it to know. Agnosticism is a learned ignorance based on self-knowledge and philosophical reflection.”

 

[ynot]

It doesn't matter how strongly you think the terms should be defined that way, everyone else is using the terms to describe what a person does or doesn't believe, regardless of what arguments they make.

Everyone isn't using the terms that way, and that's the problem.