Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial

[RickM]

For anyone that hasn't figured out how to make kitty spin in the opposite direction, focus on the time above the avatar.

She'll be going away pretty soon.

 

[ynot]

Don't feel bad, there's a lot more learned people out there that agree with your position (including Flint) than mine and Navigator's. We're putting up a good fight though.

Don't know why you think I might feel bad. Do you believe what you have been arguing for, or has it been argument for arguments sake? Sorry but I can't agree that you have been putting up a good fight. Especially not Navigator.

 

[Navigator]

Are you sure you linked to the right picture?

I don't see any picture in the post, I did click the quote button and copy-paste the image URL into the address bar so I could download it.

No wonder nobody can see that picture, it's a GIF file which contains nothing but a single transparent pixel!

Well problem is solved if you can see the chart in my post here.

Since theists are people who have belief that a god exists, this would mean that anyone who doesn't have a belief that a god exists is an atheist.

Not at all. We get back to the problem of baby human. They are people but they are not atheists.
You also claimed that atheos was a word before theos was. I replied to that in this post, showing you where you were incorrect.

That's why the soft and hard (or weak and strong) distinctions exist. The soft (or weak) position indicates that no belief that a god exists, while the hard (or strong) position indicates a belief that no god exists.

Okay - well I will keep that in mind...I am still not understanding this though.
Are you thus saying that the weak position would not have cause to argue that no god(s) exist but the strong position has cause to argue that no god(s) exist...can this be implied by what you are saying here?

Because the "blank slate" has no belief that a god exists, that clearly puts them in the soft/weak atheist category.

Not necessarily. All that would do is cancel out 'soft atheist' as a subset to Atheism.
This is because it sounds like what you are referring to as a 'soft atheist' is in fact an Agnostic.

(I assumed that you meant the "blank slate" to simply refer to their religious beliefs, but from what you've said elsewhere in this post it's clear I was mistaken. But either way, my point still stands.)

I am not so sure your point stands under scrutiny. Neither of us invented the labels and reasons why the labels are as they are. You however believe the labels are correct and I see there are flaws in the reasoning which allowed for the labels to be made in the way you accept them.

But accurate. I added sub-descriptions to everything for clarity.

No. Not accurate and not necessary.

The claim that all babies are atheists is bogus.

If the soft atheist position is simply a lack of belief in a god, why wouldn't such a person count as a soft atheist?

'Such a person' is a 'human baby' and as such, needn't be regarded as a soft atheist.
Anyway, there is now some debate as to whether a 'soft atheist' actually exists. It appears from what you are saying, that this is really an agnostic, which is not an atheist anyway.

That may be how you intended it, but the way you've laid it out makes it look like everything below falls under the category of being a blank slate, which is clearly nonsensical.

It is not "clearly nonsensical" as you claim.
Everyone comes from that default position and as their consciousness evolves and their ability to choose develops, they self identify according to their beliefs or lack of beliefs.

In relation to god(s) those beliefs are in favor of, neutral or against.

In favor of = Theism
Neutral = No beliefs
Against = Atheist

Maybe to fix it you need to remove the lines joining the boxes, and draw three arrows from the "blank slate" box pointing at the three boxes below.

The arrows are not joining the boxes. They are indicating the Sets.
However, it appears that perhaps you have not seen my updated chart.

Yes it does. Take a look at the middle row of boxes. The box on the left is theist, and so is the box on the right.

There's only six boxes on the chart, so I don't understand how you could have missed them.

Yes I saw them, but they are incorrect in that they are trying to place agnostics into either the Theism or the Atheism sets.
I have been arguing that Agnosticism should have its own Set. It appears to me now though that is should be a subset of Theism.

Agnosticism is the state of not knowing whether or not a god exist. It's theism and atheism that are about belief.

Knowledge and belief are different things.

I am definitely aware of that.


Not knowing = a lack of belief either way.

From your response to Ynot:

First, we don't agree with your definition of agnostic. Of course, there are various conflicting definitions, but there's a good explanation of agnosticism here: http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/what.htm

But simply, "agnostic" comes from attaching the prefix "a-" (meaning "not" or "without") to "gnostic" (meaning "knowing" or "knowledgeable").

We take it to mean only that a person doesn't claim to know whether or not god exists. Whether or not the person believes that a god does or doesn't exist is an entirely different question.

As for claiming that there are no agnostic theists, I've just found a thread on beliefnet that's full of them: http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43861/13952817/Christian_agnosticism

Agnostic theists are the ones who tell you that you have to accept their beliefs on faith alone.

Ah well if Agnostics are the ones who tell you that you have to accept their beliefs on faith alone, and Gnosticism is a god(s) based belief system then BOTH have to be subsets of theism.

You said this though:
"Agnosticism is the state of not knowing whether or not a god exist."

So why are you saying that "Agnostics are the ones who tell you that you have to accept their beliefs on faith alone?"
These positions (faith/belief and knowing) are not the same thing.

This would have to mean that the third Set in my chart has to be called something else, to describe people like myself who have no beliefs (are neutral. in relation to positions related to the existence of god(s).
i will call these "Neutralists" for now. I see the label has been taken by the political sector

(And I see that this is another post where you've inserted a single-pixel invisible image. Do you see the image in the post? Maybe there's something wrong with the image file itself? ETA: No, I see that they're linking to different picture numbers. Is the album they're in private? Go to the album, click on "Edit Album" and see whether the "Album Type" is set to public or private.)

Right...as I suspected, you cannot see my latest chart. Yes I do see the image in my post.
The image file should be okay as I can attach the same file to the post (as I have been doing)....
...Okay have changed the setting to 'Public' so that should sort it.

From our discussion, my chart now looks like this:

Agnosticism is still not "Atheism in Denial"

If agnostics are the ones who tell you that you have to accept their beliefs on faith alone, that has to be a subset of Theism.

 

[Navigator]

Don't know why you think I might feel bad. Do you believe what you have been arguing for, or has it been argument for arguments sake? Sorry but I can't agree that you have been putting up a good fight. Especially not Navigator.

Oh... the argument isn't over.

 

[ynot]

Oh... the argument isn't over.

Well good for you!

Think it's pretty much over for me as I don't think I have anything to say other than repeating what I've already said.

Was tempted to point out some glaring mistakes in your pretty chart but will leave that to Brian-M or someone else.

 

[Brian-M]

Well problem is solved if you can see the chart in my post here.

I see it fine, problem solved.

Not at all. We get back to the problem of baby human. They are people but they are not atheists.

If we define "atheist" as "someone who does not believe that a god exists" then they are atheists.

You also claimed that atheos was a word before theos was.

No I didn't. I claimed that "atheist" was a word before "theist" was. I also mentioned that atheist is derived from the ancient Greek "atheos" which in turn came from adding the prefix "a-" to the (pre-existing) word "theos".

Please remember that "atheos" and "theos" are not the same words as "atheist" and "theist". They're not even the same language.

I replied to that in this post, showing you where you were incorrect.

I also note that in that pose you simply assert "It actually should mean "disputes the existence of god(s)" without giving any information supporting that assertion.

Why should it mean that? And what does it matter if it should mean that when people don't use it to mean that?

Okay - well I will keep that in mind...I am still not understanding this though.
Are you thus saying that the weak position would not have cause to argue that no god(s) exist but the strong position has cause to argue that no god(s) exist...can this be implied by what you are saying here?

No, neither of those positions is sufficient to argue that no god(s) exist. Only gnostic atheists are in that position.

However, either position is sufficient to argue that a belief in god is unjustified by the available evidence.

Not necessarily. All that would do is cancel out 'soft atheist' as a subset to Atheism.
This is because it sounds like what you are referring to as a 'soft atheist' is in fact an Agnostic.

No, what I'm referring to as a soft or weak atheist is what you refer to as agnostic using your definition of agnosticism.

But it's only one of three separate agnostic positions using my definition of agnosticism. (Those positions are "agnostic soft/weak atheist", "agnostic hard/strong atheist" and "agnostic theist".)

I am not so sure your point stands under scrutiny. Neither of us invented the labels and reasons why the labels are as they are. You however believe the labels are correct and I see there are flaws in the reasoning which allowed for the labels to be made in the way you accept them.

I see your co-opting of the word "agnostic" to refer specifically to the weak atheist position as itself causing a problem, because by doing so you leave us without the labels needed to clarify whether the theist/atheist positions are being held on the basis of knowledge claims or belief claims.

It is not "clearly nonsensical" as you claim.

Given I was claiming that putting all belief positions into the category of "blank slate" was "clearly nonsensical" this can only mean that you're arguing that you can be theist and also a "blank slate" at the same time.

Either that, or you failed to understand what I was saying.

ETA: Before you respond to this, I'd like to mention that my original point was that clearly you couldn't have meant the chart to be read as an organisation or hierarchy chart because that would result in the nonsensical position of counting theists as being part of the "blank slate" group. I was just giving the reason why it was clear that the chart wasn't meant to be read that way, I wasn't claiming that you actually did mean for it to be read that way.

The arrows are not joining the boxes. They are indicating the Sets.
However, it appears that perhaps you have not seen my updated chart.

I don't see any arrows in the old chart I was referring to. But I notice that according to your updated chart only theists can be agnostics, and those without belief either way are simply labelled "neutral".

It makes me wonder what definition of agnostic you're using in that chart, because it's clearly neither the definition I use nor the definition you've been arguing for.

Not knowing = a lack of belief either way.

No, that's not correct.

I believe there is no such thing as magical pixies.
It's logically impossible for me to know that magical pixies don't exist.

So I have belief without knowledge.

Lack of knowledge is not the same thing as lack of belief.

Ah well if Agnostics are the ones who tell you that you have to accept their beliefs on faith alone, and Gnosticism is a god(s) based belief system then BOTH have to be subsets of theism.

Wrong definition.

Here's a definition of Gnostic from Wiktionary:

1. Of, or relating to, intellectual or spiritual knowledge
2. Of, or relating to Gnosticism

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gnostic#English

That Wikipedia article was about the second definition listed. But we're using it in the context as an antonym for agnosticism, which would be the first definition.

In this context, gnostic refers to people who think they have knowledge of whether or not a god exists, and not just belief.

You said this though:
"Agnosticism is the state of not knowing whether or not a god exist."

So why are you saying that "Agnostics are the ones who tell you that you have to accept their beliefs on faith alone?"
These positions (faith/belief and knowing) are not the same thing.

Yes, belief and knowing is not the same thing, that's why.

They only have a belief about god's existence or non-existence, not any knowledge derived from logic or evidence. So they can't tell you to accept their position on the basis of their knowledge, only on faith/belief.

This would have to mean that the third Set in my chart has to be called something else, to describe people like myself who have no beliefs (are neutral. in relation to positions related to the existence of god(s).
i will call these "Neutralists" for now. I see the label has been taken by the political sector

I use the term "agnostic weak-atheist".

Agnosticism is still not "Atheism in Denial"

If agnostics are the ones who tell you that you have to accept their beliefs on faith alone, that has to be a subset of Theism.

Even if their belief is that no god(s) exist?

 

[Brian-M]

Was tempted to point out some glaring mistakes in your pretty chart but will leave that to Brian-M or someone else.

I'm not sure where I'd even begin.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Let’s try it without using any terms.

People A believe a god or gods exist for any number of reasons.

People B don’t believe a god or gods exist for any number of reasons.

People C say it’s not possible to know if a god or gods exist or not and they aren’t prepared to merely believe they do or don’t (otherwise why would they require knowledge?)

Both people B and C don’t believe a god or gods exist. Neither have an active belief in a god or gods.

You have left out, or failed to distinguish, "People X believe a 'god' does not exist, or 'gods' do not exist for any number of reasons."

There is a gulf wide and fixed between "does not believe 'X' exists," and, "believes that 'X' does not exist".

 

[ynot]

You have left out, or failed to distinguish, "People X believe a 'god' does not exist, or 'gods' do not exist for any number of reasons."

They are a couple of the number of reasons of people B (aka atheists)

 

[ynot]

There is a gulf wide and fixed between "does not believe 'X' exists," and, "believes that 'X' does not exist".

Both pertain only to atheists regardless of the width of the gulf..

 

[ynot]

I'm not sure where I'd even begin.

You could start with how to correctly define atheist. But you, me and others have done that many times so you would be wasting your time and effort.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Both pertain only to atheists regardless of the width of the gulf..

And, to you, the fact that "People B" and "People X" hold two different positions is immaterial, in your arrogation of wedging others' beliefs, and lack of beliefs, into pigeon-holes of your own (not their) device...

It may be fun for you, but it is an oversimplification.

"Does not believe 'god' does exist," is a proposition fundamentally different from, "Does believe 'god' does not exist".

 

[ehcks]

And, to you, the fact that "People B" and "People X" hold two different positions is immaterial, in your arrogation of wedging others' beliefs, and lack of beliefs, into pigeon-holes of your own (not their) device...

It may be fun for you, but it is an oversimplification.

"Does not believe 'god' does exist," is a proposition fundamentally different from, "Does believe 'god' does not exist".

Which is why they are different subgroups of the group that's literally titled "not theist," the only defining characteristic of this group being "does not believe in a god or gods."

The reason behind the lack of belief does not matter. The strength of the lack of belief does not matter. The coincidental belief in anything else at all does not matter. That is simply what the word means.

 

[ynot]

And, to you, the fact that "People B" and "People X" hold two different positions is immaterial, in your arrogation of wedging others' beliefs, and lack of beliefs, into pigeon-holes of your own (not their) device...

It may be fun for you, but it is an oversimplification.

"Does not believe 'god' does exist," is a proposition fundamentally different from, "Does believe 'god' does not exist".

And to many others as well.

Did you read the post ehcks just posted? Does "your arrogation of wedging others' beliefs, and lack of beliefs, into pigeon-holes of your own (not their) device" apply to him as well? Or Brian-M? Why do you single me out for your personal attacks? (not that they bother me).

Some time ago you requested that we be friends and I accepted your offer. You are still on my friend list. Do you want me to take you off?

I’ve been a long time reader of your posts and have enjoyed the quality of their content and the civil manner in which they’ve been presented. In you posts to me in this thread this is unfortunately no longer the case. Shame.

 

[Navigator]

If we define "atheist" as "someone who does not believe that a god exists" then they are atheists.

In truth it is mostly about how we define things.

No I didn't. I claimed that "atheist" was a word before "theist" was. I also mentioned that atheist is derived from the ancient Greek "atheos" which in turn came from adding the prefix "a-" to the (pre-existing) word "theos".

So what are you saying? Who named Atheism? Atheists? Did they also name theists?

Please remember that "atheos" and "theos" are not the same words as "atheist" and "theist". They're not even the same language.

Okay. I am not exactly sure why you brought it up then.

I also note that in that pose you simply assert "It actually should mean "disputes the existence of god(s)" without giving any information supporting that assertion.

I did really.

Why shouldn't it mean "disputes the existence of god(s)"?

What happens if it should mean that but people don't use it (the label atheist) to mean that?

I mentioned that as well. I mentioned what happens.

No, neither of those positions is sufficient to argue that no god(s) exist. Only gnostic atheists are in that position.

However, either position is sufficient to argue that a belief in god is unjustified by the available evidence.

I don't follow.

No, what I'm referring to as a soft or weak atheist is what you refer to as agnostic using your definition of agnosticism.

"I have a feeling this thread will be more about how people choose to label themselves." ~ Nay_Sayer post #2

But it's only one of three separate agnostic positions using my definition of agnosticism. (Those positions are "agnostic soft/weak atheist", "agnostic hard/strong atheist" and "agnostic theist".)

I think this thread is more about how people want to label others and the methods they use for that purpose.

I see your co-opting of the word "agnostic" to refer specifically to the weak atheist position as itself causing a problem, because by doing so you leave us without the labels needed to clarify whether the theist/atheist positions are being held on the basis of knowledge claims or belief claims.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Given I was claiming that putting all belief positions into the category of "blank slate" was "clearly nonsensical" this can only mean that you're arguing that you can be theist and also a "blank slate" at the same time.

I am coming from the understanding that saying a human new born is an atheist is nonsensical and that there is a difference between blank slate and lacking belief in god(s).
One is closer to the truth than the other.

One is acknowledging the overall ignorance and the other is focusing just upon one aspect of the ignorance and declaring upon the strength of that narrow focus, that all babies are therefore atheist.

If that isn't nonsensical then it surely at least is self deception.

Either that, or you failed to understand what I was saying.

Certainly I don't understand everything you are saying.

ETA: Before you respond to this, I'd like to mention that my original point was that clearly you couldn't have meant the chart to be read as an organisation or hierarchy chart because that would result in the nonsensical position of counting theists as being part of the "blank slate" group. I was just giving the reason why it was clear that the chart wasn't meant to be read that way, I wasn't claiming that you actually did mean for it to be read that way.

That is another result of having a narrow focus. When the focus is narrow it allows for someone to claim I am an atheist (because I lack belief in god(s)) and label me so. Things are not as clear cut as the narrow interpretation would insist.

I don't see any arrows in the old chart I was referring to. But I notice that according to your updated chart only theists can be agnostics, and those without belief either way are simply labelled "neutral".

It makes me wonder what definition of agnostic you're using in that chart, because it's clearly neither the definition I use nor the definition you've been arguing for.

No it isn't the definition I have been arguing for. For now it is a chart subject to change which I am using as a tool to see if it helps me to understand your definitions as you present them...

...with in mind that I am still not coming from the narrow definition of the assumed default of a new born human being that of atheist.

Our charts are necessarily different. We are coming from different perspectives to do with the default postion.

But also - because as you have been defining agnostics I am having to accept those definitions and drop the understanding I did have, which came about through interaction on this forum some many months ago when the same subject came up (as it seems to do) and through those interactions I was told that my position as someone who lacked belief in god(s) and lacked beliefs to do with god(s) existing or not existing was therefore agnostic.

I accepted then that I didn't need to self identify as atheist because I was agnostic (thus my interest in this thread.)

I was more comfortable self identifying as agnostic.

This is similar to my aversion to being called a Christian just because I accept and follow certain sayings which are attributed to Jesus.

It is somewhat offensive because I don't like Christianity. I understand that there are many genuine people who call themselves Christians whom I would be happy to be associated with - not because they are Christians but because they are genuine, gentle, non bullying, non abusive, enjoy peace and live just as equally from the heart as from the head.

In the same way and for the same reasons I don't like being called an atheist.

Yes, not all people who call themselves atheists are rude, abusive, bullying, seemingly hateful individuals, but the damage has been done. To many people the label atheist is no better than the label Christian.

I am one of those people.

More than this, I tire of being labelled, as much as I tire of others insisting labels upon me.

Especially labels which do not even adequately express how I am with myself and with others.

Especially labels which derive from a narrow definition, which does not enfold all of the aspects of the example, as is the case with the ignorance of a human baby. It is ignorant about all things. Not just about god(s) concepts. It is the concepts which form the beliefs, and the beliefs which elaborate the concepts.



When labels are tainted from their initial meaning through individuals calling themselves by the labels and acting certain ways, people get confused or start to think of the meaning of the label in associations with the overall expression of the outspoken ones using the labels.

In the extreme example I could point out those who behead people in the name of Islam.
No matter that even the majority of Islamic people might protest that such behavior is not true to the label, the damage has been done.

No, that's not correct.

I believe there is no such thing as magical pixies.
It's logically impossible for me to know that magical pixies don't exist.

So I have belief without knowledge.

Lack of knowledge is not the same thing as lack of belief.

What you don't know is that is that you don't actually have to believe there is no such thing as magical pixies in the first place.

This is exactly why I created this thread belief is just not necessary in relation to your example about pixies.
It is surplus to requirement.

One does not have to believe either way.

Wrong definition.



Here's a definition of Gnostic from Wiktionary:

1. Of, or relating to, intellectual or spiritual knowledge
2. Of, or relating to Gnosticism

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gnostic#English

That Wikipedia article was about the second definition listed. But we're using it in the context as an antonym for agnosticism, which would be the first definition.

In this context, gnostic refers to people who think they have knowledge of whether or not a god exists, and not just belief.

Yet...if they think they have knowledge, then they can share that knowledge so everyone has the same knowledge and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But we are having this discussion so I can surmise that whether they think they have knowledge and since the knowledge is not public and doesn't give us any resolution in regard to whether or not [a] god(s) exist, what they are thinking is knowledge must be belief.

Yes, belief and knowing is not the same thing, that's why.

Yet as i have explained, Gnostic knowledge can be only belief parading as knowledge. This is because belief and knowing is not the same thing as well as because of what I said above.

They only have a belief about god's existence or non-existence, not any knowledge derived from logic or evidence. So they can't tell you to accept their position on the basis of their knowledge, only on faith/belief.

So are you saying that Gnostic do have actual knowledge and evidence about [a] god(s)s existence or non-existence?

I use the term "agnostic weak-atheist".

Of course you do. This stems from your belief that the default position of a human baby is atheist.

Even if their belief is that no god(s) exist?

They would be atheists. Now why would atheists want me to accept their beliefs on faith alone?

Lets see now...Atheists believe that no god(s) exist. I suppose that some of these might want me to to accept that on faith alone.

So - Atheists lack belief in god(s) ... I suppose that some of these might want me to to accept that on faith alone.

Therefore those type atheists want me to join with them without questioning their self identifying labels or examining their claimed positions too closely.



The problem is twofold.

1: Belief itself.
2: The belief that all humans are born atheists by default.

 

[RickM]

And to many others as well.

Did you read the post ehcks just posted? Does "your arrogation of wedging others' beliefs, and lack of beliefs, into pigeon-holes of your own (not their) device" apply to him as well? Or Brian-M? Why do you single me out for your personal attacks? (not that they bother me).

Some time ago you requested that we be friends and I accepted your offer. You are still on my friend list. Do you want me to take you off?

I’ve been a long time reader of your posts and have enjoyed the quality of their content and the civil manner in which they’ve been presented. In you posts to me in this thread this is unfortunately no longer the case. Shame.

I'm sorry, this is good stuff. ynot, you are quite the gem!

"Does not believe 'god' does exist," is a proposition fundamentally different from, "Does believe 'god' does not exist".

I’ll take a crack at this:

Statement A could apply to a gnostic-theist, where statement B only applies to an atheist? As in:

The preacher does not "believe" God does exist, the preacher "knows" God does exist.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip>
I’ll take a crack at this:

Statement A could apply to a gnostic-theist, where statement B only applies to an atheist? As in:

The preacher does not "believe" God does exist, the preacher "knows" God does exist.

I do apologize, RickM, but you also appear to be blaming the piddle for the puppy.

"Does not believe 'god' does exist" is not the same as "Does believe 'god' does not exist".

I agree that both are, in fact, "a-theist" ideas; I agree that neither is an "a-gnostic" idea. I maintain that it is a mug's game to practice telling another person what that person, in fact, believes; and what that person's belief, or lack of belief, "really means".

 

[RickM]

I agree that both are, in fact, "a-theist" ideas; I agree that neither is an "a-gnostic" idea. I maintain that it is a mug's game to practice telling another person what that person, in fact, believes; and what that person's belief, or lack of belief, "really means".

I agree with this sentiment.

Neither did Einstein like to be categorized with his quote from Ronald W. Clark's book, Einstein: The Life and Times: "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”

 

[ynot]

I do apologize, RickM, but you also appear to be blaming the piddle for the puppy.

"Does not believe 'god' does exist" is not the same as "Does believe 'god' does not exist".

I agree that both are, in fact, "a-theist" ideas; I agree that neither is an "a-gnostic" idea. I maintain that it is a mug's game to practice telling another person what that person, in fact, believes; and what that person's belief, or lack of belief, "really means".

Quote a single post in this thread in which I, or anyone else, has told you (Slowvehicle) personally “what you “in fact, believe; and what your belief, or lack of belief, "really means".

This is a debate in which people (including yourself) present their own views and argue for them against counter views. This is not telling other people what or how or why they personally believe. If you think having a robust debate with people that have different opinions than yours is a mugs game then why are you even on this forum?

 

[ynot]

I'm sorry, this is good stuff. ynot, you are quite the gem!

Not sure if that's an insult or compliment. I'm not fussed either way.