Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial

[ynot]

Will you at least agree that it is possible to retain the lack of belief without having to also choose to believe that god(s) don't exist

Yes, in fact “lack of belief” means you haven’t chosen. You can't “lack of belief” and "believe that god(s) don't exist" at the same time.

So your “true definition of atheist” is just silly.

The true definition of atheist is 'lack of belief in god(s) and believing that god(s) don't exist.

and that in doing so, one is not an atheist because to be an atheist one also has to believe god(s) don't exist ?

No “lack of belief” defines what “atheism" is. “Believes god(s) don’t exist” is defines what many atheists do.

 

[Navigator]

What you are really saying is that there are only two legitimate positions - atheism and theism and that the sub categories of these two positions are able to contain and account for every human being that has, is and will ever exist.

However, what I am really saying is that this simply isn't the case with me. I have not changed my position from the default category. I lack belief in god(s) and nor have I added to the default category. I have no beliefs about whether god(s) exist or not.

I lack belief in god(s) (so does a human baby)

I have no beliefs about whether god(s) exist or not. (nor does a human baby)

An atheist lacks belief in god(s) (so does a human baby)

An atheist has beliefs about whether god(s) exist or not. (a human baby does not )

A theist has belief in god(s) (a human baby does not )

A theist has beliefs about whether god(s) exist or not. (a human baby does not )

 

[ynot]

No. I am acknowledging that both atheism and theism start at the same default category 'Lacks belief in god(s) but that both move away from that default.
Theism moves the furthest away. It renounces the lack of belief. Atheism retains the lack of belief but adds to it the belief that god(s) don't exist in response to theism's renouncing the lack of belief and deciding to believe that god(s) exist.

Don’t you see any problem in claiming atheism is both “lack of belief” and “belief that god(s) don't exist” at the same time?

 

[ynot]

What you are really saying is that there are only two legitimate positions - atheism and theism and that the sub categories of these two positions are able to contain and account for every human being that has, is and will ever exist.

Yes. Theists have a belief in god(s). Atheists are not theists because atheists don’t have a belief in god(s). (really simple isn’t it)

However, what I am really saying is that this simply isn't the case with me. I have not changed my position from the default category. I lack belief in god(s) and nor have I added to the default category. I have no beliefs about whether god(s) exist or not.

You are an atheist in denial.

I lack belief in god(s) (so does a human baby)
I have no beliefs about whether god(s) exist or not. (nor does a human baby)
An atheist lacks belief in god(s) (so does a human baby)
An atheist has beliefs about whether god(s) exist or not. (a human baby does not )
A theist has belief in god(s) (a human baby does not )
A theist has beliefs about whether god(s) exist or not. (a human baby does not )

That’s why a baby is an atheist and not a theist

 

[Navigator]

Yes, in fact “lack of belief” means you haven’t chosen.

Exactly. Therefore once someone has chosen - has made the choice, they are then either theist or atheist

You can't “lack of belief” and "believe that god(s) don't exist" at the same time.

Yes you can. You can lack belief in god(s) and believe that god(s) don't exist. All at the same time.

Or you can lack belief in god(s) but not also believe that god(s) don't exist.

But you can't lack belief in god(s) and also believe that god(s) do exist.

No “lack of belief” defines what “atheism" is. “Believes god(s) don’t exist” is defines what many atheists do.

Apart from the general understanding that atheists - how did you put it...
"A - "I’m an atheist”
B - “What’s an atheist?”
A - “A person that doesn’t have a belief in god(s)”
B - “Why are you an atheist?”
A - “I believe god(s) don’t exist”"

There is no reason to think that some atheists do not believe god(s) don't exist.

There is no reason to call such people atheists. If they do not believe gods don't exist, then they needn't be referred to as atheists. There need not be such a cause for possible confusion to arise in the first place. That there is has to do with some atheists wanting to be seen as being able to say that they do not believe god(s) don't exist.

"A - "I’m an atheist”
B - “What’s an atheist?”
A - “A person that doesn’t have a belief in god(s)”
B - “Why are you an atheist?”
A - “I do not believe that god(s) don’t exist”"

Yeah ...right...

 

[RoboTimbo]

There is more to the argument than theism and atheism.

No, there really isn't.

My position is not a subset of either theism or atheism.

Which gods do you believe in?

 

[RoboTimbo]

No. I am acknowledging that both atheism and theism start at the same default category 'Lacks belief in god(s) but that both move away from that default.

No, atheism doesn't require a conscious choice any more than not collecting behtuvels does. Babies are born atheist.

 

[ynot]

Apart from the general understanding that atheists - how did you put it...
"A - "I’m an atheist”
B - “What’s an atheist?”
A - “A person that doesn’t have a belief in god(s)”
B - “Why are you an atheist?”
A - “I believe god(s) don’t exist”"

That scenario was a reason a particular atheist was an atheist. It wasn't representative of all atheists. But I think you already knew that

 

[ynot]

Is this what you’re arguing for Navigator?

Theist = Believes god(s) do exists (not an atheist or middleist)
Atheist = Believes god(s) don’t exist (not a theist or middleist)
Middleist = Neither believes nor disbelieves god(s) exist (not a theist or atheist)

If so, where and when can we all get a copy of the new Navigator Dictionary and Thesaurus?

 

[Brian-M]

Nope. I am not confused. I can see clearly what is going on here. If any word is used to mean something else depending on the context, then it is done so to create confusion and argument in the first place.

The way to change that is to assign words to different context which are not going to be able to cause confusion or argument.

Why were words permitted to be used in this way in the first place? Did the ancients have to small a vocabulary? Or did those in opposing positions of leadership realize that their positions and their opposing arguments would become invalid if the common people they were directing got a whiff of the charade?

Okay, I see the problem. You clearly don't understand that natural language is subject to things like linguistic drift, semantic change, and is prone to develop a tangle of conflicting definitions.

There's nobody in charge of deciding what words mean. That's one reason why dictionaries keep coming out with new editions, because meanings keep changing.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Okay, I see the problem. You clearly don't understand that natural language is subject to things like linguistic drift, semantic change, and is prone to develop a tangle of conflicting definitions.

There's nobody in charge of deciding what words mean. That's one reason why dictionaries keep coming out with new editions, because meanings keep changing.

That is a half-truth. E.g. the word rational has a historical root in at least western history, which goes back to the old Greeks of the classical era and it involves a certain world view.

Here is another example: "Atheism: archaic : ungodliness, wickedness".
It show that there are sometimes attached moral value judgment to the meaning of words and it also seems to be the case in this thread.

With regards

 

[Navigator]

Okay, I see the problem. You clearly don't understand that natural language is subject to things like linguistic drift, semantic change, and is prone to develop a tangle of conflicting definitions.

There's nobody in charge of deciding what words mean. That's one reason why dictionaries keep coming out with new editions, because meanings keep changing.

The dictionary is evidence that humans beings are using language as inappropriate tool for disagreement and confusing things rather than for communication which can help create unity rather than segregation.




One of the reasons meanings keep changing needs to be because people have discovered that they are proven to be

 

[ynot]

I actually wouldn’t mind if there was a middle category between theist and atheist that was called agnostic . . .

• Theist = Believes god(s) do exists (not an atheist or agnostic)
• Agnostic = Neither believes nor disbelieves god(s) exist (not a theist or atheist)
• Atheist = Believes god(s) don’t exist (not a theist or agnostic)

But that would require redefining the meanings of "atheist" and "agnostic" . . .

• Theist = Believes god(s) do exists (not an atheist)
• Atheist = Doesn’t believe god(s) do exist (not a theist) - This is not saying god(s) don’t exist and the reasons atheists don’t believe is irrelevant.
• Agnostic = Can’t attain knowledge of god(s) existence or non-existence. (not concerned with belief)

Somehow agnostic has been misinterpreted and misused as meaning “Can’t decide whether to believe in god(s) or not” (knowledge and belief conflated).
Theism and atheism are only concerned with belief and agnosticism with knowledge. Therefore “agnostic” can only be correctly applied to either theism or atheism as subsets (believe regardless of no knowledge - not believe because of no knowledge)

 

[Navigator]

The dictionary is evidence that humans beings are using language as inappropriate tool for disagreement and confusing things rather than for communication which can help create unity rather than segregation.

One of the reasons meanings keep changing needs to be because people have discovered that they are proven to be

The above post was incomplete - I was composing it before having to go to work and hadn't realized that I had submited it.

One of the reasons meanings keep changing needs to be understood to be because people have discovered that words are proven to be inadequate for portraying the meanings intended.

One way to navigate possible confusion would be to always be clear as to what context one is using the word ask the person using whatever word they are using in relation to the subject of conversation, to clarify why they are using that particular word.

For example, if I claim that belief is irrational and someone argues that if they go to bed at night they believe they will awaken in the morning, therefore belief is not irrational, ask the person arguing from that position why they are specifically choosing to use that word when there are other, more suitable words which could be used.

 

[ynot]

It’s that the common usage of words change and the meaning needs to change to suit the “new” usage. The word “gay” for instance. Doesn’t mean that the meaning was inadequate for the previous common usage. There’s always a lag in the change. Sometimes that lag can be generational.

 

[Navigator]

I actually wouldn’t mind if there was a middle category between theist and atheist that was called agnostic . . .

There is. It is actually a fact.

• Theist = Believes god(s) do exists (not an atheist or agnostic)
• Agnostic = Neither believes nor disbelieves god(s) exist (not a theist or atheist)
• Atheist = Believes god(s) don’t exist (not a theist or agnostic)

But that would require redefining the meanings of "atheist" and "agnostic" . .

Or it would require acknowledging the middle position and making up a word for that position.
Agnostic has more than one meaning. That is part of the problem. Only one of its meanings relates to the middle position.

• Theist = Believes god(s) do exists (not an atheist)
• Atheist = Doesn’t believe god(s) do exist (not a theist) - This is not saying god(s) don’t exist and the reasons atheists don’t believe is irrelevant.
• Agnostic = Can’t attain knowledge of god(s) existence or non-existence. (not concerned with belief)

Somehow agnostic has been misinterpreted and misused as meaning “Can’t decide whether to believe in god(s) or not” (knowledge and belief conflated).
Theism and atheism are only concerned with belief and agnosticism with knowledge. Therefore “agnostic” can only be correctly applied to either theism or atheism as subsets (believe regardless of no knowledge - not believe because of no knowledge)

That is what I have been arguing. However the confusion you show here has to do with knowledge. Generally understood, knowledge has to do with finding things out. In regard to the middle position it isn't a case of knowledge but lack of enough knowledge to make the call one way or the other.

The particular knowledge has to do with god(s) so in the case of the middle position, neither theism or atheism provide such knowledge, which allows for one in the middle position to shift either way. So the position retains ignorance about the subject, because no such knowledge is forthcoming.

In regards to agnostic being subset of theism because of belief (in the existence of god(s) regardless of knowledge, the knowledge referred to is what?

It is the knowledge that no evidence to support the existence of god(s) is available...but what evidence that does exist is interpreted to signify god(s) exist.

In regards to agnostic being subset of atheism because of belief (in the non existence of god(s), the knowledge referred to is what?

It is still the knowledge that no evidence to support the existence of god(s) is available...but what evidence that does exist is interpreted to signify god(s) do not exist.

If there actually needs to be a subset (or subsets) for atheism and theism, why do they have to use the word 'agnostic' anyway?

Being an agnostic has nothing to do with belief so why is it even associated with belief?

The only answer I have to that question is because over the course of ancient history where atheism and theism have developed from and alongside that development have acquired positions of great influence over human consciousness, (human beings) there has always been a middle position which has been viewed as non acceptable and even as something vile, mamby pamby, cowardly, (add whatever particular villainous description) but whatever the description, neither theism or atheism has been able to completely eradicate from existence the middle position or those who identify with the middle position.
So, theists and atheists tried to adopt the middle position by making it a subset of their respective positions.

From the perspective of the middle positions, the two other positions which are outwardly different and in opposition with each other both operate within the structures of belief systems and have proven to be so similar in their outward expressions that they appear to be much the much the same thing in different guises.

Sure there is knowledge which is real and then interpreted as 'this' or 'that' depending on how it needs to fit in with the belief...but neither interpretations of the knowledge are acceptable to the middle position as evidence that either theism or atheism is the correct position to adopt.

Until such a time as this becomes the case, the middle position will always exist and for that matter be the best position to adopt.

If everyone adopted the middle position the outward expression from that position into the world would radically change the way humans behave, both towards each other and toward the general environment.

As the saying goes. "good luck with that".

 

[Navigator]

It’s that the common usage of words change and the meaning needs to change to suit the “new” usage. The word “gay” for instance. Doesn’t mean that the meaning was inadequate for the previous common usage. There’s always a lag in the change. Sometimes that lag can be generational.

Sometimes it can just hang on for centuries, with no particular necessity seen which requires it to be cast away.

 

[ynot]

There is. It is actually a fact.

But only a Navigator fact

 

[Navigator]

But only a Navigator fact

No. navigator simply acknowledges the middle position as fact. Navigator explains in same post why navigator acknowledges the fact.



ETA

When navigator had belief systems, navigator did not notice the fact thus navigator could not acknowledge the fact...

 

[RoboTimbo]

There is. It is actually a fact.

Actually, no there isn't.