Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial

[Navigator]

I think the issue here is the language used.
"I don't believe in any god(s)" is the same as "I believe there aren't any god(s)."

They have the same meaning: the lack of belief that any gods exist. The only difference is the strength of the words used. "I believe there aren't any gods" is the stronger statement. It's taking a stance that there are no gods while the other statement uses "believe in" which comes off like a form of worship instead of existence. Are you saying by "not believing in" god(s), you're not denying its existence, or are you not worshiping?

The default position is 'lacks belief in god(s).' That is all.

"I don't believe there are any god(s)" can be taken as I lack belief in god(s) as long as one can also say "I don't disbelieve there are any god(s)"

"I believe there aren't any god(s)." cannot be said alongside "I don't disbelieve there are any god(s)" therefore is not the same as the default position because a human baby - while lacking belief in god(s) also lacks disbelief in god(s)

Since atheists claim they can lack belief in gods AND believe no god(s) exist, they effectively abandon the default position in favor of a new one.

Since the middle position can lack belief in god(s) AND not have a belief either way in god(s) existing, they remain at the default position because human babies also lack belief in god(s) AND do not have a belief either way in god(s) existing.

 

[Brian-M]

Therefore atheism is not the default position. The middle position remains true to the default position. The middle position is neither atheism or theism.

The middle or default position is non-belief.

You call non-belief agnosticism, we call non-belief soft/weak atheism.

We're talking about the same thing, just giving it different labels.

 

[ynot]

Then what would you define "believe in" as? Worship? Existence?

"Belief in" is defined by the context of the sentence. In the context of the debate the sentence is essentially saying "I lack belief either for or against god(s) existence"

 

[Navigator]

Strictly speaking, that is the same as saying you do believe in god(s).

I assume you meant you "don't believe that no gods(s) exist either"?

It's clear that the problem is that we're using the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" in different ways.

So how about we change the situation by replacing the words with short descriptors indicating what we mean by these words?

We're saying that you're an [non-believer] and you're disagreeing by saying that you're an [non-believer], not an [disbeliever].

That's where the confusion is coming from, we're using the same words to label different concepts:

Word | You | Us
atheist | [disbeliever] | [non-believer]
agnostic | [non-believer] | [non-knower]

Existing definitions are vague enough that both ways of using these words are correct.

This is what I meant before about words being used to mean different things in different contexts. It's not "done so to create confusion and argument" as you claimed, it's just that different groups people have given these words specific definitions in order to clarify what they mean amongst each other, and then come across other groups who have done the same thing with the same words, except that they've used different definitions than the first group.

If a theist were to ask me if I lacked belief in god(s) I would say 'Yes'.
If the theist then said 'that makes you an atheist' i would say 'no', because I don't have a belief either way as to whether god(s) exist. I simply lack belief in god(s)

Then the theist would shake his head and say, "your atheist brethren think you are an atheist and so do I."

And I would reply that "it doesn't matter what you or they think I am. It only matters what I know I am."

But while I of course agree that language is confusing the issue, and even that you say that adherents to these particular positions over the centuries since ancient times have tried to lesson the confusion, as I have said, they don't want there to be a middle ground. They want either for or against.

So what?

I am neither for or against. this is definitely not because I am in denial but because while all those discussions and agreements on who was who etc were being made, no one seems to have taken into consideration that a new born infant not only lacks belief in gods but also lacks belief that god(s) exist/don't exist.

How anyone managed to overlook that particular aspect while they sorted out who was who and what was what, is anyone's guess, but it is quite logical to think that part of the whole process involved getting rid of any middle ground so that one was only under the impression that there were only two choices to be made. Atheism or theism.

This is evident even with your and other atheists arguments here. there can only be two choices so you believe.

But that is not actually true.

 

[Navigator]

The middle or default position is non-belief.

You call non-belief agnosticism, we call non-belief soft/weak atheism.

We're talking about the same thing, just giving it different labels.

Nope.

Otherwise the default position would be called 'soft atheism' but it is not. It is called 'atheism.'

So an agnostic as it is generally understood is someone who has no beliefs either way.

I don;t call myself an atheist or an agnostic because those lables have been distorted and confused.

I don't call myself anything (anymore) in relation to the idea of god(s) but take the middle position, which is not atheist and is not theist.

 

[Dani]

So which definition would you choose as being the most correct?

I have my own choice, but I wouldn't describe definitions as correct or incorrect, but more or less used. They are just codes for conveying information, and what's important is not the code itself, but the information it contains.

If we wish to exchange our thoughts through language, it's in our mutual interest that we use the same word for roughly the same concept. And we generally tend to do that, otherwise language would be pointless. It doesn't matter whether the word we use is "atheism" or "faourai", and it doesn't matter whether its meaning is "lack of belief in the existence of God" or "a thing used for transporting people or goods", as long as we understand each other when we use that particular word. Of course, I'm stretching it a bit to emphasize the point. Usually the differing concepts are much more related, as is the case with the term "atheism". Both definitions are reasonable in that they are not bizarre. It's practical to acknowledge alternative uses of a word, even if we don't tend to share it.

I have the impression that you and Navigator understand each other, but are using different sets of definitions. If that's the case, then your discussion over what "atheist" really means is pointless. Under your definition, Navigator is an atheist, and under Navigator's definition, he or she is not.

My take: I tend to use the two different axes that make atheism and theism compatible with agnosticism, the former referring to belief and the latter to knowledge. I do that because that's what people generally do in these forums and within the atheist English speaking community. However, in Spanish, my native language (well, not really) the definition of "atheist" tends to be the one Navigator uses, so I'm especially aware of that possibility when people use that term, and in fact that happens quite often even in English. If you ask me, I find the term "agnostic" more useful when it refers to people who are merely undecided, even though that's from the set of definitions I tend not to use. I say "set" because when people use "agnostic" that way, they usually relegate "atheist" to the "strong" meaning that requires disbelief. The other use of "agnostic", although interesting, doesn't seem like a very useful response to the question "do you believe in God?" other than to spark discussions about epistemology. It looks like a redundancy to me.

This link might be useful:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/

 

[RoboTimbo]

My position is the middle ground.

There isn't a middle ground. You lack belief in any gods so you are an atheist.

Since many who call themselves 'atheists' do in fact believe that no god(s) exist, they differ from the middle position and thus I am not an atheist.

There is no middle position. You are an atheist.

Theism and atheism can try to squeeze out the fact of the middle ground, but that too is irrelevant.

There is no middle ground. You lack belief in any gods so you are an atheist.

If it were a question which scientific process could answer, science would take into account that if something moves away from the default position, then that something is no longer at the default position. Atheism moves away so does not represent the default position.

No, atheism is the default position.

Therefore atheism is not the default position.

Yes, atheism is the default position.

The middle position remains true to the default position. The middle position is neither atheism or theism.

There is no middle position. If you lack belief in any gods then you are, by default, an atheist.

 

[RoboTimbo]

But that is not actually true.

It actually is, despite your belief.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yes, you have a point.
If we restrict the meaning of atheist to mean "doesn't believe in god(s)" then yes. But there is a difference between these two definitions of definition:


Can you spot the difference?

Can I care?

Let me think...

Nope, semantic games don't interest me.

 

[Dani]

If a theist were to ask me if I lacked belief in god(s) I would say 'Yes'.
If the theist then said 'that makes you an atheist' i would say 'no', because I don't have a belief either way as to whether god(s) exist. I simply lack belief in god(s)

Then the theist would shake his head and say, "your atheist brethren think you are an atheist and so do I."

And I would reply that "it doesn't matter what you or they think I am. It only matters what I know I am."

But while I of course agree that language is confusing the issue, and even that you say that adherents to these particular positions over the centuries since ancient times have tried to lesson the confusion, as I have said, they don't want there to be a middle ground. They want either for or against.

So what?

I am neither for or against. this is definitely not because I am in denial but because while all those discussions and agreements on who was who etc were being made, no one seems to have taken into consideration that a new born infant not only lacks belief in gods but also lacks belief that god(s) exist/don't exist.

How anyone managed to overlook that particular aspect while they sorted out who was who and what was what, is anyone's guess, but it is quite logical to think that part of the whole process involved getting rid of any middle ground so that one was only under the impression that there were only two choices to be made. Atheism or theism.

This is evident even with your and other atheists arguments here. there can only be two choices so you believe.

But that is not actually true.

It's pretty simple:

Under a particular definition, you're an atheist, and other people are right in describing you as an atheist.

Under another particular definition (which is the one you use), you're not an atheist. People who described you as an atheist under that definition would be wrong.

It's obvious that the people who say you're an atheist are using the first definition. Shoving definitions down each other's throats isn't going to solve this pseudo-misunderstanding. Refusing to acknowledge what actual people mean on the basis of "real meaning" is pointless if your goal is communication. Especially, when the intended meaning has been explained several times by both parties.

This might be useful for you too:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/

 

[ynot]

It's pretty simple:

Under a particular definition, you're an atheist, and other people are right in describing you as an atheist.

Under another particular definition (which is the one you use), you're not an atheist. People who described you as an atheist under that definition would be wrong.

It's obvious that the people who say you're an atheist are using the first definition. Shoving definitions down each other's throats isn't going to solve this pseudo-misunderstanding. Refusing to acknowledge what actual people mean on the basis of "real meaning" is pointless if your goal is communication. Especially, when the intended meaning has been explained several times by both parties.

This might be useful for you too:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/

You say that as if both definitions are equally valid and it's a 50/50 choice. Is this what you think? A simple yes or no will do.

My claim/argument in this thread is based on what I believe to be the currently correct definitions, and why I believe they are currently correct has been explained by several other members in this thread as well as myself.

 

[ynot]

There isn't a middle ground. You lack belief in any gods so you are an atheist.

There is no middle position. You are an atheist.

There is no middle ground. You lack belief in any gods so you are an atheist.

No, atheism is the default position.

Yes, atheism is the default position.

There is no middle position. If you lack belief in any gods then you are, by default, an atheist.

Rinse and repeat

 

[Dani]

But are both definitions equally correct, or is one more correct than the other?

My claim/argument in this thread is based on "my" definitions.

You don't seem to have understood my post. Did you click on that link? It's a good read and might help you clarify why disputing definitions is futile most of the time.

I would caution against using exclusively your own definitions in an argument in which you describe how other people label themselves. You necessarily need to take into account what they mean when they describe themselves and, in any case, examine whether they're in denial within their own usage, not yours.

 

[Dani]

You say that as if both definitions are equally valid and it's a 50/50 choice. Is this what you think? A simple yes or no will do.

My claim/argument in this thread is based on what I believe to be the currently correct definitions, and why I believe they are currently correct has been explained by several other members in this thread as well as myself.

Definitions are valid as long as the people involved agree to them. Is it that difficult?

If you are using different definitions, you're talking about different things and it's pointless to go on. If no one is going to accept the opponent's definition for the purpose of the discussion, then just drop the word and replace it with what you both mean.

 

[Brian-M]

I am neither for or against.

Yes, we know. You've made that abundantly clear.
We're all aware of that fact, and nobody's disputing it.

And yet you keep on telling us again and again, as if there were some reason you might think we didn't understand.

no one seems to have taken into consideration that a new born infant not only lacks belief in gods but also lacks belief that god(s) exist/don't exist.

I don't see why you would think that, as it's an example which is frequently presented when discussing atheism. It's an example that you've brought up in this thread before.

How anyone managed to overlook that particular aspect while they sorted out who was who and what was what, is anyone's guess, but it is quite logical to think that part of the whole process involved getting rid of any middle ground so that one was only under the impression that there were only two choices to be made. Atheism or theism.

This is evident even with your and other atheists arguments here. there can only be two choices so you believe.

But that is not actually true.

It's only "not actually true" if you don't understand what we're saying.

We're defining "atheist" as "not theist".
(ETA: Just for clarification, by "we" I don't mean you.)

So the two positions are "theist" and "not theist".

"Not theist" covers more than one position.

Let's put it another way...

X = belief god(s) exist
Y = no belief either way
Z = belief god(s) don't exist​

How we define the words...

Theist = X
Atheist = NOT X​

Obviously NOT X must include both Y and Z, as well as any other possible position, such as K or S, whatever they may be.

The middle ground isn't being overlooked, it's being included in the broader category of NOT X.

If we're dividing things into X and NOT X, how could we be excluding anything?

The problem comes from the fact that you keep insisting that "atheist" should be defined as Z and then respond to our posts as if we were using it to mean Z, despite the fact we keep telling you that we're just using it to mean NOT X.

Otherwise the default position would be called 'soft atheism' but it is not. It is called 'atheism.'

The default position is Y. Atheism is NOT X, therefore the default position is a subset of atheism.

Since we're using the term "soft atheism" to specifically refer to Y, then the default position is called "soft atheism".

So an agnostic as it is generally understood is someone who has no beliefs either way.

Once again, this depends on context.

In casual usage, that is what agnosticism often refers to.

In its intended usage, it refers to someone who claims that it's impossible to know anything about god.

In detailed discussions about theism, it's often used to refer to a lack of knowledge.

"I ... invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of 'agnostic,' ... antithetic to the 'Gnostic' of Church history who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant."
[T.H. Huxley, "Science and Christian Tradition," 1889]​

 

[ynot]

What you call "The middle ground" isn't being overlooked, it's being included in the broader category of NOT X.

Amended for clarity.

 

[ynot]

So an agnostic as it is generally understood is someone who has no beliefs either way.

In its intended usage, it refers to someone who claims that it's impossible to know anything about god.

So an agnostic as it is more correctly understood is someone who has no knowledge either way.

 

[Navigator]

Definitions are valid as long as the people involved agree to them. Is it that difficult?

If you are using different definitions, you're talking about different things and it's pointless to go on. If no one is going to accept the opponent's definition for the purpose of the discussion, then just drop the word and replace it with what you both mean.

I'll go with that.

 

[ynot]

I'll go with that.

Then you will go with Brian-M's last post?

 

[RickM]

If a theist were to ask me if I lacked belief in god(s) I would say 'Yes'.
If the theist then said 'that makes you an atheist' i would say 'no', because I don't have a belief either way as to whether god(s) exist. I simply lack belief in god(s)

Then the theist would shake his head and say, "your atheist brethren think you are an atheist and so do I.

"And I would reply that "it doesn't matter what you or they think I am. It only matters what I know I am."
But while I of course agree that language is confusing the issue, and even that you say that adherents to these particular positions over the centuries since ancient times have tried to lesson the confusion, as I have said, they don't want there to be a middle ground. They want either for or against.

So what?

I am neither for or against. this is definitely not because I am in denial but because while all those discussions and agreements on who was who etc were being made, no one seems to have taken into consideration that a new born infant not only lacks belief in gods but also lacks belief that god(s) exist/don't exist.

How anyone managed to overlook that particular aspect while they sorted out who was who and what was what, is anyone's guess, but it is quite logical to think that part of the whole process involved getting rid of any middle ground so that one was only under the impression that there were only two choices to be made. Atheism or theism.

This is evident even with your and other atheists arguments here. there can only be two choices so you believe.

But that is not actually true.

The above highlighted is a perfectly fine position to take and I wouldn't let anyone talk you away from it. I would further contend, the word "agnostic" is the best possible expression for this middle ground. One can't find an English dictionary on the face of the planet that doesn't describe "agnostic" as both a noun and adjective, giving the word the ability to easily stand alone.

Also, as I have previously shown, the inventor of the term "agnostic-atheist," Robert Flint, also conceded the category "agnostic" as a separate entity in cases (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10517244#post10517244)

Further, previously demonstrated, Einstein, one of the greatest luminaries of the 20th century, similarly described himself in the above fashion (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10502059#post10502059).

And, lastly, if the question of God came before Congress, there would be three choices and not two. It can't be simplified any further than this:

Yea (believer)
Nay (disbeliever)
Abstain (agnostic)