Are the terms "atheism" and "theism" logically consistent or useful?

[David Mo]

You need a reason to believe something, but not to not believe something. Not believing is the default position, otherwise you would be obliged to believe in everything that hasn't been disproved.

Strange, because you give a reason to not to believe in the same phrase that you affirm that no reason is needed.

 

[David Mo]

No, not what I call them and I haven't changed the names. I'll ask you to refer to Thomas Huxley, who coined the term, again.

If agnostic is the midpoint on the line between theist and atheist, what is the opposite of agnostic?


No, they lack belief that any gods exist.


And that's where the theist is mistaken. Lacking belief isn't the same as maintaining a belief. This is the tu quoque Mojo spoke of earlier and which everyone here saw coming from the first post.

Thank you for finally admitting that this was the goal although when I asked what the goal was a few posts back, you said that there wasn't one.


Tu quoque.


No, based on a lack of evidence (atheist) vs. a lack of reason (theist).


The fideist is a fool.


And this is that switching the burden of proof that was spoken of earlier. Everyone saw that coming from a mile away also.


Agnostic atheism doesn't have a goal.

1. Huxley coined (perhaps) the term “agnostic” in the sense of a person that neither affirms that God exists nor affirms that God does not exist. (See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “Atheism and Agnosticism” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#3 )
1.1. I don’t know if Huxley has spoken of “agnostic theism” and “agnostic atheism”. May be.
1.2. In any case, agnosticism or “agnostic atheism “ if you likes (AA) existed before Huxley.
1.2.1. This is the usual way to speak of Progagoras in philosophy.
2. I don’t know what you mean with “midpoint”. Any way there is not a single opposite to the agnostic. Both theists and atheists are opposed to agnosticism (more the former than the latter).


3. The “lack of belief in the existence of gods” does not imply the lack of belief about if gods can or cannot be known. On this point the agnostic has an epistemological belief: Gods cannot be known.
3.1. In Huxley, for example, this implies an epistemological positivism.
3.2. These are beliefs about gods. A negative theology, if you likes.

4. “The fideist is a fool” do not seems to me a very good argument against fideism. I think you had to find some better.
5. The fideist is basing his view in a distinction between knowledge and belief.
5.1. He agrees with the AA in that there is not any reason to belief or disbelief in gods.
5.2. He disagrees with the AA in that reason is not the only support of the beliefs. Intuitions or faith can supply some valid beliefs.
5.2.1. As someone “lacking any belief”, the AA cannot say nothing about this.
5.3. Of course, AA can argue against #5.2.
5.3.1. He can assume an epistemological positivism in the hard version. That is to say, no knowledge, no belief.
5.3.2. He can use some practical argument, as Mojo does in his comment 98. (It seems a good point).
5.3.3. Etc.
5.4. But in doing so the AA lacks his alleged “lack of belief” and enters in the battle against fideism. That is to say, he has lost his neutrality and becomes a “gnostic atheist”.
6. And this is my main point: pure and neutral agnostic atheist is not useful to fight the fideism.

7. My two declared goals in this debate were:
7.1. Clarify the concepts of atheism and agnosticism. See my comment 88 #4.4.
7.2. And the conflict with theists. See my comment 81 #5.1.
8. You needn’t any supernatural intuition to see me coming. I have stated this loud and clear. You have a bad future as pythoness.

 

[Mojo]

Any "particular" History of Philosophy.

Sorry, the capital letters led me to think that "History of Philosophy" was a title.

Oxford dictionary: Agnostic: “A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God”.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Agnosticism: “Agnosticism is the philosophical view that neither affirms that God exists nor affirms that God does not exist”. (Posted by myself comment #52)

I don’t see any difference.

The second is a view about the existence of God.The first is a position, not about the existence of God, but about knowledge of the existence of God. For example, it is quite possible for someone who is an agnostic, as defined by the dictionary, to affirm the existence of God. Indeed, given the importance of faith in Christian doctrine, this seems to be a mainstream Christian position.

 

[Mojo]

Strange, because you give a reason to not to believe in the same phrase that you affirm that no reason is needed.

How many things do you believe in that you haven't heard of?

 

[Brian-M]

Oxford dictionary: Agnostic: “A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God”.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Agnosticism: “Agnosticism is the philosophical view that neither affirms that God exists nor affirms that God does not exist”. (Posted by myself comment #52)

I don’t see any difference.

Imagine a Venn diagram. Those two definitions would appear as two separate circles with a large area of overlap.

But not complete overlap.

For example, theists who insist that the existence of God must be taken on faith alone would be agnostic according to the first definition, but would not be agnostic according to the second definition.

 

[RoboTimbo]

1. Huxley coined (perhaps) the term “agnostic” in the sense of a person that neither affirms that God exists nor affirms that God does not exist. (See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “Atheism and Agnosticism” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#3 )

In speaking of the afterlife, he said, "I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it." Agnosticism, as coined by Huxley, doesn't seem to mean "having no opinion whatsoever".

And a person can be gnostic and agnostic (or neither) at the same time. I can be agnostic about an unknown creator of the universe in that I have no means of disproving one that hasn't been presented to me. I can be gnostic about specific gods, such as the Christian god(s) as described in their bible, because the bible describes things that are clearly false. I lack belief in the gods of ancient native Americans. I'm atheistic about them but I'm neither gnostic nor agnostic about them. I have no idea whether they can be known or not since I have no information about them.

1.1. I don’t know if Huxley has spoken of “agnostic theism” and “agnostic atheism”. May be.
1.2. In any case, agnosticism or “agnostic atheism “ if you likes (AA) existed before Huxley.

The concept existed, the word didn't.

1.2.1. This is the usual way to speak of Progagoras in philosophy.
2. I don’t know what you mean with “midpoint”. Any way there is not a single opposite to the agnostic. Both theists and atheists are opposed to agnosticism (more the former than the latter).

I mean that, for those who want agnostic to mean something between atheism and theism, it is customary to graph it as a point midway between atheism at one end and theism as the other, as if it is a middle position. For those people, I ask what is diametrically opposed to agnosticism then? Where on the line would gnosticism be plotted?

The answer, of course, is that agnosticism isn't the midpoint between belief and lack of belief. It's a separate axis because it's measuring a different thing. Agnosticism is at one end and gnoticism is at the other end. It sometimes help the person to finally see what everyone has been saying to them.

3. The “lack of belief in the existence of gods” does not imply the lack of belief about if gods can or cannot be known. On this point the agnostic has an epistemological belief: Gods cannot be known.
3.1. In Huxley, for example, this implies an epistemological positivism.
3.2. These are beliefs about gods. A negative theology, if you likes.

No, these are beliefs about knowledge.

4. “The fideist is a fool” do not seems to me a very good argument against fideism. I think you had to find some better.

"The fideist is a fool" seems to sum up the arguments fairly well. Anyone who says that an atheist's lack of belief is just as much a belief as a theist's belief in the gods they've invented doesn't seem to be someone who has a firm grasp on reality. It shows more that they have an emotional attachment to their beliefs and want to use a tu quoque argument to try to make their own position seem rational. It's as if they are saying, "Yes, I know that believing in sky fairies is irrational but your belief that they don't exist is a belief just like it." I bolded the strawman part of their argument for your convenience.

5. The fideist is basing his view in a distinction between knowledge and belief.
5.1. He agrees with the AA in that there is not any reason to belief or disbelief in gods.
5.2. He disagrees with the AA in that reason is not the only support of the beliefs. Intuitions or faith can supply some valid beliefs.

Only coincidentally.

5.2.1. As someone “lacking any belief”, the AA cannot say nothing about this.

I don't think "lacking any belief" is accurate. When you add qualifiers like that, you also change the nuance of the sentence. I had said "lack belief in any gods."

5.3. Of course, AA can argue against #5.2.
5.3.1. He can assume an epistemological positivism in the hard version. That is to say, no knowledge, no belief.
5.3.2. He can use some practical argument, as Mojo does in his comment 98. (It seems a good point).
5.3.3. Etc.
5.4. But in doing so the AA lacks his alleged “lack of belief” and enters in the battle against fideism. That is to say, he has lost his neutrality and becomes a “gnostic atheist”.
6. And this is my main point: pure and neutral agnostic atheist is not useful to fight the fideism.

Actually, it is. It leaves the burden of proof where it belongs, with the theist. An atheist has no need to prove that every imaginary being doesn't exist, it is the theist's burden to prove that the gods they've made up do exist.

This is always the crux of the matter under discussion. Theists want to say, "You have a positive belief that my gods don't exist. What evidence do you have to support your belief?" We don't let them get away with that here. And when I say "we", I mean "me". I don't speak for the forum.

7. My two declared goals in this debate were:
7.1. Clarify the concepts of atheism and agnosticism. See my comment 88 #4.4.

I hope the discussion has helped clarify them for you.

7.2. And the conflict with theists. See my comment 81 #5.1.
8. You needn’t any supernatural intuition to see me coming. I have stated this loud and clear. You have a bad future as pythoness.

You are correct, it didn't take any supernatural intuition to see those coming.

 

[pgwenthold]

You need a reason to believe something, but not to not believe something. Not believing is the default position, otherwise you would be obliged to believe in everything that hasn't been disproved.

I would suggest that "there's no reason to believe it" IS a "reason to not believe it." It pretty much encompasses those situations like "all the things I've never heard of" and "I don't know what that is, how can I believe in it?"

Do I believe in the XJDKEKJKE? No. Why not? Well, up til now, I've never heard of it. And now, I don't even know what that is, so how can I believe in it?

Either way, there's no reason to believe it.

 

[barehl]

I am left-handed. This fact describes which hand I use when I write with a pen. It does not, however, describe my handwriting. Is this a problem, now?

No, being wrong-handed does not effect the quality of your handwriting. You can be wrong-handed and have either good or bad handwriting.

 

[David Mo]

How many things do you believe in that you haven't heard of?

Many.
I believe that a lot of Australian towns I never heard about them actually exist.

 

[David Mo]

0. Mojo is right. I have omitted the article before “History of Philosophy”

1. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Agnosticism is traditionally characterized as neither believing that God exists nor believing that God does not exist”.
2. In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Agnosticism: “Huxley thought that we would never be able to know about the ultimate origin and causes of the universe”. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/a....stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/sm/ )
3. What happens to the respectable members of this forum is that they have not realized that in speaking of the "agnostic" the encyclopedias of philosophy are talking about the AA (agnostic atheist in the terminology of this forum), which is someone who does not know (SEP) and that's why he doesn't believe nor stop believing (IEP), that is to say he refrains to act.
3.1. So, the "agnostic" (AA) can be defined also by his lack of belief about gods’ existence.

4. But AA cannot be defined without reference of any belief.
4.1. Oxford dictionary: Agnostic: “A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God”. (Underlined is mine).
4.2. RoboTimbo is right when asserting: “these are beliefs about knowledge.” (#106) Underlined is mine.
4.3. But a belief about knowledge has to be justified also.
4.4. The use of "loss of reality" obliges to explain how and why intuition or faith mean a loss of reality.
4.4.1. Some atheists like Nietzsche and Camus, who were not agnostics, deny this premise.
4.4.1.1. This is other possibility that the distinguished members of this forum seem not to consider. Where Nietzsche is placed? For Camus and Nietzsche were not "gnostics" nor agnostics but atheists. Tey are not AA, nor AT nor GA nor GT. (If gnostic=rational knowledge, of course).
4.4.1.2. (Simple classifications often leave many gaps).
4.5. The reference to emotional disturbances is ad hominem. We are talking about logic and not psychology.
5. Anyway the AA is obliged to enter into the debate about what is and is not knowledge and the relationship between knowledge and belief of gods.
6. The fight against theism is not settled by saying that you do not know and that believing is crazy, away from reality and emotionally biased.

7. And I say this because with primary postures as you maintain little favor is done to the struggle for critical rationality and against religious superstition.

 

[Brian-M]

Many.
I believe that a lot of Australian towns I never heard about them actually exist.

But you have heard of Australia, and you have heard about towns, so you've already heard about them in general.

 

[Mojo]

Many.
I believe that a lot of Australian towns I never heard about them actually exist.

Which ones? Unless you can be specific, it is just Australian towns that you believe in, not towns that you haven't heard of.

 

[David Mo]

But you have heard of Australia, and you have heard about towns, so you've already heard about them in general.

Which ones? Unless you can be specific, it is just Australian towns that you believe in, not towns that you haven't heard of.

Of course, my knowledge of things that I never heard to speak is general, not particular.

I know that many towns exist in Australia.
I know that polar bears don't are originating in Australia.
I know there are black people in Australia.
I know that there are not people 5m tall in Australia.
Etc.

On the bases of this knowledge, I can make some predictions about particular towns, polar bears, black women and giants in Australia. Even before I know them.

I don't see what relation with the agnosticism this has. (Although I can imagine).

 

[Mojo]

On the bases of this knowledge, I can make some predictions about particular towns, polar bears, black women and giants in Australia. Even before I know them.

Which particular towns?

 

[Brian-M]

I don't see what relation with the agnosticism this has. (Although I can imagine).

Without Googling it (or looking it up by any other means), tell us if you believe in the existence of towns you've never heard of in the country of Eritria?

If you have no idea whether or not a country named Eritria even exists (maybe I made it up, or maybe I looked it up), then you can't know whether or not any towns you've never heard about in that country actually exist.

In other words, you'd be agnostic about the existence of those towns, as well as of the existence of Eritria itself.

The flaw with the towns-in-Australia example is that you have heard of Australia, and you have heard of towns, which makes this example a completely irrelevant response to Mojo's question: "How many things do you believe in that you haven't heard of?"

 

[David Mo]

Which particular towns?

Whatever you choose.

If it is not placed in an aborigen area I can predict at least:

1. The mayority of inhabitants will be whites.
2. The official language will be English.
3. Cars will drive on the left side of the roads
4. There will be not an ice layer of 2m thick
5. And so on.

My knowledge of Australia is not so good but I am sure I am not mistaken.

Note:
If you cease to play to hide-and-seek we could have a more rational discussion.

 

[David Mo]

Without Googling it (or looking it up by any other means), tell us if you believe in the existence of towns you've never heard of in the country of Eritria?

If you have no idea whether or not a country named Eritria even exists (maybe I made it up, or maybe I looked it up), then you can't know whether or not any towns you've never heard about in that country actually exist.

In other words, you'd be agnostic about the existence of those towns, as well as of the existence of Eritria itself.

The flaw with the towns-in-Australia example is that you have heard of Australia, and you have heard of towns, which makes this example a completely irrelevant response to Mojo's question: "How many things do you believe in that you haven't heard of?"

Let us suppose I don't know anything of Eritria.

I will be not able to say many things about the towns of Eritria. I will be "agnostic" about these things, if you want to call it so.
But I have some knowledge about towns in general and I can know if there is a town in Eritria floating in the air. I know that town doesn't exist because I am generalizing my knowledge of towns and the law of gravity.

Can I generalize my knowledge of gods in general to affirm that I know that Eritria's gods don't exist? Yes I can in the same way that about floating towns of Eritira.

I know that Eritria's gods don't exist. I am not "agnostic" about this.

 

[Brian-M]

Let us suppose I don't know anything of Eritria.

Yes, that's the point. We're assuming that you don't even know whether or not it exists.

I know that Eritria's gods don't exist. I am not "agnostic" about this.

Why are you bringing up Gods? I'm pointing out that you'd be agnostic about whether Eritria itself even existed (and by extension you'd also be agnostic about whether towns you've never heard of located within Eritria exist).

 

[Mojo]

Whatever you choose.

OK, I've chosen some. Do you believe they exist?

 

[RoboTimbo]

1. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Agnosticism is traditionally characterized as neither believing that God exists nor believing that God does not exist."

What is the opposite of agnosticism using that definition? Believing that gods exist and that they don't exist?

2. In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Agnosticism: “Huxley thought that we would never be able to know about the ultimate origin and causes of the universe”. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/a....stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/sm/ )
3. What happens to the respectable members of this forum is that they have not realized that in speaking of the "agnostic" the encyclopedias of philosophy are talking about the AA (agnostic atheist in the terminology of this forum), which is someone who does not know (SEP) and that's why he doesn't believe nor stop believing (IEP), that is to say he refrains to act.

What do the philosophical texts call the agnostic theist?

3.1. So, the "agnostic" (AA) can be defined also by his lack of belief about gods’ existence.

We already have a term for that - atheist. They lack belief in gods. Why would we need another term for it?

4. But AA cannot be defined without reference of any belief.
4.1. Oxford dictionary: Agnostic: “A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God”. (Underlined is mine).

Using "God" usually indicates the Christian god. We actually get a lot of useful information from the Christian bible about that god so that we can know the nature of it and know it doesn't exist.

4.2. RoboTimbo is right when asserting: “these are beliefs about knowledge.” (#106) Underlined is mine.
4.3. But a belief about knowledge has to be justified also.
4.4. The use of "loss of reality" obliges to explain how and why intuition or faith mean a loss of reality.
4.4.1. Some atheists like Nietzsche and Camus, who were not agnostics, deny this premise.
4.4.1.1. This is other possibility that the distinguished members of this forum seem not to consider. Where Nietzsche is placed? For Camus and Nietzsche were not "gnostics" nor agnostics but atheists. Tey are not AA, nor AT nor GA nor GT. (If gnostic=rational knowledge, of course).
4.4.1.2. (Simple classifications often leave many gaps).

Yes, that's the problem with wanting to conflate a word that describes knowledge (agnostic/gnostic) with another word that describes belief (theist/atheist)

4.5. The reference to emotional disturbances is ad hominem. We are talking about logic and not psychology.
5. Anyway the AA is obliged to enter into the debate about what is and is not knowledge and the relationship between knowledge and belief of gods.

Then the first question the AA should ask the theist is to give a defining set of characteristics about their gods. Then we can know if they are knowable or not.

6. The fight against theism is not settled by saying that you do not know and that believing is crazy, away from reality and emotionally biased.

7. And I say this because with primary postures as you maintain little favor is done to the struggle for critical rationality and against religious superstition.