How do you define "Atheist"?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

We've had this discussion before - At least in previous threads, AvalonQX has stated that he defines morality based on YHWH's opinions and actions. So, by that definition of morality, one would be morally obligated to worship YHWH.

I think I could have guessed that but it's always amusing to see a dog chasing its tail.

 

[Stomatopoda]

"Atheist" and "agnostic" are not mutually exclusive.

"Are you an atheist or agnostic?" makes as much sense as asking "Is this object green or spherical?"

 

[joesixpack]

why on earth would one worship a monster that allegedly flooded the whole planet and killed almost everything on it?
If it exist, we should kill it.

That presumes that the only possible god is the one of the old testament.

 

[joolz]

"Atheist" and "agnostic" are not mutually exclusive.

"Are you an atheist or agnostic?" makes as much sense as asking "Is this object green or spherical?"

No. They are mutually exclusive. An atheist does not believe in a god. An agnostic doubts there is a god.

If you don't believe in something then you have no doubt whatsoever that it does not exist. If you doubt something exists then you accept that it may exist.

You can't do both.


atheist
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

agnostic
noun
1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
2.
a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3.
a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

 

[AdMan]

No. They are mutually exclusive. An atheist does not believe in a god. An agnostic doubts there is a god.

If you don't believe in something then you have no doubt whatsoever that it does not exist. If you doubt something exists then you accept that it may exist.

You can't do both.

Incorrect. I can certainly decide that I don't believe there is enough evidence for the existence of a god, so that I don't believe in one (and therefore I am an atheist), without stating that I am completely certain that a god does not exist, even though I think the probability that one does exist is small (so in that regard I am still agnostic; e.g., yes, there could be a teapot in orbit somewhere between Earth and Mars--I can't prove there isn't one--but I have no reason to believe one is there).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheist

 

[Stomatopoda]

No. They are mutually exclusive. An atheist does not believe in a god. An agnostic doubts there is a god.

If you don't believe in something then you have no doubt whatsoever that it does not exist. If you doubt something exists then you accept that it may exist.

You can't do both.

Atheism is a position of belief. Agnosticism is a position of knowledge. An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in gods, but doesn't claim 100% certainty (only 99.99...9%), doesn't believe that certainty is possible for a human to attain, doesn't believe the question is valid, doesn't believe the "god" concept is valid, or doesn't believe the existence of anything outside the mind can be verified. Probably missed several other possibilities.

 

[joolz]

We've had this discussion before - At least in previous threads, AvalonQX has stated that he defines morality based on YHWH's opinions and actions. So, by that definition of morality, one would be morally obligated to worship YHWH.

Within christianity that's perfectly logical. If you believe in god then why wouldn't you follow him? I'm an atheist so I don't, and I get my morals elsewhere.

I wish more christians did follow their rules of 'love thy neighbour' and 'be a good samaritan', 'don't kill' etc. My uncle is a peaceful, loving christian minister and my mum doesn't go to church but she has more christian values than a lot of christians.

AvalonQX has shown elsewhere that she disapproves of the fundamentalist nutters who call themselves christians, but are that in name only. From what I've read on this thread I assumed this comment:

God: a supernatural being that humans are morally obligated to obey and worship.

... means that you obey and worship if you are a human who believes in god, so I just reckoned it didn't include me.

Maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe I'm too mellow tonight, but I don't automatically assume that every christian is a bad person, until they confirm it, of course.

 

[joolz]

Incorrect. I can certainly decide that I don't believe there is enough evidence for the existence of a god, so that I don't believe in one (and therefore I am an atheist), without stating that I am completely certain that a god does not exist, even though I think the probability that a god does exist is small (so in that regard I am still agnostic; e.g., yes, there could be a teapot in orbit somewhere between Earth and Mars--I can't prove there isn't one--but I have no reason to believe one is there).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheist

So are you just talking of degrees of agnosticism? Because ultimately even a small doubt is still a doubt?

 

[DC]

That presumes that the only possible god is the one of the old testament.

no, it is the assumption that YHWH is the god he believes in. Also it is the one god that is known to allegedly demand to be worshipped.

 

[AdMan]

So are you just talking of degrees of agnosticism? Because ultimately even a small doubt is still a doubt?

Not levels of agnosticism, but a spectrum of theism-atheism or theistic probability, as posited by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

See? It's not just black and white. ETA: I'm a 6.

 

[joolz]

Not levels of agnosticism, but a spectrum of theism-atheism or theistic probability, as posited by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion:




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

See? It's not just black and white. ETA: I'm a 6.

I gave up on The God Delusion - I decided that, as I don't believe in god anyway, it wasn't worth ploughing through. I found it very dry.

I use the dictionary definitions for atheist/agnostic, just as most people do for gay/straight where there is also a broad spectrum of possibilities.

The comment I queried just used the words atheist and agnostic, it didn't refer to the spectrum so I presumed you were referring to the dictionary definitions.

Interesting links though. I was a 6 but think JREF has made me a 6.5 at least

 

[AdMan]

I use the dictionary definitions for atheist/agnostic, just as most people do for gay/straight where there is also a broad spectrum of possibilities.

But even the dictionary definitions are about different things--belief (atheism) and knowledge (agnosticism), as posted by someone else above. It's not nitpicking to understand the differences and the continuum from strong theism to strong atheism. This is especially helpful when arguing with theists, who, for example, may claim that "atheism is a religion because atheists know that there is no god, and they don't have any proof of that, therefore it's based on faith," or some such argument, which for many (agnostic) atheists is not true.

 

[Brian-M]

No. They are mutually exclusive. An atheist does not believe in a god. An agnostic doubts there is a god.

Not quite. Atheism is a position on belief, agnosticism is a position on knowledge.

An atheist does not believe god exists, while an agnostic does not claim to know whether or not god exists. Belief in absence, and absence of knowledge, two distinct concepts that are perfectly capable of co-existing.

It's entirely possible to believe that it's not possible to know for certain that your position is correct, while at the same time believing that your position is correct.

Pretty much: I'm very sure I'm right, but there is a hypothetical possibility I'm wrong.

For example, if you find a discarded lotto ticket on the street, you can believe with a high degree of certainty that it isn't the winning ticket without actually having checked the numbers to make sure that is isn't the winning ticket. Sure, you'd admit that you don't know it isn't the winning ticket, but you can reasonably believe it isn't

In the case of the agnostic atheist, the ticket would be the universe, a winning ticket would be a universe with God, and checking the numbers would be finding indisputable evidence as to whether or not God exists.

 

[curious pheonix]

hmmm yup that's a good point - the modern view of atheism frames it as a belief system - belief in no god. it seems historically the emphasis was on 'not believing the beliefs' of theists until proven otherwise, rather than on the atheists own belief system.

 

[DC]

hmmm yup that's a good point - the modern view of atheism frames it as a belief system - belief in no god. it seems historically the emphasis was on 'not believing the beliefs' of theists until proven otherwise, rather than on the atheists own belief system.

i don't like that.
i hold no belief about gods in general, i merely do not believe any of the propsed god concepts i came across.
but i am open to accept evidence for any god if presented, i would never say to a deist, your god does not exist, but i would say so towards someone from the various YHWH cults.

 

[Seismosaurus]

God: a supernatural being that humans are morally obligated to obey and worship.

If that is the definition of god, then I would maintain not just that I don't see evidence of god's existence, and not even that I positively assert that god doesn't exist, but rather that it is impossible that god could possibly exist under any circumstances whatsoever.

I can accept that there could be a supernatural being who had created the universe... but the idea that humans are morally obligated to obey and worship it? No. I can't imagine any circumstances under which that could even begin to be true.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Within christianity that's perfectly logical. If you believe in god then why wouldn't you follow him?

I think you have that backwards. If tomorrow it was proven that the christian religion is true in every detail, I still wouldn't follow the dictates of their god - because I see no reason to do so.

I don't follow a person's rules unless I see reason not to, I follow rules if I see reason to do so.

 

[Leumas]

Agnostic = I do not have the integrity to make up my mind one way or the other. I cannot get over my desire for an afterlife and my wishful thinking is too powerful for me to let go of the desire for a sky daddy to tuck me in at the end of the day. However, I am not sufficiently irrational or deluded to LIE to myself about it and fabricate evidence in my imagination and still believe it as reality.

This is a dreadful mischaracterisation of agnosticism, and does a disservice to those of us who are intellectually honest about the subject.

Can you prove a god does or does not exist? If your answer is "no" then you are agnostic.

I have not seen any evidence for any gods and in fact I have plenty of evidence for the non-existence of any of the gods postulated by the religions that are in circulation and until one is produced I will take the only intelligent course of action and conclude that there are none. But I am open to changing my opinion according to scientific principles once evidence is produced.

 

[Tricky]

While I generally agree that a person who does not believe in any gods is an atheist, we do go round and round on this subject. Here's a long thread that discusses "Are newborn babies atheist?"

So I like to add to my definition, "An atheist is someone who is aware of the concepts of gods and deities and does not believe in them." To me the whole atheist-by-default thing is misleading.

That's why I specified the distinction between active and pacifist atheism. Newborn babies fall into the category of passive atheism, while active atheists are covered by your definition.

You are technically correct, but passive atheism is a completely useless concept. Newborn babies, amoebas, rocks, quarks... They're all "passively atheist". When (apart from these discussions) would you ever describe something as passively atheist? What could it possibly add to the description of that thing?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

You are technically correct, but passive atheism is a completely useless concept.

Precisely. Calling a baby an atheist is like calling a sofa illiterate.