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

David Mo said:
Agnostics and atheists agree that they don't believe in gods.
But they differ in that the atheist affirms that gods don't exist...
Click to expand...


Nope, they just don't believe in gods:

David Mo said:
Atheists don’t believe in gods; theists believe in gods; agnostics neither affirm nor deny that gods exist (they neither believe nor disbelieve).
Click to expand...

ETA: although, of course, your definition of agnostic here is wrong, because it is quite possible for an agnostic to affirm that gods exist; this affirmation would be based on on faith, not knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
Nope, they just don't believe in gods:
Click to expand...
Take the whole definition, please:
"neither believe" = atheists
"nor disbelieve" : different of atheists


Mojo said:
ETA: although, of course, your definition of agnostic here is wrong, because it is quite possible for an agnostic to affirm that gods exist; this affirmation would be based on on faith, not knowledge.
Click to expand...

In your definition. What you call "agnostic atheist" is a "fideist" in my classification. Or an irrationalist theist, if you like.You continue mixing both your classification and mine. I'm surprised that you are unable to realizing this.

You have still not explained why my classification is "wrong".
 
Last edited:
David Mo said:
Take the whole definition, please:
"neither believe" = atheists
"nor disbelieve" : different of atheists
Click to expand...


if you don't believe in gods, you don't believe in gods. You don't get to not believe in gods in a way that makes you not an atheist. If you're not an atheist, you believe in gods.
 
Mojo said:
if you don't believe in gods, you don't believe in gods. You don't get to not believe in gods in a way that makes you not an atheist. If you're not an atheist, you believe in gods.
Click to expand...

A: I believe that gods exist.
B: I believe that gods don't exist.
C: I refrain my opinion about the existence of gods.

C is what I call an "agnostic". B, an atheist.
B and C are different positions.

If you don't see this, better leave it. We are going round in circles.
 
Mojo said:
.. it is quite possible for an agnostic to affirm that gods exist; this affirmation would be based on on faith, not knowledge.
Click to expand...
Hello Mojo, I also have a difficulty with your definition of agnostic: maybe there is a different subsense to the word, in the english language, that I'm not aware of and that is not used in my native one. I know nobody calling himself "agnostico" that would "state emphatically or publicly (i.e. affirm)" that gods exist. In this thread I jived David Mo for his mimicking Wittgenstein's Tractatus style, but I also think that words are merely useful for the particular applications in which we apply them, much less if semantics is based on locking etymology or the like. Among thousands of members of the local Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics, David Mo's "definition" is commonly used, I can't see why it should be discarded.
 
David Mo said:
A: I believe that gods exist.
Click to expand...
Has a belief that god(s) exist - Theist

B: I believe that gods don't exist.
Click to expand...
Lacks belief in gods - Atheist

C: I refrain my opinion about the existence of gods.
Click to expand...
Lacks belief in gods - Atheist

C is what I call an "agnostic". B, an atheist.
B and C are different positions.
Click to expand...
Do you believe that gods exist or are you an atheist? What do you call an agnostic theist?

If you don't see this, better leave it. We are going round in circles.
Click to expand...
As has been shown, atheist/theist refers to belief. If you don't believe that gods exist, then you are an atheist. Agnostic/gnostic refers to knowledge, as originally intended by Huxley.
 
wea said:
Hello Mojo, I also have a difficulty with your definition of agnostic: maybe there is a different subsense to the word, in the english language, that I'm not aware of and that is not used in my native one.
Click to expand...


I'm using the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary; see here.
 
wea said:
Hello Mojo, I also have a difficulty with your definition of agnostic: maybe there is a different subsense to the word, in the english language, that I'm not aware of and that is not used in my native one. I know nobody calling himself "agnostico" that would "state emphatically or publicly (i.e. affirm)" that gods exist. In this thread I jived David Mo for his mimicking Wittgenstein's Tractatus style, but I also think that words are merely useful for the particular applications in which we apply them, much less if semantics is based on locking etymology or the like. Among thousands of members of the local Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics, David Mo's "definition" is commonly used, I can't see why it should be discarded.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the Eternal Return debate!
(In Spanish: "Cuento de la Buena Pipa").
 
Mojo said:
I'm using the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary; see here.
Click to expand...

in the online OED, I read also (noun A.1 quot. "The Agnostic neither denied nor affirmed God. He simply put Him on one side.") or (adj. B.1 "Of or relating to the belief that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (as far as can be judged) unknowable. Also: holding this belief.")
 
"Most inclusively, atheismWP is the absence of belief that any deities exist."

Why would someone demand that others use a more restrictive definition?
 
The distinction between "X doesn't exist" and "I believe X doesn't exist" doesn't happen in any other conversation and the continued insistence that it exists in conversations about God is just further proof that so many people hold the opinion that the God discussion has to operate under totally different rules than every other discussion.

If you walk into a room with no chair in it and someone asks you "Do you think there is a chair in the room" there's no functional difference between "There's no chair in the room" and "I don't believe there is a chair in the room."

Agnosticism is just a side effect of the common idea that being an atheist without being apologetic about it is wrong.
 
Mojo said:
Does C believe that gods exist?
Click to expand...


1. If he is a pure agnostic he doesn't affirm that gods exist. But he doesn't affirm that gods don't exist either. Thomas Huxley: "I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it".

2. "To believe" and "to affirm" are usually used as synonyms. They are not. "To affirm" implies a public statement that can be publically discussed. In his conscience an agnostic can believe what he wants.
2.1. What is interesting to me is what he manifests.

3. Obviously, different levels of agnosticism can be claimed.
 
Last edited:
JoeBentley said:
The distinction between "X doesn't exist" and "I believe X doesn't exist" doesn't happen in any other conversation and the continued insistence that it exists in conversations about God is just further proof that so many people hold the opinion that the God discussion has to operate under totally different rules than every other discussion.

If you walk into a room with no chair in it and someone asks you "Do you think there is a chair in the room" there's no functional difference between "There's no chair in the room" and "I don't believe there is a chair in the room."

Agnosticism is just a side effect of the common idea that being an atheist without being apologetic about it is wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree. Perhaps "The Day of Atheist Pride"? You can count me in.
 
JoeBentley said:
The distinction between "X doesn't exist" and "I believe X doesn't exist" doesn't happen in any other conversation and the continued insistence that it exists in conversations about God is just further proof that so many people hold the opinion that the God discussion has to operate under totally different rules than every other discussion.
If you walk into a room with no chair in it and someone asks you "Do you think there is a chair in the room" there's no functional difference between "There's no chair in the room" and "I don't believe there is a chair in the room."
Agnosticism is just a side effect of the common idea that being an atheist without being apologetic about it is wrong.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand you correctly, but in my very first week on this forum I think I incurred in other such conversations. e.g. in "NASA says: We'll find alien life in 10 to 20 years" thread you'll find a true believer of life on Mars or Titan, many "weak agnosticist" etc. If you ask me "is there life on other planets in the solar system", according to the lack of evidence (in my opinion) collected until now and the evidence (in my opinion) of difficulties of lab abiogenesis I'll bet no, others are quite optimists, others will refrain to tell for now (~agnostic). I'm an atheist, but with so much ado about gods (or Santa, ET life, e-cat, homeopathy... ) I'm not surprised if someone suspends judgement. I think "there's no chair" but others apparently don't trust their judgment "maybe there is a hidden one somewhere, how can I tell" or "so many say it's there, maybe I'm getting blind" or "who cares?".
 
Agnosticism is a distinctly separate beast from a simple "I don't have an opinion."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom