Does atheism differ from agnosticism?

[Beth]

Probably best to leave this discussion for another thread. I'll simply say that "beneficial effects for people" of religion has no probative value whatsoever as to the truth claims of the metaphysical underpinnings of the religion. I.e., belonging to a church and sharing a belief system can have psychologically beneficial effects even if there is no god.

I agree, it doesn't affect truth value, but it does affect the rationality of the belief. It's quite rational to believe something, particular something that isn't necessarily false, if that belief has beneficial effects.

Well, no--I don't think there are a lot of people in churches around the world who do not believe in their God. There are many who believe despite knowing that they do not have proof of God's existence--but that's a different matter.

In the same way that there are very few atheists who believe, without any doubt whatsoever, that there are no gods despite the fact that such a claim cannot be proven, likewise there are relatively few religious people who believe without any doubt whatsoever that their god does exist. Most believers, even strongly believers (for example, Mother Teresa) have doubts. By the definition you are wanting to apply to theism/athiesm, all of those doubting beleivers are classified as atheists. If you aren't wanting to classify them as atheists. which makes more sense, how are you going to delineate between those who don't believe because they have doubts and those who don't believe with near certainty?

Let me be clear: I'm saying that there are people who do not believe in the existence of god/gods. These people are atheists. There are people who do believe in the existence of god/gods. These people are theists. Of the theists, the vast majority say that they believe despite the lack of any supporting evidence (this is what they call "faith").

The majority of atheists simply say they don't believe in God, but when pressed will admit they cannot state definitely that no god exists - technically agnostic. Likewise most theists, when similarly pressed, will admit they cannot state definitely that their god exists - technically agnostic.

There is nothing in any reasonable definition of atheism that precludes people from hoping for, looking for, expecting to find some future evidence that will make them believers. There is nothing in any reasonable definition of atheism that precludes people from speculating that one day they might choose to believe in the absence of evidence. But I can't imagine a coherent description of a state that lies somewhere "between" belief and non-belief.

Maybe not a coherent description, but an accurate one of most of humanity. The continuum of belief/non-belief cannot be broken into two parts without disagreement over where the break should occur. Agnosticism seems like a blanket term that can apply to but those at the extreme opposite ends of the spectrum.

 

[Yoink]

I agree, it doesn't affect truth value, but it does affect the rationality of the belief. It's quite rational to believe something, particular something that isn't necessarily false, if that belief has beneficial effects.

No. It might be beneficial for me to believe that smoking will make knees explode (because it will make me avoid smoking, which is bad for me, but not in that way). It might be beneficial for me to believe that getting angry with people will give me cancer (because it will encourage me to keep calm)--but the "beneficial" consequences of those false beliefs has nothing whatsoever to do with their truth value or their reasonableness.

In the same way that there are very few atheists who believe, without any doubt whatsoever, that there are no gods despite the fact that such a claim cannot be proven, likewise there are relatively few religious people who believe without any doubt whatsoever that their god does exist. Most believers, even strongly believers (for example, Mother Teresa) have doubts. By the definition you are wanting to apply to theism/athiesm, all of those doubting beleivers are classified as atheists.

I seem to be repeating myself a lot on this point. Obviously I've failed to be clear. MOST believers do not "know" God exists in the sense that they "know" the church building exists. They believe despite the lack of supporting evidence. That is the nature of faith--it is, indeed, the meaning of faith. That faith is a challenge--often shaken, sometimes eclipsed, is one of the central (and most moving) features of centuries of religious art and meditation. To call these periods of doubt and struggle to overcome doubt "atheism" would seem to me to be an unhelpful muddying of the waters. I'm interested in terms for settled, coherent, defensible positions.

If you aren't wanting to classify them as atheists. which makes more sense, how are you going to delineate between those who don't believe because they have doubts and those who don't believe with near certainty?

Again, I'm talking about trying to describe settled, coherent, defensible positions (not "true" or "false" positions--just self-consistent). When you talk of "those who don't believe because they have doubts" you seem to be talking more about someone in an active struggle with themselves over what they believe ("Help me, father, I am plagued by doubts") rather than someone who has arrived at a settled position. If all you mean by that is "someone who does not believe because they don't see any sufficiently convincing evidence to support belief" then, yes, I'm happy to call that person an atheist. Talking about "near certainty" is just re-introducing that "percentage of probability" bogeyman that I've addressed before. There simply can be no coherent account of the "probability" of God's existence. We can only talk of probabilities when we know something about the total frame of "possible" outcomes. We know nothing at all about that frame when it comes to the existence of deities.

The majority of atheists simply say they don't believe in God, but when pressed will admit they cannot state definitely that no god exists - technically agnostic. Likewise most theists, when similarly pressed, will admit they cannot state definitely that their god exists - technically agnostic.

Right, my point exactly. If the vast majority of both "atheists" and "theists" are "technically agnostic" then "agnostic" is a very unhelpful term.

Maybe not a coherent description, but an accurate one of most of humanity. The continuum of belief/non-belief cannot be broken into two parts without disagreement over where the break should occur. Agnosticism seems like a blanket term that can apply to but those at the extreme opposite ends of the spectrum.

But, again, if "agnosticism" describes almost everybody, it's useless. You end up having to say "theist-agnostic" and "atheist-agnostic" to make any useful distinction--so why bother with the redundant "agnostic" part of that at all?

 

[Beth]

No. It might be beneficial for me to believe that smoking will make knees explode (because it will make me avoid smoking, which is bad for me, but not in that way). It might be beneficial for me to believe that getting angry with people will give me cancer (because it will encourage me to keep calm)--but the "beneficial" consequences of those false beliefs has nothing whatsoever to do with their truth value or their reasonableness.

We'll just have to disagree on whether benefits of belief make belief more reasonable. Your knees explode isn't a good example because no one else believes it. On the other hand, the anger/cancer belief could be easily changed to an anger/heart disease link which has some evidence thats it's true. In "Society of Mind" by Marvin Minsky, he discusses the use of such small personal beliefs. It's not an uncommon self-motivational trick to convince yourself of something you don't know for certain to be true, in order to benefit from how you will act if you hold that belief.

I seem to be repeating myself a lot on this point. Obviously I've failed to be clear. MOST believers do not "know" God exists in the sense that they "know" the church building exists. They believe despite the lack of supporting evidence. That is the nature of faith--it is, indeed, the meaning of faith. That faith is a challenge--often shaken, sometimes eclipsed, is one of the central (and most moving) features of centuries of religious art and meditation. To call these periods of doubt and struggle to overcome doubt "atheism" would seem to me to be an unhelpful muddying of the waters. I'm interested in terms for settled, coherent, defensible positions.

I understand that. I happen to think to agnostic is a fine term for a person lacking a settled, coherent position.

Again, I'm talking about trying to describe settled, coherent, defensible positions (not "true" or "false" positions--just self-consistent). When you talk of "those who don't believe because they have doubts" you seem to be talking more about someone in an active struggle with themselves over what they believe ("Help me, father, I am plagued by doubts") rather than someone who has arrived at a settled position.

Not necessarily. Some religious people are as comfortable with their doubts as athests are with theirs. My problem with your definition is that it seems to me it would encompass such people as atheists and that seems inappropriate to me.

If all you mean by that is "someone who does not believe because they don't see any sufficiently convincing evidence to support belief" then, yes, I'm happy to call that person an atheist. Talking about "near certainty" is just re-introducing that "percentage of probability" bogeyman that I've addressed before. There simply can be no coherent account of the "probability" of God's existence. We can only talk of probabilities when we know something about the total frame of "possible" outcomes. We know nothing at all about that frame when it comes to the existence of deities.

You haven't addressed the probability aspect adequately IMO. You seem perfectly willing to accept a near-certainty that no gods exist as a rational position. That's putting a probability on gods existance. If we know nothing at all about the probability, then why is it rational to give it a near zero probability, but assigning any other probability irrational?

Right, my point exactly. If the vast majority of both "atheists" and "theists" are "technically agnostic" then "agnostic" is a very unhelpful term.

But, again, if "agnosticism" describes almost everybody, it's useless. You end up having to say "theist-agnostic" and "atheist-agnostic" to make any useful distinction--so why bother with the redundant "agnostic" part of that at all?

Personally, I like being able to distinguish between strong* believers, strong atheists and those less certain. If the distinction is of no importance to you, you can ignore it.

*by strong, I mean fairly well convinced of their conclusions even if they are not 100% certain and therefore technically agnostic.

 

[Yoink]

We'll just have to disagree on whether benefits of belief make belief more reasonable. Your knees explode isn't a good example because no one else believes it. On the other hand, the anger/cancer belief could be easily changed to an anger/heart disease link which has some evidence thats it's true. In "Society of Mind" by Marvin Minsky, he discusses the use of such small personal beliefs. It's not an uncommon self-motivational trick to convince yourself of something you don't know for certain to be true, in order to benefit from how you will act if you hold that belief.

The fact that you call this a "trick" shows, I think, that you realize that the "benefit" of the action has no relationship at all to the "truth" of the belief.

I understand that. I happen to think to agnostic is a fine term for a person lacking a settled, coherent position.

I doubt many self-described agnostics will agree with you that their position is "incoherent" and feel happy about that. I also don't think that we need a special category simply for people who are muddled or confused in their thinking. In any event, I very much doubt that most theists who are actively struggling with doubts would thank you any more for being labeled "agnostic" than for being labeled "atheist." It just doesn't seem to describe their position well.

Not necessarily. Some religious people are as comfortable with their doubts as athests are with theirs. My problem with your definition is that it seems to me it would encompass such people as atheists and that seems inappropriate to me.

For the umpteenth time: if you are a believer who continues to believe despite your doubts then you're a theist--not an atheist. If you are "comfortable" with your doubts and still a "religious person" then you are surely a theist, no? Unless you mean by "religious person" that you simply go along to church because you like the company, the ritual etc.--but you don't believe that there's any god behind it all. In that case you're, equally simply, an atheist.

You haven't addressed the probability aspect adequately IMO. You seem perfectly willing to accept a near-certainty that no gods exist as a rational position. That's putting a probability on gods existance. If we know nothing at all about the probability, then why is it rational to give it a near zero probability, but assigning any other probability irrational?

It amazes me how people argue with the positions they expect you to hold, no matter how many times you've expressly and categorically denied them. Where did I once say that I was "perfectly willing to accept a near-certainty that no gods exist"? I have said, over and over and over and over, that statements as to the probability of a god's existence are simply meaningless. Someone who says "it is 99% certain that there are no gods in the universe" is simply making a statement about the degree of their personal expectations of being proven wrong. In other words, they are making a completely random guess that tells me something about their disposition, but nothing whatsoever about the probability of god or a god's existence.

Let me try to give you an analogy:

If you ask me "what is the probability that the first person you meet tomorrow will be called John" I can give you some kind of sensible answer. I can find out what percentage of people in this country are called John. I can think about the people of my aquaintance in my neighbourhood and at my work who are called "John" etc. etc.--and then I can give you a meaningful (though not perfectly accurate, of course) assessment of whether this is highly probable or highly improbable (as it would be, say, if I was the only person of European descent living in a remote village in China).

Now, say you ask me "what is the probability that the first person you meet and talk to tomorrow will be Urgok-plop from the planet Blarrgh"? The answer is obviously not "zero." Obviously, for all we know, there could be some planet called "Blarrgh" and an intrepid voyager called Urgok-plop could be on his way from there to earth. So, it is no "impossible." How "likely" is it? Beyond saying "it's not impossible" there is simply nothing I can say. I don't know anything about any of the relevant variables. I don't know if there is a "planet Blarrgh." I don't know if the people on that possible planet have names, or indulge in space tourism etc. I can't even say "oh well, I've never encountered an alien before, therefore encountering any alien tomorrow is unlikely"--I just don't know enough about possible forms of alien travel, possible frequencies, possible motivations etc. (Who knows, maybe whenever anyone says the magic words "Urgok-plop from the planet Blarrgh" he hops in his intersteller worm-hole rider and goes to visit them?).

In the absence of any relevant evidence, any discussion of probability is simply meaningless.

Personally, I like being able to distinguish between strong* believers, strong atheists and those less certain. If the distinction is of no importance to you, you can ignore it.

*by strong, I mean fairly well convinced of their conclusions even if they are not 100% certain and therefore technically agnostic.

Except that the terminology keeps getting everyone confused (just look at this thread). People conflate "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" so they think "atheist" means "faith in the godlessness of the universe" rather than simply the lack of belief in any god. I don't even really know what you mean by a "strong" believer vs. a "weak" believer. I think what you probably mean has something to do with the percentage of time that these different "believers" spend feeling fully convinced of their belief. But then "strong" belief wouldn't actually be a state different from "weak belief." There would be just one state--"belief"--that some people occupy consistently and some don't.

Your term "fairly well convinced" sounds like it means "mostly persuaded by the evidence"--which would be a meaningful distinction--but I don't think that's really what you mean. There have been plenty of devout Christians, after all, who have burned with a steadfast flame of belief but who have argued strongly that to seek "evidence" of God is precisely to miss the point of "faith." In your categorization are those people "weak believers" or "strong believers"? They aren't "convinced by the evidence" at all--they agree with atheists that there is no evidence. But they "believe" none the less.

 

[Apology]

http://atheism.about.com/od/definit...ctionaries_Atheists_Others_Define_Atheism.htm

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-38269/atheism

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.com/definition/atheism

As you should see, you are cherry-picking a definition of strong atheism as representative of ALL of atheism. Please read those definitions.

I admit openly cherry picking those definitions. I hope you notice what care I took to select from secular sources except for that third one, which I did not actually read much of. It appeared to be atheist-generated, but I could be wrong. The point was to show that there absolutely isn't a unified definition of atheism, and you can't kick Strong Atheists out of the group because you don't like their opinions.

You cannot choose to believe or disbelieve. If you do not yet believe, then you LACK belief. You cannot excuse yourself from the only options available, you can only try to confuse knowledge with belief.

I contend that you can choose between belief and disbelief if you withhold judgement and practice secular skepticism.

You've apparently heard the wrong definition of fairies. Like God, the word fairy is used to describe that which we do not fully understand, so you could have simply rejected a faulty description in the first place, and not what fairies REALLY are. Do you see my point? I can always re-define and broaden the definition of fairies, and claim you are rejecting a strawman. I consider fairies to be spirits. As such, how will you disprove them? On what knowledge will you do such? It appears that by my definition, you are now agnostic regarding fairies.

If you do not agree with my definition of fairies, which includes plenty of testable claims with which I can debunk it, then you will have to explain your redefinition of the word. If it turns out that your fairies are undetectable and aloof, much like the tiny teacup orbiting Mars, then you will have to prove to me that I should care about its existence, since it's not really affecting me and doesn't seem to care about my existence. Either way, the burden of proof is now back on you. It's not my fault if you don't come up with any. It's not like I'm looking at my watch, wondering what the heck's up with BTodd, where's my evidence. I really don't have to do anything, if you think about it.

The point was that you cannot disprove a negative. If God, being a supernatural idea beyond natural detection, doesn't exist, what knowledge will you use to base your belief on? If He isn't there, nothing is to be found. It won't change the fact that in the meantime, you lack belief in Him.

I know, that's the terrible thing about Atheism. Even when you change the definition, people still point out how it suggests that you think you actually have proof of a negative, so your lack of belief is actually a belief that God doesn't exist. How people react to this flaw in logic is different; some people choose to spend their time rewriting the dictionary to make the flaw go away, others choose to abandon atheism.

This doesn't make sense. I showed you how you didn't choose to believe in your own gender, so your notion of choosing to believe things is hard to understand. Did you choose to believe you're a man, or did you simply notice that you are?

I'm sorry, I realized the bisexual analogy wasn't adequately demonstrating that you can't effectively consolidate three groups into two groups and abandoned it, and then forgot all about that part of the argument. I think I've pretty much lost track of the whole genetic thing.

You're ignoring all of the other definitions in order to focus on the most limited one that makes your case. Using the most specific definition of atheism does not refute the broader one that it is a part of, as the links I posted above will show you.

LOL, no. You're trying to distance yourself from the most illogical members of your group and I called you on it.

What you are doing, as I've stated, is confusing knowledge with belief, and applying agnosticism incorrectly. You do not want to be called an atheist, and are going to great lengths to avoid the obvious.

I might say that you're confusing lack of belief and disbelief as being two seperate things rather than equivalent things.

Being an atheist does not mean you aren't open to evidence for God, or that you don't want to believe in Him. It means you don't yet see a reason to.

I never said that atheism didn't mean that. All I've been saying is that agnosticism differs from atheism because its proponents have not yet chosen to disbelieve. Some of their decisions on delaying this choice may or may not be based on the lack of evidence for either side. Mine certainly is.

 

[Apology]

Heh, you do have a point. But, y'see, I go by what the words actually mean. Atheism. Without theism. It is a simple as that for me. The rest, strong and weak etc, come from philosophy of religion.

See the problem with this idea of splitting the world into two groups is that it just doesn't work. If we go by those two definitions, either Atheist or Theist, then the Atheists have to take the Raelians, because they believe in aliens and lack a belief in a god or gods. If you want to say the aliens are their god or gods, then you have to redefine god, because aliens certainly aren't gods by current definitions. All the while, you'd have the Raelians insisting that they're atheists, which works against any attempts to redefine God, which is sure to be hotly contested by the theists in the first place. It's also a pretty odd pursuit for an Atheist, writing a definition of God, but anyway. Furthermore you'd have to force atheism on Buddhists because they're a non-theistic religion, and boy, I don't envy you the task, because there are a hell of a lot more of them than there are of Atheists.

But, y'see, "atheism" literally means "without theism". Anyone, no matter how or why, who lacks theism is an atheist. That is what the word means. I honestly do not understand how you can disagree with that.

Because you're using the simplest definition to incorporate the whole world into groups that you defined without their agreement or acceptance of the validity of the group or definition. You're taking a complex argument and trying to force it into an apples-and-oranges simple argument.

No, anyone who lacks theism is an atheist. Again, that is what the word "atheism" literally means. Strong and weak atheism comes into it to account for the difference between B = ~G and ~ (B = G) arguments. They are logically distinct. Without the strong and weak difference, atheism would be exactly what you claim it is. That is to say, a catch all term. But it is not because we can distinguish between those two arguments, and others.

Buddhists are not atheists. All your attempts to make this into a black and white issue will fail. Appeals to mathematics are simply a different way to turn a complex argument into a simple argument---essentially building a simpler strawman so you have a chance of tearing it down.

Further, I don't understand where your "75% or 88.7%" comes from. The question is binary. Either you have theism (or are theistic), or you lack it. There is no "I lack it a little bit". Atheism means, literally, without theism. Any being which lacks theism is an atheist. Again, I simply cannot fathom why you do not accept this.

That argument came from Antony Flew, one of the original proponents of the strong/weak atheism argument, and is repeated earnestly from time to time, although it obviously has flaws. Dawkins is willing to admit agnosticism as a real school of belief but he still ascribes to the strong/weak atheism thing, he just isn't foolish enough to express it in percentage form, since that is clearly ludicrous.

And yet again you are showing that you're wearing your shades. Did you not realise that there are different forms of agnosticism as well? Some (weak/mild agnosticism) believe that we may one day have knowledge. Others (strong/absolute agnosticism) believe that we never will. So you would be a weak agnostic.

I did realize that there are different shades of agnosticism. I think they should probably quit trying to redefine themselves in response to criticism from atheists, lest they make themselves look foolish. Agnosticism is defined in its weakest form from the beginning so that all who are interested feel welcome, even theists who are just having some sort of crisis of faith. I don't express personal opinions about agnosticism as tenets of agnosticism. According to the wiki on agnosticism, I'm a "model agnostic". I'm not going to start calling myself that though, because personally I think it's stupid to keep changing my category because someone else changes a definition.

 

[Btodd]

I admit openly cherry picking those definitions. I hope you notice what care I took to select from secular sources except for that third one, which I did not actually read much of. It appeared to be atheist-generated, but I could be wrong. The point was to show that there absolutely isn't a unified definition of atheism, and you can't kick Strong Atheists out of the group because you don't like their opinions.

Let me put it this way. There is a correct language for saying, "I couldn't care less". Most people say, "I COULD care less", even though they mean the exact opposite of what they are saying. That doesn't mean that there isn't a unified definition, it means they are WRONG. The proper way to say that remains the same, based on the meaning of the words used to say it. If I point out that they are using the words incorrectly, they might tell me that they mean the same thing I do when I use the correct language, but it won't make their usage any less wrong.

The point is that atheism as a whole includes both the weak and strong definitions. If you fixate on strong atheism as the whole of atheism, you are excluding the vast majority of atheists in order to do it. Atheism includes both strong and weak versions, which make up the whole.

I contend that you can choose between belief and disbelief if you withhold judgement and practice secular skepticism.

If you (choose to ) believe that, then you are agnostic toward everything that cannot be disproved. There is no 'judgment' in disbelief. If you hadn't heard the claim in the first place, would you not still lack belief in the claim?

If you do not agree with my definition of fairies, which includes plenty of testable claims with which I can debunk it, then you will have to explain your redefinition of the word. If it turns out that your fairies are undetectable and aloof, much like the tiny teacup orbiting Mars, then you will have to prove to me that I should care about its existence, since it's not really affecting me and doesn't seem to care about my existence. Either way, the burden of proof is now back on you. It's not my fault if you don't come up with any. It's not like I'm looking at my watch, wondering what the heck's up with BTodd, where's my evidence. I really don't have to do anything, if you think about it.

Exactly! Your disbelief is natural, you don't have to 'choose' or do anything! You simply acknowledge your lack of belief in fairies. If I haven't proven my definition of fairies, it won't change your unbelief. If I haven't shown my definition of fairies to be substantiated, you STILL lack belief in them.

I know, that's the terrible thing about Atheism. Even when you change the definition, people still point out how it suggests that you think you actually have proof of a negative, so your lack of belief is actually a belief that God doesn't exist. How people react to this flaw in logic is different; some people choose to spend their time rewriting the dictionary to make the flaw go away, others choose to abandon atheism.

Nobody has re-written the dictionary. I had said you are changing the definition of atheism, which I wasn't wholly correct in doing. You aren't changing it as much as you are simply ignoring the definition that the majority of atheists fit into, and calling it agnosticism.

I'm sorry, I realized the bisexual analogy wasn't adequately demonstrating that you can't effectively consolidate three groups into two groups and abandoned it, and then forgot all about that part of the argument. I think I've pretty much lost track of the whole genetic thing.

Here it is again. If your beliefs are chosen, then you must have chosen to believe you are a man. Instead of noticing that you have the genitalia that fits the definition of a man and acknowledging it, you would have to argue that you were still up in the air about the idea, and chose to believe you are a man to solve the dilemma. I really doubt that is the case. Acknowledging that your unbelief fits the definition of atheism is the same.

LOL, no. You're trying to distance yourself from the most illogical members of your group and I called you on it.

Not at all. They fit under the definition of atheism as well. My unbelief is different from theirs, but it doesn't mean that I must change the definition of agnosticism in order to portray the difference. Atheism already includes both.

I might say that you're confusing lack of belief and disbelief as being two seperate things rather than equivalent things.

No. These two statements are different, but fit under the definition of atheism:

"I believe that God doesn't exist" = strong atheism

"I don't believe that God exists" = weak atheism

Those are not equivalent things.

I never said that atheism didn't mean that. All I've been saying is that agnosticism differs from atheism because its proponents have not yet chosen to disbelieve. Some of their decisions on delaying this choice may or may not be based on the lack of evidence for either side. Mine certainly is.

What evidence must I have to disbelieve something? How would I choose to disbelieve something that hasn't even been defined yet? The evidence is on the one making the claim. Until I see enough to believe the claim, I lack belief, and am thus a weak atheist.

Anyway, we're going in circles at this point, and regardless of our definitions, we probably agree on over 90% of our unbelief. I'm going to bow out now, and you may finish replying. I definitely think you are mistaken and have a stigma regarding atheism that you wish to avoid, but feel it is unwarranted and mistaken anyway. I don't disrespect you for it, I just disagree with you.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Apology]

Anyway, we're going in circles at this point, and regardless of our definitions, we probably agree on over 90% of our unbelief. I'm going to bow out now, and you may finish replying. I definitely think you are mistaken and have a stigma regarding atheism that you wish to avoid, but feel it is unwarranted and mistaken anyway. I don't disrespect you for it, I just disagree with you.

Thanks for the discussion.

It's not so much the stigma as the baggage of implicit atheism. I was an atheist before I was agnostic. I just can't make myself believe implicit atheism. Further study made me believe it even less, and the strong/weak atheist argument just didn't sit well with me either. I think the same attempts to categorize agnosticism into strong and weak is also wrong, but it's used to counteract criticism from atheists, who use strong and weak definitions. I realized the flaw in the basic argument of Strong Atheism and reacted differently to it than you did, that's all. I can't distance myself from the Agnostics that think God can never be known either, even though I think they're wrong.

I agree that we're probably not going to get much further, and I enjoyed the discussion. Thank you for your time and effort.

 

[Apology]

I must say that the concept that I must be agnostic about everything that is unproven does have one major fallacy. We can gather circumstantial evidence regarding most claims.

In the cases of undetectable flying teapots, we have the added option of throwing in a "Why should I care if it doesn't affect me?" At that point, there are either claims of a way in which it affects me, which are most likely testable claims, or I continue to not care. Disbelief is not required. Not caring and disbelieving take almost the exact same amount of effort. The answer to the invisible pink unicorn in your garage is "Why should I care if only you can see it?" It's also my answer to Deism. If I could find a reason to care if the deistic aloof God actually exists, I'd go ahead and be a deist.

The general theory of relativity is a theory; it hasn't been proven, and I doubt it will ever be proven. You'd pretty much have to be able to create an experimental universe to test it, and I don't think we'll ever be up to the challenge. I'm not smart enough to follow the math myself, so why do I believe in it when I don't have proof? Circumstantial evidence. None of the science based on the general theory of relativity seems to have gone wrong thus far. Assuming it to be true doesn't end in catastrophic results and benefits us in many ways. Plus, the opposition view of the general theory of relativity is this guy:

http://www.anti-relativity.com/links.htm

Therefore, the potential benefit of believing even without absolute evidence, when coupled with the lack of harm in believing, outweighs the benefit of remaining agnostic on the issue. Belief, for me, must have a benefit, and must be considered on a case by case basis. It's not like I've never believed something wrongly, trust me. I've just become better at choosing.

 

[Taffer]

See the problem with this idea of splitting the world into two groups is that it just doesn't work. If we go by those two definitions, either Atheist or Theist, then the Atheists have to take the Raelians, because they believe in aliens and lack a belief in a god or gods. If you want to say the aliens are their god or gods, then you have to redefine god, because aliens certainly aren't gods by current definitions.

Or perhaps one needs to define "theism"? However, if "theism" means simply a belief in the biblical God, then yes, they are atheists. Why is that a problem?

All the while, you'd have the Raelians insisting that they're atheists, which works against any attempts to redefine God, which is sure to be hotly contested by the theists in the first place. It's also a pretty odd pursuit for an Atheist, writing a definition of God, but anyway. Furthermore you'd have to force atheism on Buddhists because they're a non-theistic religion, and boy, I don't envy you the task, because there are a hell of a lot more of them than there are of Atheists.

You don't force a label upon anyone. A label does nothing but describe something. If Buddhists lack theism, then they are atheists. By definition. There is no forcing. Having such a label does nothing to change their beliefs. If they fit what the word "atheist" means, then they are simply atheists.

Because you're using the simplest definition to incorporate the whole world into groups that you defined without their agreement or acceptance of the validity of the group or definition. You're taking a complex argument and trying to force it into an apples-and-oranges simple argument.

Firstly, there is no "forcing" going on. Atheism means, literally, without theism. That is what the word means. Secondly, there are those who have a belief in a god, and those who do not. Of those who do not, like those who do, there are different flavours. But if "theist" describes all who have a belief in a god, then "atheist", by definition, describes all those who do not.

You seem under the mistaken impression that being an atheist means you have to all have the same views. This is not the case. Anyone can, and is, an atheist, if they lack a belief in a god. That is the only thing which defines atheism.

Buddhists are not atheists. All your attempts to make this into a black and white issue will fail. Appeals to mathematics are simply a different way to turn a complex argument into a simple argument---essentially building a simpler strawman so you have a chance of tearing it down.

You are wrong. By definition, if Buddhists lack theism, then they are atheists. This is not hard to understand. Secondly, the argument is one of logic. Unless you are mistakenly exluding the middle, there is a difference between strong and weak forms of the argument as I have outlined.

That argument came from Antony Flew, one of the original proponents of the strong/weak atheism argument, and is repeated earnestly from time to time, although it obviously has flaws. Dawkins is willing to admit agnosticism as a real school of belief but he still ascribes to the strong/weak atheism thing, he just isn't foolish enough to express it in percentage form, since that is clearly ludicrous.

Because, to my understanding, strong/weak is just a name, not an actual description of 'how much' one disbelieves in a god.

I did realize that there are different shades of agnosticism. I think they should probably quit trying to redefine themselves in response to criticism from atheists, lest they make themselves look foolish. Agnosticism is defined in its weakest form from the beginning so that all who are interested feel welcome, even theists who are just having some sort of crisis of faith. I don't express personal opinions about agnosticism as tenets of agnosticism. According to the wiki on agnosticism, I'm a "model agnostic". I'm not going to start calling myself that though, because personally I think it's stupid to keep changing my category because someone else changes a definition.

Changing what you call yourself does not change what you believe. It just helps all concerned understand what you are talking about, since we must use commong definitions of words to have any meaningful discourse.

A question: Do you believe that agnosticism exists on a spectrum of belief between theism and atheism? If you do, I suspect you do not quite understand the differences between theism/atheism and agnosticism. If you do, then apologies for the suggestion. I just get the feeling from your posts, and it is a commonly, mistaken, held view.

 

[Beth]

The fact that you call this a "trick" shows, I think, that you realize that the "benefit" of the action has no relationship at all to the "truth" of the belief.

Right. I'm not claiming that benefits of a belief make it more likely to be true. I'm claiming that benefits make it more reasonable to believe in cases where the actual truth of the matter is unknown.

I doubt many self-described agnostics will agree with you that their position is "incoherent" and feel happy about that. I also don't think that we need a special category simply for people who are muddled or confused in their thinking.

Whoa. I don't equate 'incoherent' with muddled or confused. I'm thinking of it as undecided. Perhaps I'm confused about the meaning of 'incoherent'.

At any rate, I do think it appropriate to have a category for people who do not know themselves whether they are theist or atheist. If they don't know, I don't think it's appropriate to claim they are atheists.

In any event, I very much doubt that most theists who are actively struggling with doubts would thank you any more for being labeled "agnostic" than for being labeled "atheist." It just doesn't seem to describe their position well.

I'm not trying to label them anything. I'm pointing out that the definition of atheist you are using would emcompass them.

For the umpteenth time: if you are a believer who continues to believe despite your doubts then you're a theist--not an atheist. If you are "comfortable" with your doubts and still a "religious person" then you are surely a theist, no?

I would think so. But if you clatim that atheist denotes anyone who doesn't hold a belief in any god, then those people are athiest by your definition since they don't hold a belief in god.

It amazes me how people argue with the positions they expect you to hold, no matter how many times you've expressly and categorically denied them. Where did I once say that I was "perfectly willing to accept a near-certainty that no gods exist"? I have said, over and over and over and over, that statements as to the probability of a god's existence are simply meaningless. Someone who says "it is 99% certain that there are no gods in the universe" is simply making a statement about the degree of their personal expectations of being proven wrong. In other words, they are making a completely random guess that tells me something about their disposition, but nothing whatsoever about the probability of god or a god's existence.

You are atheist are you not? Doesn't that imply you assign a low probability to the existance of god?

Let me try to give you an analogy:

In the absence of any relevant evidence, any discussion of probability is simply meaningless.

Okay. Interesting analogy. But it has a flaw. We can in fact make a subjective assessment of the probability. To the best of our knowledge, no alien from another planet has visited us. It's therefore it is reasonable to assign a probably of near zero to such a occurrence happening tomorrow.

Now, let's compare that to assessing the probability of the existance of god. On the one hand, the existance of any god has never been proven, there's no objective quantifiable evidence. On the other hand, there is lots of testimonial and subjective personal evidence for god.

We can assess and weight the evidence that exists. Therefore, we can make a subjective judgment of the probability. If someone gives a large amount of weight to the testimonial evidence, or has had a personal experience they attribute to god, it's quite rational for them to assign a high probability to the existance of god. If, on the other hand, someone dismisses all testimonial evidence as being untrustworthy, it's quite rational to assign a low probability to the existance of god.

Except that the terminology keeps getting everyone confused (just look at this thread).

I don't think anyone who's been posting is confused. We just disagree.

Your term "fairly well convinced" sounds like it means "mostly persuaded by the evidence"--which would be a meaningful distinction--but I don't think that's really what you mean.

Actually, yes, that's what I mean. People who assign a high probability to the existance of god. Levels 2 and 3 on Dawkins scale.

 

[Trakar]

Apology, you didn't change a definition. You chose to cling to one which makes atheism an absurd position. You object to people saying that you are "really an atheist" but at the same time you are saying that I am "really an agnostic."

If I accept your definition of atheist as "someone who 'knows' that there are no gods" then "atheist" becomes a completely useless term to me. I'm sure there are people who make this claim, but I would argue that they are simply confused about the meaning of the word "know."

So, essentially, you agree with my position in the OP--you agree that there are not two distinct valid positions called "atheism" and "agnosticism." It just so happens that the term that you want to toss out of useful philosophical discussion is "atheism" (which, in your formulation, becomes as useful as "people who believe that God is a unicorn orbiting Saturn in a teapot"). As I've said countless times, that would be o.k. (it reduces the terminological confusion) except that "agnostic" seems (etymologically and by tradition) a less clear labeling of the difference between the two groups. "Theist" and "atheist" seems to me to give us nicely contrastive terminology.

But in any case, you do seem to agree (without realizing it) that it is impossible to define a non-absurd position that is "atheism" such that it clearly contrasts with a non-absurd (or non-meaningless) position that is "agnosticism." So as much as anyone else you're trying to recruit people to your "team." All that's left is the question of what label we apply to the team. Perhaps "believer" and "unbeliever" would get us away from the all the intense emotional investments people seem to have in what is merely a deliberate terminological unclarity.

Technically, according to your argument, all people are agnostic, some just allow their beliefs to shift them along different paths of belief in their inability to "know" better. According to the terms "unbeliever" would agnostic, and "believer" would come in several flavors.

 

[Apology]

Technically, according to your argument, all people are agnostic, some just allow their beliefs to shift them along different paths of belief in their inability to "know" better. According to the terms "unbeliever" would agnostic, and "believer" would come in several flavors.

Except for the part where I don't actually make that claim. Atheists make the claim that agnosticism doesn't exist because of the concept of implicit atheism. No one can be an agnostic unless they choose agnosticism. Even if an atheist defines atheism in a manner that makes it exactly the same as agnosticism, they are still an atheist until they choose to call themselves agnostics. There's no implicit agnosticism. If someone says there is implicit agnosticism, they're wrong. One must be conscious of the issues in order to be categorized, and categorization should always be self-categorization, since each person is the only one who can truly say what they believe or do not believe. The concept of implicit atheism is a major part of my disagreement with atheism and my decision to not call myself atheist. If I have to believe in implicit atheism then I don't believe in atheism any more. Sorry.

 

[Yoink]

At any rate, I do think it appropriate to have a category for people who do not know themselves whether they are theist or atheist. If they don't know, I don't think it's appropriate to claim they are atheists.

Those people are simply muddled. They can't give an account of what it means to "believe and not believe at the same time." They are anthropologically interesting, but they are philosophically uninteresting (just as it is interesting that there are people who are innumerate, but they are not people who are offering an "alternative mathematics").

I'm not trying to label them anything. I'm pointing out that the definition of atheist you are using would emcompass them.
I would think so. But if you clatim that atheist denotes anyone who doesn't hold a belief in any god, then those people are athiest by your definition since they don't hold a belief in god.

You think there are people who are "religious," who are "comfortable with their doubts" and "do not hold a belief in god"? What do you mean by saying that these people are "religious" (I already ruled out people who just like the ritual and social benefits of going to church as not counting as "religious." If that is all you mean, then yes--these people are atheists by any definition. If not, then I just don't think you're describing a real, or meaningful, position)

You are atheist are you not? Doesn't that imply you assign a low probability to the existance of god?

How many times do I have to say that talking about the probability of god's existence is meaningless before you believe that that is what I mean? I am an atheist. That means that I have seen no evidence to support the god hypothesis. Until such evidence is presented, there is no reason for me to entertain the hypothesis, nor any possibility of me making a meaningful guess at its "probability."

Okay. Interesting analogy. But it has a flaw. We can in fact make a subjective assessment of the probability. To the best of our knowledge, no alien from another planet has visited us. It's therefore it is reasonable to assign a probably of near zero to such a occurrence happening tomorrow.

Hume destroyed that argument in the C18th. It's tautologous: you're saying "I know the future must be like the past because past futures have always been like past pasts." That is argument in a circle.

Now, let's compare that to assessing the probability of the existance of god. On the one hand, the existance of any god has never been proven, there's no objective quantifiable evidence. On the other hand, there is lots of testimonial and subjective personal evidence for god.

None of that is "evidence of a god" because it is all easy to account for in the absence of the existence of a god. It is evidence consistent with the existence of a god--but then so is absolutely everything. Therefore it has no probative value. There is, of course, a great deal of evidence that is inconsistent with any particular god (the existence of evil, for example, argues strongly against a loving, omnipotent god etc. etc.--but that's another point).

We can assess and weight the evidence that exists. Therefore, we can make a subjective judgment of the probability. If someone gives a large amount of weight to the testimonial evidence, or has had a personal experience they attribute to god, it's quite rational for them to assign a high probability to the existance of god. If, on the other hand, someone dismisses all testimonial evidence as being untrustworthy, it's quite rational to assign a low probability to the existance of god.

Rationality isn't a matter of "how you feel" about something. Either you have a sound argument as to why to trust this testimony or you don't. The soundness of the argument has nothing to do with your subjective feeling.

 

[Yoink]

Technically, according to your argument, all people are agnostic, some just allow their beliefs to shift them along different paths of belief in their inability to "know" better. According to the terms "unbeliever" would agnostic, and "believer" would come in several flavors.

I don't see how you're getting that from the passage you quote, but it is true that I do think that any reasonable definition of "agnostic" ends up including almost everybody. That's one of the reasons I think the term is basically useless. You can define it in such a way that it doesn't describe almost everyone, but to do so you have to make it redundant with "atheist" or redefine "atheist" to mean an absurd position that almost no one holds. If I'm wrong, I'd like to see someone offer clear, distinct definitions of the three positions.

 

[NorfolkAtheist]

If I have to believe in implicit atheism then I don't believe in atheism any more. Sorry.

There are NO beliefs that are required to be an atheist. All you have to do, to be an atheist, is to not hold the belief that there is a god. That's it. You may believe in implicit atheism, or you may believe in implicit theism, or you may never even bother considering the ideas at all. It doesn't matter, because atheism requires no positive beliefs at all.

 

[Macoy]

There are NO beliefs that are required to be an atheist. All you have to do, to be an atheist, is to not hold the belief that there is a god. That's it. You may believe in implicit atheism, or you may believe in implicit theism, or you may never even bother considering the ideas at all. It doesn't matter, because atheism requires no positive beliefs at all.

If there's positive belief, then how about negative belief? Is that like not believing in belief?

 

[Apology]

There are NO beliefs that are required to be an atheist. All you have to do, to be an atheist, is to not hold the belief that there is a god. That's it. You may believe in implicit atheism, or you may believe in implicit theism, or you may never even bother considering the ideas at all. It doesn't matter, because atheism requires no positive beliefs at all.

There's no implicit theism either. Children are indoctrinated into religion before they're conscious enough to make decisions. They aren't "born" to be theists. The fact that you keep repeating "You're either a theist or an atheist" is an expression of implicit atheism. You say I don't have to believe in implicit atheism, and yet you keep insisting that everyone is either a theist or an implicit atheist. I think you are wrong, and I don't need size 6 font to make my argument.

If there's positive belief, then how about negative belief? Is that like not believing in belief?

Well I think so, which is why I think the whole "lack of belief that God exists is not the same thing as not believing God exists" argument is silly and must have an underlying motive to it. I'd rather call myself agnostic than belong to a group where I have to say something like that.

 

[Apology]

When I'm talking to a Christian, what am I supposed to say?

"You're wrong, your children are not implicitly born Christian and Original Sin is bull. However, my children are born implicitly Atheist because I was smart enough to rewrite the dictionary 1,950 years after you defined your religion."

 

[drzeus99]

Most people who I know today who consider themselves to be agnostic are in fact, agnostic theists. They define their agnostic beliefs as: Believing in a god, but they don't know which relgion based god is the real god. They ascribe to no formal religion, they only say they believe in the axistance of a god, but have no idea how, why, where, who, when this god is. They just believe in the existence of a god in general, even if this god only let the bing bang occur and that's it. Or, they believe a god MIGHT exist (the 'ol CYA reason)

All atheists I know (including myself), simply believe that no god's exist. Could there be some god who only set the Big Bang in motion and is in another universe? Who knows.
That's something no one will ever know.
But atheists fail to believe in god because there is no evidence for any god's existence.

If that changed, then atheists would believe differently (obviously if there was verifiable proof, it would be silly to believe this proof didn't exist. Though I'm sure there'd be your usual wackjobs and nutwings who wouldn't believe irrefutable evidence if it bit them on the ass).

Cheers,
DrZ