Does atheism differ from agnosticism?

[Apology]

Wether it is palatable to you is not the issue. Maybe it's not "palatable" to me that I fit the usual definition of "German", as well as some unusual ones. I fit them, though.

Whether it is palatable to me or not affects my decision as to whether my beliefs can accurately be called "atheist" or not. You have made implicit atheism a tenet of atheism by changing the definition from "A belief that God does not exist" to "a lack of belief in God." Without implicit atheism, these are equivalent statements.

An argument is either valid or not. It's premises are either true or not. The conclusions are either correct or not.

Whether you refuse to accept any of that has no bearing on the argument.

Let me make this simpler for you. Implicit atheism is not a valid argument because it is not true and the conclusions of implicit atheism are incorrect.

I believe in it? What does believing in it has got to do with anything?

Implicit atheism simply describes a phenomenon that is entirely possible. Again, you just dislike the label but have nothing to offer that would show that it doesn't or couldn't exist. You just don't want it to be called "atheism".

Yes, you do. If it were not for the concept of implicit atheism, "A belief that God does not exist" would be the same as "a lack of belief in God." Atheists try to claim Buddhists, but Buddhists are not atheists. They are members of a primarily non-theistic religion. Some of them are even theists. You cannot categorize Buddhism as atheist or theist. They don't fit in either category.

Implicit atheism does not exist any more than Implicit Christianity exists. Babies cannot be atheists. They are too young to use reasoning and believe whatever they are told. Atheism is supposed to be a rational lack of belief in God. Babies do not have the ability to be rational. This argument that people are born this-or-that doesn't sound any better coming from atheists than it does from theists.

Yes, you would!

It's really not a question of whether you like it. If you agree on a definition, then you either fit or not.

No I would not. Thirty years ago, the other atheists agreed with me. That's before atheism began reworking the definition of atheism to include implicit atheism.

Allow me to give it a stab, though:

If the defintion of atheism is changed, then it might make a difference to whether you are one or not. Once again, it simply doesn't matter if you like being called an "atheist".

If the definition of atheism did not include the presumptive claim that agnosticism does not exist and that atheism is implicit, I would disagree with it less, but I still would not be an atheist.

I believe that there is a very real possibility that God does exist. If it's aloof and undetectable, I don't see why I should believe in it, so I haven't chosen deism. That doesn't mean that I've rejected deism. I'm waiting for them to come up with a reason why I should choose deism. No atheist I've ever known believes anything like this. Every atheist I've met, no matter how agnostic, leans towards "I don't think there is a God, but there might be." My position is, "I don't know if there is a God. There might be, there might not be." If you can't see the difference between these two positions then I don't know what else to tell you. They are similar, but not the same.

I don't think there isn't a God, I just don't know. Since atheists can't possibly provide any additional evidence (can't prove a negative blah blah blah) then they rewrite the definition of atheism to make their claims look better. You want me to stop waiting for more evidence and join you in atheism, but you have not given me a reason to do so. Furthermore, by insisting that I'm an atheist when I'm not, you've given me a reason to oppose you, when I did not have such a reason before.

Atheism and agnosticism were not at odds until Antony Flew began working on the concept of "strong atheism" and "weak atheism" and proposed the idea that agnosticism was the same as atheism. I just think he was wrong. Maybe if he hadn't been so strongly opposed to agnosticism, he would have become an agnostic instead of becoming a theist, as he is now. Then he would have had the time to look before he leapt.

 

[Taffer]

Apology, I, too, am going to bow out of this thread I think. It was very interesting, and I still think you are almost completely wrong with regard to what atheism, agnosticism and theism mean. I think you take things which atheists believe, and claim that is what you must believe to be an atheist.

Anyway, thank you for an entertaining discussion which did not directly just become "God exists/does not exist", as these threads are prone to do. I am happy to agree to disagree.

 

[Rasmus]

Whether it is palatable to me or not affects my decision as to whether my beliefs can accurately be called "atheist" or not.

That sums up nicely why we aren't making any progress.

Please substitute "beliefs" and "atheism" in the above for

- "gender" & "male"
- "occupation" & "janitor"
- "nationality" & "German"

You are rejecting various definitions of "atheism" simply because you don't like the label applied to you - regardless of what it means. That is outright irrational and pointless.

 

[Apology]

Apology, I, too, am going to bow out of this thread I think. It was very interesting, and I still think you are almost completely wrong with regard to what atheism, agnosticism and theism mean. I think you take things which atheists believe, and claim that is what you must believe to be an atheist.

Anyway, thank you for an entertaining discussion which did not directly just become "God exists/does not exist", as these threads are prone to do. I am happy to agree to disagree.

Thank you, Taffer. I respect your right to disagree and appreciate the conversation that you offered.

I will give you a hint: I take the parts of atheism that I don't agree with, and use it as a reason to disbelieve the whole.

That sums up nicely why we aren't making any progress.

Please substitute "beliefs" and "atheism" in the above for

- "gender" & "male"
- "occupation" & "janitor"
- "nationality" & "German"

You are rejecting various definitions of "atheism" simply because you don't like the label applied to you - regardless of what it means. That is outright irrational and pointless.

Those are all testable, easily provable beliefs. They differ from the concept of God. I think I can check down my pants and in my wallet to find the answers to all three of these questions, so I won't "believe" them for very long, I'll know.

You are missing the entire concept of implicit atheism. That is one of my main objections to atheism. It has nothing to do with "not liking" the label and everything to do with "not agreeing" with the tenets. Before I was exposed to the idea of implicit atheism, I liked the label atheist just fine. It was the fact that I had to either embrace implicit atheism as true (eg: "Anyone who is not a theist is an atheist") or stop calling myself an atheist that made me decide there were terrible flaws in atheism.

 

[Mobyseven]

They're just dead. They can't be agnostic either I'm afraid, any more than a baby or a cat.

This example of how to make the person you are debating present an argument for your stance brought to you by Mobyseven.

You know you're in trouble when you start searching all the dictionaries you can find for definitions that support your opinion. This would go a lot smoother if you'd stop taking offence at being classified as something just because you don't like the label.

ETA: And kindly stop saying that atheists try to claim Buddhists as their own. As I already said, Buddhism is non-theistic, and doesn't concern itself with the existence of god.

 

[Beth]

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)

I think if you define theists as people who hold a belief in god whilst acknowledging that they have doubts about their position, then it’s equally reasonable to say that atheists are people who do not believe in god while acknowledging that they have doubts about their position. Thus, if you define agnostic as anyone who acknowledges doubts, you include both those whom you consider to be theists as well as atheists. Thus, when you try to subsume all agnostics as also atheists (they don’t hold a belief in god), you end up with a large portion of religious believers included in that categorization. That doesn’t make sense to me (apparently not to you either).

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.".

I believe that is what you believe. I also believe you are wrong. If you do are not willing entertain the hypothesis, you are implicitly assigning a subjective probability of near zero to the existence of god. You can deny doing so, but that’s what I think of your position. I don’t see why I can’t make that assessment of your position. You don’t have a problem with assessing my position of agnosticism as being a subset of atheism.

I think it is meaningful to talk about subjective probabilities that god exists when discussing the categories of theist, atheist and agnostic. I don’t see how you can separate agnostic theists (believers with doubts about their position) from agnostic atheists (unbelievers with doubts about their position) without discussing the subjective probabilities they hold regarding their positions.

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.

That isn’t quite the argument I’ve made. I’m not arguing that the future must be like the past. I’m arguing that the future is similar enough to the past that it’s a reasonable approach to setting subjective probabilities for events like meeting an alien tomorrow afternoon.

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.

We will simply have to disagree with the value of subjective evidence. I don’t see this as a problem except for the fact that you seem to be insisting that every skeptic must agree with your assessment of such evidence.

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.

Right. So if you have a sound reason to trust someone’s testimony (for example, they’ve demonstrated their honesty in many ways and on many occasions), you can then trust their testimony when they tell you about seeing Jesus when they were temporarily dead on the operating table. A skeptic could accept their testimony as evidence (not proof) of the existence of god. I agree that a skeptic would need to consider the possibility of other explanations. I disagree that the individual relating the experience must be mistaken regarding their interpretation of their experience. That would require making the assumption that no god exists. As an agnostic, I don’t make that assumption. I assume the person is accurately describing their experience and that they might be correct in their interpretation of it.

 

[T'ai Chi]

All you have to do, to be an atheist, is to not hold the belief that there is a god. That's it.

So rocks are atheists? Doesn't that make the concept a little meaningless then?

 

[joobz]

So rocks are atheists?

yes

Doesn't that make the concept a little meaningless then?

no

 

[Foster Zygote]

So rocks are atheists? Doesn't that make the concept a little meaningless then?

I have a piece of quartz on my shelf that is also a non-German speaker as well as a non-music listener.

 

[CFLarsen]

So rocks are atheists? Doesn't that make the concept a little meaningless then?

T'ai Chi's argument is very close to what playwright Ludvig Holberg wrote about in his play "Erasmus Montanus".

The play takes place in Denmark in the early 1700s, and tells the tale of a newly educated young man, Rasmus Berg and his return to his small village. He is intoxicated with all his learnings, and has latinised his name to Erasmus Montanus (Berg = Mountain).

Holberg mocked the pseudo-intellectuals of his day by letting Erasmus make the most ridiculous arguments, based on flawed logic:

MONTANUS: Mother, I will turn you into a rock.

MOTHER: Yes, talk, that is more than strange.

MONTANUS: Now you shall hear. A rock cannot take wings and fly.

MOTHER: No, that is true, unless one throws it.

MONTANUS: You cannot fly.

MOTHER: That is also true.

MONTANUS: Ergo, is Mother not a rock?

(MOTHER CRIES)

MONTANUS: Why does Motherlil cry?

MOTHER: Oh, I am so scared that I am turning into rock, my legs are beginning to get cold.

MONTANUS: Be satisfied, Motherlil, I shall at once make you human again. A rock cannot think and talk.

MOTHER: That is true. I don't know if it can think, but talk, it cannot.

MONTANUS: Motherlil can talk.

MOTHER: Yes, praise God,as a poor farmer's wife, I can talk.

MONTANUS: Good. Ergo, Motherlil is no rock.

MOTHER: Ah, that did well, now I am returning to my old self again. It sure takes strong heads to study. I do not know how their brains can stand it.

T'ai Chi's argument is a classic dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid:

1. Atheism is a lack of belief in God.
2. Rocks do not believe.
3. Rocks are atheists.

A rookie mistake, which T'ai Chi should know better to avoid.

 

[Apology]

This example of how to make the person you are debating present an argument for your stance brought to you by Mobyseven.

You know you're in trouble when you start searching all the dictionaries you can find for definitions that support your opinion. This would go a lot smoother if you'd stop taking offence at being classified as something just because you don't like the label.

ETA: And kindly stop saying that atheists try to claim Buddhists as their own. As I already said, Buddhism is non-theistic, and doesn't concern itself with the existence of god.

LOL! I'm not the one who started the dictionary game. Atheists started the dictionary game by claiming that anyone who will not define themselves as a Theist is implicitly an atheist. I disagree.

As for atheists claiming Buddhists, as evidenced in the posts above mine, some atheists are willing to claim rocks and trees as atheist, so I'm not entirely off-base in my opinion that they want to claim Buddhists as well. I think it's ludicrious to attempt to categorize anything that isn't conscious into one of these groups. If you want to continue claiming rocks, trees, cats and babies as atheists, be my guest. I don't have to call myself an atheist and agree that rocks are atheistic in nature. Rocks are unconscious in nature. They can't be anything until they learn how to be aware of the world around them.

 

[Apology]

However, if you pick up a rock in Germany, it wouldn't be a complete fallacy to call it a "German rock". It doesn't require the rock to be aware that it's German in origin.

 

[joobz]

However, if you pick up a rock in Germany, it wouldn't be a complete fallacy to call it a "German rock". It doesn't require the rock to be aware that it's German in origin.

yes, of course. The rock isn't aware that it's an atheist either. But since it has no belief in god(s), it is an atheist. There isn't anything really complex about this.

 

[Apology]

yes, of course. The rock isn't aware that it's an atheist either. But since it has no belief in god(s), it is an atheist. There isn't anything really complex about this.

The rock does have to be aware of religion in order to make a decision whether it believes in God or lacks a belief in God. I think it's foolish to assign human categories to inanimate objects. Since this whole idea of "lacking a belief in God = implicit atheism" requires such assumptions, I feel justified in abandoning atheism.

After all you don't know that the rock wouldn't choose Theism were it conscious enough to decide.

 

[joobz]

The rock does have to be aware of religion in order to make a decision whether it believes in God or lacks a belief in God.

Does a rock require to be aware of movement in order to be inanimate?
Does a person have to be aware of cars to be without a drivers license?
Does a person have to hearing for a sound to be inaudible?

I think it's foolish to assign human categories to inanimate objects. Since this whole idea of "lacking a belief in God = implicit atheism" requires such assumptions, I feel justified in abandoning atheism.

I have no clue what this means. What are you abandoning?

After all you don't know that the rock wouldn't choose Theism were it conscious enough to decide.

Sure, given the chance and assuming it could. Then it would cease to be athiest. Interesting how easy this is.

 

[cafink]

After all you don't know that the rock wouldn't choose Theism were it conscious enough to decide.

It doesn't matter. Nobody has said anything about what the rock would be under imaginary circumstances, only about what the rock actually is.

I personally might choose Theism under different circumstances than those that actually are (if I lived in a Middle Eastern country, for example), but that doesn't mean I'm not an atheist as things are now.

 

[Apology]

Does a rock require to be aware of movement in order to be inanimate?

Only if it's choosing to not move rather than being incapable of moving.

Does a person have to be aware of cars to be without a drivers license?

No, but they can't exactly get a drivers license if they're unaware of cars or the benefits and risks of driving.

Does a person have to hearing for a sound to be inaudible?

No, but if they are unaware that an inaudible sound is being played they're unable to judge the sound's lack of audibility.

I have no clue what this means. What are you abandoning?

The concept of implict atheism, and atheism as a group, since they insist on this concept.

Sure, given the chance and assuming it could. Then it would cease to be athiest. Interesting how easy this is.

It should be given the chance under the assumption that it could do such a thing. If it makes you feel any better, theist babies aren't really believers either. Just because you teach a child a bunch of nonsense before they're conscious enough to doubt doesn't mean they've chosen theism. It just means they've chosen to believe what their parents tell them.

 

[Rasmus]

The rock does have to be aware of religion in order to make a decision whether it believes in God or lacks a belief in God.

Well, yeah. But you forget that you are arguing with people that do not agree that atheism requires an informed, concious decision.

I think it's foolish to assign human categories to inanimate objects.

It would seldom be useful to point out that a rock is atheistic. Much as it would seldom be useful that a rock can't hear things. Still, a rock is as much atheist as it is deaf.

Since this whole idea of "lacking a belief in God = implicit atheism" requires such assumptions, I feel justified in abandoning atheism.

You can repeat that as many times as you like - it will not suddenly begin to make sense.

It would help - a lot - if you could stick to anyone definition of the term "atheism" for at least the length of your argument.

After all you don't know that the rock wouldn't choose Theism were it conscious enough to decide.

As others have pointed out, that simply doesn't matter. Theists and atheists do sometimes change their opinions and turn into atheists and theists respectively. That doesn't make the terms meaningless though.

Hearing people sometimes become deaf later in life, just as deaf people can occasionally be cured. Still it is absolutely justified to label people either as "deaf" or "hearing".

 

[joobz]

Only if it's choosing to not move rather than being incapable of moving.

are you saying that choosing not to move and being incapable of moving are not both inanimate states?

No, but they can't exactly get a drivers license if they're unaware of cars or the benefits and risks of driving.

So what? Their lack of a license is equal to anyone from an industrialized nation that lacks a license.

No, but if they are unaware that an inaudible sound is being played they're unable to judge the sound's lack of audibility.

inaudible simply means unable to be heard. All sounds to a deaf person are inaudible. No dedicated act of judgement is required to define something as such.

The concept of implict atheism, and atheism as a group, since they insist on this concept.

Well, it's the working definition. What do you call a person who never heard of a god and has no faith? Do you wish to give a seperate definition for that situation? How is it functionally different from a person who after hearing of religion, decides not to believe?

It should be given the chance under the assumption that it could do such a thing. If it makes you feel any better, theist babies aren't really believers either. Just because you teach a child a bunch of nonsense before they're conscious enough to doubt doesn't mean they've chosen theism. It just means they've chosen to believe what their parents tell them.

I have no attachment to any of the terms. Only that the definition of atheism as a lack of belief in god(s) stems directly from the etymology and is a rather easy one to apply. You wish to complicate the situation by adding that a decision must be made prior to being an atheist. This makes no sense and just muddies the water. If you wish to make a distinction between a "default" atheist and a "self-selected" athiest, by all means present it. But to try and narrow the meaning of an existing word that is exceedingly clear doesn't make any sense.

 

[Apology]

Well, yeah. But you forget that you are arguing with people that do not agree that atheism requires an informed, concious decision.

No, I understand that they don't agree that atheism requires conscious decision. I'm just saying that I think it does.

It would seldom be useful to point out that a rock is atheistic. Much as it would seldom be useful that a rock can't hear things. Still, a rock is as much atheist as it is deaf.

Yeah I think the rock would need ears in order to truly be "deaf".

You can repeat that as many times as you like - it will not suddenly begin to make sense.

Well now you can see my dilemma. Repeating that "Anyone who is not a theist is automatically an atheist" doesn't make it suddenly make sense either.

It would help - a lot - if you could stick to anyone definition of the term "atheism" for at least the length of your argument.

I think it would be rather presumptuous of me to start defining atheism, since I'm not an atheist. The different definitions come from atheism itself and secular sources. I'm not in charge of telling other people what to believe. I suggest that what you really want is for me to stick to your definition of atheism and ignore all the other definitions that contradict it.

As others have pointed out, that simply doesn't matter. Theists and atheists do sometimes change their opinions and turn into atheists and theists respectively. That doesn't make the terms meaningless though.

I don't think atheism is meaningless. I didn't have a problem with atheism at all until I was introduced to the concept of implicit atheism. I was an atheist myself, and had the uncomfortable task of saying, "Hey wait, that's nonsense." Atheism purports that agnosticism is meaningless, and that each person much declare a new label every time they change their mind because there should be no category for "undecided." If I had done this, I would have been false to many faiths. Saying you're "undecided" is much more honest than saying "I'm a Buddhist, now I'm not, I'm a Deist, now I'm not, I'm an atheist, now I'm not." By eliminating agnosticism, the category of the undecided, this is what atheism asks of people.

Hearing people sometimes become deaf later in life, just as deaf people can occasionally be cured. Still it is absolutely justified to label people either as "deaf" or "hearing".

I agree that it's justified to use such categories on humans, since they have the capability of hearing. I just think it's somewhat silly to categorize something as "deaf" when it was never capable of hearing in the first place.