Does atheism differ from agnosticism?

[Rasmus]

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

Then you were making your argument based on the conclusion you would like ti to reach.

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

If it had ears, would it hear less than what it does without? What are animals that have no ears - like worms (I think?)? Suppose a human was born without ears - would that person not be deaf?

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.

I see a difference between nonsense and a definition i simply do not agree with!

I think it would be rather presumptuous of me to start defining atheism, since I'm not an atheist.

You can chose any one defintion. Just kindly stick to it and don't change it mid-sentence as you do.

The different definitions come from atheism itself and secular sources. I'm not in charge of telling other people what to believe.

Outside your phantasy, defining atheism one way or another will NOT change what anyone is believing. Everyone can happily continue to believe or disbelieve or not-believe in all the same things as before. We would simply apply different labels to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_renamed_places_in_the_United_States
When any of these places were renamed, do you think some of the citizens protested the renaming on grounds that they weren't going allow others to tell them where to live?

If there were such protests, do you think they would have been justified?

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.

I want you to stick to one definition - preferably yours- and defend it.

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."

I still don't see how it is nonsense. If (!) atheism is defined as "without a belief in god", then rocks are atheists. To insist that only humans should be atheists assumes a different definition than the one that makes rocks atheists. Like I said: Kindly pick any one definition and stick to it!

Atheism purports that agnosticism is meaningless,

You're doing it again!

and that each person much declare a new label every time they change their mind because there should be no category for "undecided."

Well, yes: If your position changes it might be advisable to describe it differently. If you could reasonably use the same description for your situation chances are that it didn't change.

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."

If your position really changed from Buddhism (atheistic) to Christianity to atheism back to Buddhism (theistic) then why on earth would it be dishonest to use these descriptors?

If your position changed to and fro between atheism and theism, then why would it be dishonest to use these labels when they are currently appropriate?

By eliminating agnosticism, the category of the undecided, this is what atheism asks of people.

That is simply not so, and it has been explained to you over and over again throughout this thread!

The definition of atheism I defend allows you to be "undecided". You can be an undecided theist, or an undecided atheist. You cannot be neither - true. But that doesn't mean what you think it does.

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.

How do you describe people that were born without the ability to hear? Do you think they would reply "no" if asked if they're deaf? (Assume a conversation in writing!)

Again: It goes without saying that rocks cannot hear, so it will not often be elaborated at length. But that doesn't make it wrong to apply the label.

I see no reason to not apply the label to rocks. It fits. You might as well object to referring to water as "wet" because it can never be anything else.

 

[Irony]

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

Therein lies the heart of the problem. Keep that definition if it makes you happy, but do not impose that definition on the rest of us.

If you don't like pitbulls and don't like other dogs being associated with them by use of the word "dog", then you are free to define dog in a way that only includes pitbulls. Just don't expect anyone else to follow your redefinition, and expect a few sideways looks from people who see your redefinition as completely pointless and ridiculous.

 

[hammegk]

Why am I now inclined to think atheists posting here became atheists without any need to think about how they arrived at that position.

In a similar vein, if one has never heard that collecting stamps is a hobby, no thought is required to be not-a-stamp-collector.

 

[CFLarsen]

Why am I now inclined to think atheists posting here became atheists without any need to think about how they arrived at that position.

In a similar vein, if one has never heard that collecting stamps is a hobby, no thought is required to be not-a-stamp-collector.

A truly ignorant statement.

 

[Yoink]

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).

So at this point we seem to be in agreement that the term "agnostic" serves no real purpose--at least in terms of strict definitions for the purposes of philosophical argument.

I believe that is what you believe.

Actually, it pretty quickly becomes apparent that you don't believe that that (i.e. that any statement as to the probability of god's existence is meaningless) is what I believe. It's interesting--both you and Apology have been quite defensive about being "told what to believe" when in fact all I (and most of the others) am trying to do is define (not change) what you believe. But it does seem that you're willing to outright tell me what I must "really" 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.

And there is your error. Of course I'm willing to "entertain the hypothesis." That's the whole point. I "entertain the hypothesis," I look around for supporting evidence, none presents itself, so I deem the hypothesis unproven. Not "wrong," not "disproven," simply "unproven." Just like the hypothesis that there is life on other planets: I "entertain the hypothesis," I look around for evidence, and--so far--none appears. If some appears, then I will have reason to become a "believer" in alien life. If none continues to appear, then I will continue to be a "nonbeliever."

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.

Actually, I don't think I understand what your personal position is--you haven't been very explicit. There is nothing wrong with you making an "assessment" of my position--it's just that your assessment doesn't fit what I've said and that you don't have any evidence other than my statements to go on--so it seems to be rather a leap in the dark. As it happens, it was a false leap.

Is there any point in my saying, once again, that my point is not to say "you shouldn't believe what you believe" but simply to say "I don't think agnostic vs. atheist" is a useful way of describing the differences between the positions we're discussing. So if I were to say that your brand of agnosticism (whatever it is--you haven't described it with sufficient clarity for me to hazard a guess) would be better described as "atheism" that would not mean that I am insisting that you "refused to entertain the hypothesis of the existence of god." It would mean only that 1) you are not persuaded by the available evidence and 2) you do not choose to make a leap of faith in the absence of evidence. Would you care to tell me which of those (1 and 2) does not apply to your position? (I would, for example, say that both apply to Apology from his self description, and that he is therefore an atheist--he, of course, thinks that I'm thereby smuggling in a third criterion: that he resolutely disavows the possibility of a god's existence--but on that point he's simply wrong).

I think it is meaningful to talk about subjective probabilities that god exists when discussing the categories of theist, atheist and agnostic.

Yes, it is meaningful anthropologically. But I don't see how it is meaningful in terms of philosophically strict distinctions between coherent positions on the question. It makes sense to talk about the subjective probabilities that gamblers apply to the bets they make, for example. One gambler bets a dollar on 16 on the roulette wheel and thinks "I just feel in my gut that I'm definitely going to win this time." Another gambler bets on 16 and thinks "ah, that's pretty certainly money down the drain, but what the heck, it's fun to gamble." That's anthropologically (and psychologically) interesting. But the fact remains that in both cases the odds of them winning are 1/37 (or 38, depending on the wheel). Similarly, it's interesting that you, perhaps, think there's a 50/50 chance that god exists and someone else thinks that there's a 1/10 chance--but that doesn't mean that either of you have any reason whatsoever for those estimates.

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.

"Agnostic atheist" is a redundant term (by my definition). My point is that "agnostic" is doing no useful work in your sentence. All atheists (that I know of) have "doubts about their position"--in other words, they are all willing to "entertain the god hypothesis." They just don't see any supporting evidence for it. It's the willingness to "doubt your position" that makes you a skeptic (and an atheist). It's the theists who confront doubt with faith--not the atheists.

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.

Hume's point is that we can make no inference whatsoever about the probability of a future event simply on the basis of past performance. It is a central aspect of his skeptical critique of causality.

But let's leave Hume to one side--as that gets us into problems about inductive reasoning which are probably larger in scope than are worthwhile. Just modify my thought experiment slightly and it will make my point well even if you think Hume's all wet:

!/ You estimate the probability of the first person you meet tomorrow being called John. (as before)

2/ You estimate the probability of the first person you meet tomorrow being Qu'arg from the planet Blothoah, knowing that Qu'arg has the ability to make himself look and behave exactly like any human being on the planet.

I would argue that it is possible to make a meaningful statement about the first probability and impossible (even absent Humean objections to inductive reasoning) to make any meaningful statement about the probability of the second. How, after all, would you know what the past frequency of this occurrence was? Perhaps you meet Qu'arg every single day of your life--and just don't know it? Perhaps it is 99% likely that Qu'arg will be the first person you meet tomorrow. Perhaps it is 100% likely (everyone you ever meet may just be that wacky trickster Qu'arg). Maybe it's 0% likely--maybe there's no such being as Qu'arg. Tell me what reason I have to assign any percentage of probability to a belief in the existence of Qu'arg?

Now change Qu'arg's name to Zeus, Yahweh, Baal etc. etc. etc.--the exact same argument applies. Religion makes (for the most part) no predictions about observable experience. It tells us that god exists, and the evidence of god existing is the world we inhabit. That's the same as the evidence for Qu'arg's existence. The only experience I can be certain of having if I meet Qu'arg is that I meet somebody. The only experience I can be certain of having if Deists are right is that the world will be there. Unfortunately, in both cases, the experience is adequately accounted for by other hypotheses--so there's no reason for me to adopt either the Qu'arg hypothesis (although I might decide that I'm "subjectively" 67.8% sure that it is true) OR the god-hypothesis (although, again, I might decide that I'm "subjectively" 53.2% sure that it is true).

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.

I believe that there are such things as valid arguments and invalid arguments. I think you probably agree with me. I suspect that it is only when it comes to the question of religious belief that you think that there is something overbearing and rude about saying that certain arguments are simply logically invalid. I don't "choose" to disagree with you about the value of subjective evidence--I am convinced by logical argument that such evidence is worthless (see the gambler example up above). Now, I may have made a mistake in my reasoning (I am only too aware how capable I am of that!), and if so I'd be grateful to you if you'd point it out. But saying "don't be such a bully" is really no substitute for "here's the flaw in your argument."

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.

I can have a very good reason to believe that they are telling me with complete honesty what they experienced. Similarly, if I spin around and around on the spot, I'm sure you'd trust me if I then told you that it looked to me as if the earth was spinning around and heaving up and down. This would not, however, be a good reason to go to the earthquake website and report a major temblor--would it?

Someone's personal conviction that Jesus appeared to them at a time when they are on drugs and undergoing severe physical and mental trauma has precisely the evidentiary value in relationship to Jesus's actual existence as an imaginative four-year-old's account of having ridden a dinosaur to school does to the present-day existence of dinosaurs. It is certainly possible, but it is easier to explain by well-understood mechanisms.

 

[hammegk]

Originally Posted by martillo
Why am I now inclined to think atheists posting here became atheists without any need to think about how they arrived at that position.

In a similar vein, if one has never heard that collecting stamps is a hobby, no thought is required to be not-a-stamp-collector.

A truly ignorant statement.

I await your acumen and logical analysis that demonstrates your otherwise unfounded, and useless, claim.

 

[qwert]

"Agnostic atheist" is a redundant term (by my definition). My point is that "agnostic" is doing no useful work in your sentence. All atheists (that I know of) have "doubts about their position"--in other words, they are all willing to "entertain the god hypothesis." They just don't see any supporting evidence for it. It's the willingness to "doubt your position" that makes you a skeptic (and an atheist). It's the theists who confront doubt with faith--not the atheists.

But do you not see that the agnostic definition is supposed to be about knowledge, not belief?

Knowledge is not equivalent to belief, so there is a logical, meaningful distinction to be made between atheism and agnosticism.

Agnosticism is that set of people who do not "know" god exists.

Yes, anyone who is an atheist would be an agnostic. You cannot have knowledge and lack belief, so anyone who lacks belief, cannot know.

In that respect the term "agnostic atheist" is redundant.

However, there is also a percentage of people who claim to "know" god exists (e.g. through personal experience). This divides the theists into two sets: agnostic theists, who have belief but lack knowledge, and (lacking an appropriate term here) "strong" theists who "know" god exists.

One can be an agnostic atheist (redundant as atheism implies agnosticism), or an agnostic theist, or a NON-agnostic theist.

 

[Yoink]

But do you not see that the agnostic definition is supposed to be about knowledge, not belief?

Knowledge is not equivalent to belief, so there is a logical, meaningful distinction to be made between atheism and agnosticism.

Agnosticism is that set of people who do not "know" god exists.

Yes, anyone who is an atheist would be an agnostic. You cannot have knowledge and lack belief, so anyone who lacks belief, cannot know.

In that respect the term "agnostic atheist" is redundant.

However, there is also a percentage of people who claim to "know" god exists (e.g. through personal experience). This divides the theists into two sets: agnostic theists, who have belief but lack knowledge, and (lacking an appropriate term here) "strong" theists who "know" god exists.

One can be an agnostic atheist (redundant as atheism implies agnosticism), or an agnostic theist, or a NON-agnostic theist.

That's a reasonable enough definition of "agnosticism," I agree--the problem is that none of the self-described agnostics in this thread would agree with it. I think it's just asking for confusion to use a term that most people think of as contrastive with both "theist" and "atheist" to describe, instead, a contrast between a small body of "theists" and all other theists-and-atheists. I think it would simply be better to use other terms.

For example you could have "evidence-based" and "faith based" theism (on the one hand) and "atheism" on the other. Doesn't that seem less prone to confusion to you?

 

[Egg]

But do you not see that the agnostic definition is supposed to be about knowledge, not belief?

Knowledge is not equivalent to belief, so there is a logical, meaningful distinction to be made between atheism and agnosticism.

Agnosticism is that set of people who do not "know" god exists.

Yes, anyone who is an atheist would be an agnostic. You cannot have knowledge and lack belief, so anyone who lacks belief, cannot know.

In that respect the term "agnostic atheist" is redundant.

However, there is also a percentage of people who claim to "know" god exists (e.g. through personal experience). This divides the theists into two sets: agnostic theists, who have belief but lack knowledge, and (lacking an appropriate term here) "strong" theists who "know" god exists.

One can be an agnostic atheist (redundant as atheism implies agnosticism), or an agnostic theist, or a NON-agnostic theist.

My understanding of agnosticism is not knowing either way if God exists or not. That would allow for an atheist to not be agnostic, if he claimed to know that God did not exist.

 

[Apology]

Then you were making your argument based on the conclusion you would like ti to reach.

No, I'm refuting an argument that has been proposed by atheists.

If it had ears, would it hear less than what it does without? What are animals that have no ears - like worms (I think?)? Suppose a human was born without ears - would that person not be deaf?

If rocks were generally known to have ears and brains, and to be capable of hearing in most cases, then an earless rock could then be properly be considered "deaf". Since humans generally have the equipment and capability to hear, that's why if they were earless, they are categorized as "deaf".

I see a difference between nonsense and a definition i simply do not agree with!

Sometimes they are the same. It wouldn't be fair to say that "I lack a belief in God" is a ridiculous definition. I think it would be ludicrious to say that a person can be categorized into any intellectually-based group without the intellect to understand the groups, and the benefits and risks of membership of said group.

In secular philosophy, this entirely ignorant group is called "The Original Position". It's an imaginary adult person with full intellectual capabilities who somehow magically (and for purposes of discussion) is unaware of anything about society. The Original Position is used in constructs to test social ideas. It's used in ethics a lot to debate the idea of whether a person in "The Original Position" would choose a liberal society or a conservative society given the choice. If an alien just dropped out of space, right in the center of earth, how would he choose which government to go with, with the earth fighting over him? He has no understanding of our society, blah blah blah, start making your case here.

Implicit atheism implies that the alien is atheist even though he doesn't know what you're talking about. Maybe he has his own God; you don't know, the alien is going to have to pick a country and learn the language before you can talk to him. It's presumptuous to call him an atheist. It's actually presumptuous of me to call him a "he", but I get tired of typing out he/she or s/he so I go ahead and presume that the alien is either a he or a she.

You can chose any one defintion. Just kindly stick to it and don't change it mid-sentence as you do.

Okay, I choose the one that said "Atheism: the belief that God does not exist", not because I think it's the most right, but because I suspect that by your definition of atheism, that's the one that's the most wrong. This is why I can't redefine atheism; I'm not an atheist, so it's not my place to change the definitions. You need to call up the other atheists, because some of them believe that "God does not exist" is still the definition, and aren't afraid to say so.

Outside your phantasy, defining atheism one way or another will NOT change what anyone is believing. Everyone can happily continue to believe or disbelieve or not-believe in all the same things as before. We would simply apply different labels to them.

Redefining atheism sure hasn't changed what I believe. You're insisting that it should. By your definition of atheism, I don't exist. I haven't changed what I believe; I've just refused to apply your definition to myself. I'll also defend anyone else who's been defined out of existence or miscategorized by atheism, like the Buddhists, which some atheists claim and some don't. We'll get back to this idea in a minute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_renamed_places_in_the_United_States
When any of these places were renamed, do you think some of the citizens protested the renaming on grounds that they weren't going allow others to tell them where to live?

Nobody objected, or few objected, because it didn't matter much to them, or they agreed with the change.

If there were such protests, do you think they would have been justified?

Sure, but naming a town is a popular vote issue. Changing the town's name doesn't redefine the identity of the people within it. I'm sure there were a few people who liked the old name and wanted to keep it, but everyone else voted for the change, so they're out of luck. At least they got a vote, instead of being renamed without their input.

I want you to stick to one definition - preferably yours- and defend it.

I don't have a definition of atheism. I disagree with yours because it's based on the concept of implicit atheism. I'm not an atheist, so I can't fix it for you. Sorry.

I still don't see how it is nonsense. If (!) atheism is defined as "without a belief in god", then rocks are atheists. To insist that only humans should be atheists assumes a different definition than the one that makes rocks atheists. Like I said: Kindly pick any one definition and stick to it!

Because religion is an intellectual product. Implicit groups are almost always non-intellectual groups. You do not have to decide if you are human: you either have human DNA or you don't. "Homo Sapiens" is a non-intellectual categorization based entirely on direct evidence. By redefining "Atheist" from the original definition "Atheist: Believes that God does not exist" to "Atheist: Anyone who is not a theist", you attempt to force a complex issue involving the categorization of intellectual products into a simple categorization based on direct evidence, which you don't actually have. You can't prove what someone believes; you can only take their word for it.

For some reason unbeknownst to me, atheists have a unique distaste for the idea of taking people's word about what they believe. I can privately believe they're confused if they say they're one thing and talk exactly like another. For instance I've met many people who call themselves Agnostic, when privately I believe they're just atheists. However, it's not my place to tell them they can't use the word Agnostic. Obviously they have doubts about atheism or they would call themselves atheists.

I've also met people who said they were Agnostics when privately I thought they were just Christians, angry with their original church, who would choose sometime in the future to attend a more moderate Christian church or become Unitarians or Deists. It's not my place to tell them they can't use the word Agnostic. Obviously they have doubts about Christianity, or they would call themselves Christians. It's not my place to choose. Maybe after they're done being Agnostic, they will have traveled so far that they're atheists. Maybe we should wait to find out.

You're doing it again!

What, not agreeing with you? Sorry, I have to stick to what I think is right. You don't have to agree with me, just stop insisting that I'm atheist.

Well, yes: If your position changes it might be advisable to describe it differently. If you could reasonably use the same description for your situation chances are that it didn't change.

Wouldn't it be great if we could create a new category for people who don't know, flip-flop, can't decide, or don't care? I think that would be awesome, but some people really hate the idea, I'm not sure why.

If your position really changed from Buddhism (atheistic) to Christianity to atheism back to Buddhism (theistic) then why on earth would it be dishonest to use these descriptors?

If your position changed to and fro between atheism and theism, then why would it be dishonest to use these labels when they are currently appropriate?

Well, maybe I wasn't sure if I was any of those things. Maybe I used the term "agnostic" while I was studying, and maybe I was convinced a for a while that they were true, but wasn't sure enough to lend my support to any of those groups. It's sort of rude to say "Now I'm with you, now I'm not," especially if you change your mind more than once or twice in a lifetime, or you're studying to find out what you believe. The groups you leave are usually disappointed that you left, you know. If you say, "I'm a Buddhist," then all the other Buddhists sort of expect you to support them and agree with their ideals. If you say "I'm an agnostic, but I'm interested in Buddhism and would like to learn more," then the Buddhists understand where they stand from the beginning, and aren't hurt if you decide to leave.

That is simply not so, and it has been explained to you over and over again throughout this thread!

It's not that I don't understand your explanation, it's that I don't agree with your conclusion.

The definition of atheism I defend allows you to be "undecided". You can be an undecided theist, or an undecided atheist. You cannot be neither - true. But that doesn't mean what you think it does.

I can't decide if I'm an undecided theist or an undecided atheist. Maybe I should become an undecided Deist because those people are generally nicer than you guys are.

How do you describe people that were born without the ability to hear? Do you think they would reply "no" if asked if they're deaf? (Assume a conversation in writing!)

Again: It goes without saying that rocks cannot hear, so it will not often be elaborated at length. But that doesn't make it wrong to apply the label.

I see no reason to not apply the label to rocks. It fits. You might as well object to referring to water as "wet" because it can never be anything else.

Unless a rock has the capability to become religious, such as intellect, ears, and all that, it can't be an atheist either. I touched on this above. If a rock does not have the capability of becoming religious, it cannot be presumed to be irreligious.

 

[Apology]

Would it be fair to characterize the rock as "dead" because it does not possess the capabilities to be "alive"?

 

[Mobyseven]

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.

Wonderful. You're wrong though.

As for the dictionary game, yes, you did start it. A discussion on definitions was started (by whom I cannot recall), and you chose to respond to well crafted arguments by the likes of Taffer and others with a dictionary citation.

Hopefully you can now see the folly in arguing from the dictionary, as a number of definitions that support the opposing position have been cited.

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.

For everyone's sake, if you're going to write something this moronic at least check it with a five year old first. Here is the explanation, yet again, that you have completely missed:

Rocks and trees cannot think. They cannot hold any type of belief. Therefore, they lack the belief that god exists. Therefore, they are atheists.

Atheism is not a belief, it is the absence of a belief, and therefore an object that cannot hold any belief is, by definition, atheistic.

Buddhists are people. People can think. People can hold beliefs. Buddhism is a belief system that does not speak one way or the other to the existence of god. Therefore, Buddhists can either be theists or atheists.

If you can't tell the difference between a Buddhist and rock you have some serious issues. Stop fighting with the strawman and try to deal with them.

 

[Mobyseven]

Would it be fair to characterize the rock as "dead" because it does not possess the capabilities to be "alive"?

Ugh.

Atheism is the absence of a specific type of belief.

"Dead" is a word used specifically to describe objects that were at one point alive.

A rock holds no beliefs. Therefore it is atheistic. A rock has never been alive. Therefore it cannot be dead.

 

[Yoink]

Well, maybe I wasn't sure if I was any of those things. Maybe I used the term "agnostic" while I was studying, and maybe I was convinced a for a while that they were true, but wasn't sure enough to lend my support to any of those groups. It's sort of rude to say "Now I'm with you, now I'm not," especially if you change your mind more than once or twice in a lifetime, or you're studying to find out what you believe. The groups you leave are usually disappointed that you left, you know. If you say, "I'm a Buddhist," then all the other Buddhists sort of expect you to support them and agree with their ideals. If you say "I'm an agnostic, but I'm interested in Buddhism and would like to learn more," then the Buddhists understand where they stand from the beginning, and aren't hurt if you decide to leave.

This, I think, is the raw, beating heart of Apology's refusal to use the label "atheist"--regardless of how it is defined and regardless of whether it literally applies to his/her position. It is also a great example of why I find the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" so utterly useless for precise, philosophical discussion. There's just too much in the way of social anxieties and prejudices bound up in our use of the terms to ever allow us to arrive at reasonably consistent and clear uses for them. Apology is an atheist, but will fight the application of the label to the death because the social act of calling him/herself an atheist makes other people assume certain things about him/her that s/he finds upsetting.

I know that you're never, ever, ever going to agree with anyone who is arguing with you on this Apology, so I won't bother trying--but I do hold you up as a perfect example of the utter uselessness of these words in current practice.

 

[Egg]

From a language point of view, it does seem to be a bit of a loss atheism having a shift from meaning belief of no god to no belief of god. Whilst not entirely meaningless, it puts a lot of differing views under one label.

Undecided, never really thought about it, never been exposed to the concept of deities..."yep", says the god-is-hogwash guy, "you're all atheists, you're just like me (and my pet lobster)".

I guess it allows someone to drift in an out of "don't know" and "there's no god" without having to consider if they should be recategorised. Maybe the strong/weak/de facto/implicit stuff will catch on, but right now most people would probably be none the wiser if you used such expressions. According to dictionaries and many people it still carries its formerly understood meaning, which I think can lead to confusion both for those hearing that someone is an atheist and possibly sometimes for the atheists themselves.

Its even broader definition which can be applied to rocks is really going a bit far. Surely at that point "nontheism" is a more useful term. Atheism should at least refer to some kind of conscious rejection of theism. One should at least have the ability to claim atheism in some way.

@ Apology: I suppose if you're stuck with the atheist label, you could insist on using "implicit" to denote being dragged under the label kicking and screaming.

 

[Dogdoctor]

You have 3 children (call them Curly Larry and Moe) who are born without belief in religion or gods. As they grow up Larry and Moe are exposed to the concept of god(s). Moe rejects it and Larry accepts it. If the two were atheists initially then they were atheists for quite different reasons. Moe would be an atheist because he rejects religion as implausible and Curly and Larry would be an atheists because they haven't been exposed to religion. Once Larry is exposed he is no longer an atheist. Curly's status waits his eventual exposure to religion. If you want to label someone who isn't exposed to religion an atheist so be it however to me it is pointless since it doesn't describe much about them and it almost never happens in adults so whatever... Atheism involves consciousness and an awareness of religion or it is a pointless definition in my opinion.

 

[fishkr]

I try to discipline myself to not believe in anything, because in my mind the threshold of belief is where real thinking ends.

This discussion, about Atheist vs.Theist vs. Agnostic is compelling largely because Theists cause such overwhelming grief in the world that it ceases to be a conversation about ideas and becomes one of survival.

At heart, I know that I can never truly know. But things being what they are, I call myelf an Atheist largely because I enjoy putting the maximum possible intellectual distance between myself and people who are obviously delusional.

 

[Mobyseven]

You have 3 children (call them Curly Larry and Moe) who are born without belief in religion or gods. As they grow up Larry and Moe are exposed to the concept of god(s). Moe rejects it and Larry accepts it. If the two were atheists initially then they were atheists for quite different reasons. Moe would be an atheist because he rejects religion as implausible and Curly and Larry would be an atheists because they haven't been exposed to religion. Once Larry is exposed he is no longer an atheist. Curly's status waits his eventual exposure to religion. If you want to label someone who isn't exposed to religion an atheist so be it however to me it is pointless since it doesn't describe much about them and it almost never happens in adults so whatever... Atheism involves consciousness and an awareness of religion or it is a pointless definition in my opinion.

Atheism has nothing to do with religion.

 

[Apology]

This, I think, is the raw, beating heart of Apology's refusal to use the label "atheist"--regardless of how it is defined and regardless of whether it literally applies to his/her position. It is also a great example of why I find the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" so utterly useless for precise, philosophical discussion. There's just too much in the way of social anxieties and prejudices bound up in our use of the terms to ever allow us to arrive at reasonably consistent and clear uses for them. Apology is an atheist, but will fight the application of the label to the death because the social act of calling him/herself an atheist makes other people assume certain things about him/her that s/he finds upsetting.

I know that you're never, ever, ever going to agree with anyone who is arguing with you on this Apology, so I won't bother trying--but I do hold you up as a perfect example of the utter uselessness of these words in current practice.

This is a brilliant post, and I applaud you for it. There are many reasons why I don't call myself an atheist, and you pegged some of them brilliantly. Here's the problem though: One of the reasons I can't say that I'm an atheist is that I don't entirely lack a belief that God exists. I'm just not sure enough to positively affirm that God does exist. Part of the labeling argument, for me (not for all of agnosticism) is I can't personally determine whether I should be an agnostic Deist or an agnostic atheist. I don't know whether to support agnostic belief or agnostic unbelief. That's why I say there should be a third category, and that's why I just call myself "agnostic."

I don't object to the concept of agnostic atheism, I'm just not sure enough that I am one to call myself that. I feel exactly the same about Deism. This is an unusual position for an agnostic. Most agnostics really are leaning to one side or the other on the atheist/theist scale, but I'm not. Agnosticism is usually transitory, not a dilemma that's permanent in nature. It should continue to exist, on its own, as a category, until each individual can solve the dilemma to their own satisfaction. I know, from extensive study, that I personally never will, unless the deists come up with some better evidence of God than "It gives us comfort." I can't discount their personal experiences because I can't prove or disprove that they had them, and that's a lot of what convinces people to be Deists---personal experiences. I've never had any personal religious experiences, but I'm pretty sure other people do.


The fact that deism and atheism both make claims and use analogies that I find rather dubious doesn't make my decision any easier.

Most of my objection to implicit atheism is because it conflicts with secular philosophy, and I found their arguments about consciousness more compelling than the "lack of belief in God" dictionary argument. I found, from studying ethics, the philosophy of consciousness, and other secular subjects, that their arguments about consciousness were more compelling arguments than implicit atheism. It doesn't matter what the root word "Atheism" means. Atheism began as an irreligious philosophical group. The fact that atheism has redefined itself into a softer position than "God does not exist" does not undo what Atheism, the irreligious philosophical group, did, which was bravely and proudly declare that they believed that God did not exist. Rather than stand down from that statement, it might have been better to fight from the position that your belief was as valid as anyone else's belief rather than try to back away from the goal of the original Atheist group.

As a matter of fact, the original Atheist group does still exists, and they don't care for being marginalized out of existence either, so they strongly disagree with the "lack of belief" definition. I believe that one of the three definitions I linked, "God does not exist", came from a strong atheist website. They objected for entirely different reasons than I do, of course, and they still call themselves "Atheists" because they feel they had the original claim to the name or something---I don't really know, ask them. A lot of the strong atheists I met didn't care if they just believed God didn't exist, in spite of the lack of evidence and the impossibility of proving a negative. They felt it was a valid belief and were willing to fight for it anyway.

 

[qwert]

This is a brilliant post, and I applaud you for it. There are many reasons why I don't call myself an atheist, and you pegged some of them brilliantly. Here's the problem though: One of the reasons I can't say that I'm an atheist is that I don't entirely lack a belief that God exists. I'm just not sure enough to positively affirm that God does exist. Part of the labeling argument, for me (not for all of agnosticism) is I can't personally determine whether I should be an agnostic Deist or an agnostic atheist. I don't know whether to support agnostic belief or agnostic unbelief. That's why I say there should be a third category, and that's why I just call myself "agnostic."
...
As a matter of fact, the original Atheist group does still exists, and they don't care for being marginalized out of existence either, so they strongly disagree with the "lack of belief" definition. I believe that one of the three definitions I linked, "God does not exist", came from a strong atheist website. They objected for entirely different reasons than I do, of course, and they still call themselves "Atheists" because they feel they had the original claim to the name or something---I don't really know, ask them. A lot of the strong atheists I met didn't care if they just believed God didn't exist, in spite of the lack of evidence and the impossibility of proving a negative. They felt it was a valid belief and were willing to fight for it anyway.

This post had a number of really good points...

Many people are arguing that atheism means the lack of belief. Does that mean the complete lack of belief? After all, for most people, belief is not an "on/off" type thing...there are degrees

I certainly believe the table in front of me exists more than I believe, say, in the existence of life beyond this planet. And I believe in life beyond this planet moreso than intelligent life beyond this planet. So what is someone who somewhat believes in god? I'd argue that Apology is not an atheist at all. He has some belief, and atheism is a lack of belief.

As to the "original" atheists...please don't speak for all of us. I personally don't care HOW people use the terms. I just insist that terms are clearly defined before arguing.

That being said, if the term is watered down enough to include rocks, trees, dirt, heat, morality, blue, etc...then IMHO it really is not a very useful definition.

I guess "productivity" is also an atheist. After all, "productivity" is a noun which does not have a belief in god. It is also apparently ammoral, asymmetric, asymptomatic, apathetic, and apolitical. Saying a rock (or a baby) lacks a belief in god is like saying linguistics lacks a belief in hockey. It`s meaningless.