Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There seems to be a re-definition of the terms so that they are less blatantly in violation of logic. Atheism is not a religious belief, but as you guys are defining it, it is certainly a belief.
I don't see that anybody has contradicted any logical laws. If there are any violations, they are only because of your pre-conceived notions of atheism, not because of any recent claims on this thread.
Atheism is definitely a belief. No doubt about it, and I have never claimed otherwise.
Quote:
In a world where no honest person can claim to have directly observed god, nobody can claim to know he exists without looking ridiculous. You have taken this opportunity to separate yourself from ridiculous theists by denying not just the validity of their claims (of which there is none), but also the possibility of them.
Nope, you don't understand agnostic atheism. Agnosticism, which is a statement of knowledge, does not deny the validity of claims. It acknowledges imperfect knowledge, and therefore the ability of others to make claims and present evidence to support those claims. Atheism is my statement that I don't believe those claims can be sufficiently backed up by evidence.
Quote:
Taking a position where you believe or claim that there is no god, is to insist that even though you don't have all of the information, you are capable of arriving at a conclusion. This is arrogance in spite of ignorance and is no more valid than the mindset of the theist.
Not so. We all make conclusions based upon incomplete evidence. If I told you I was a doctor (I am not), you would assume that I had gone to several years of school and had a 6 figure income. In fact, I might be a doctor that earned very little, for a variety of reasons. I wouldn't fault you for your initial belief, because it would be based upon incomplete evidence.
Quote:
The problem here is the term atheist. It is not even remotely specific, as you would like me to believe. Atheism used to be specific, it meant that if you are an atheist, you deny the existence of any god, and claim that the knowledge you possess is significant enough to make that claim.
Mere word smithing. I do state that there is no god, based upon the lack of convincing evidence for any god. I am not 100% certain, but I am 99.999% certain. The important thing is that I came to this belief by being unconvinced by the weak evidence people put forth to try and prove the existence of god.
Quote:
It was a position that could be argued from. People have changed the term atheist so that they can categorize positions without claiming certainties. "Oh, I can be an atheist without having to be certain? Great, sign me up".
I don't see your problem here. I am not 100% certain you exist. You could be a figment of my imagination, or some sort of AI arguing bot. However, I believe that you probably do exist, and I do this based upon less than certainty. It is the same thing about god. I believe that god doesn't exist, based upon less than 100% certainly. I can be ever so slightly uncertain while still making the legit claim of being an atheist.
Quote:
You guys say that atheism is the lack of belief...well guess what? so is agnosticism. Once again, as you have defined it, atheism and agnosticism have no differences. I would like to believe that they do, but apparently I'm wrong.
They are different. Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge. Atheism is a statement of belief. If I told you I was wearing a sweater, would you believe me? Probably, because why would I lie? Would you know with any certainty that I was wearing a sweater? No, you wouldn't know, because you have no evidence. Knowledge and belief are related, but different. As are agnosticism and atheism.
Quote:
Fact is, atheism was no longer a logical position to argue from, so it changed its own definition to avoid looking ridiculous. If you take anything from what I've said, let it be this: agnosticism is not just the absence of belief, it is the non-committal approach to any kind of claim about the origin of the universe. You cannot claim to be any kind of agnostic while also claiming or believing anything. You can't be half-agnostic. Although atheism seems so broad and wishy-washy, you could probably be half atheist.
Quid Verum has some awfully carefully crafted posts for such a low post count. I think this is a new handle for someone who has posted here many times before. It's funny that QV uses "Fact is" to state an opinion related to gnositicism and theism. I am not sure whether QV is confused about what it means to be agnostic or just pretending to be. Being agnostic doesn't mean that you don't realize that one conclusion is far more likely to be correct than another. The ridiculous position is stating as fact that which cannot be proven IMO.
There seems to be a re-definition of the terms so that they are less blatantly in violation of logic.
Re-defined from what? Simply your understanding up to this point? Have you not considered that what may be mistaken is your own understanding of what position most atheists today actually take?
Knowledge and belief claims vary independently of one another. That is not to say that they don't inform and influence each other, but they are distinct.
I don't believe in any gods, and am therefore an atheist. I do not afford belief to any deities because I see no evidence or argument that would justify such a belief. At the same time, given that claims about invisible, personal, interventionist deities are unfalsifiable as formulated, I am not making a knowledge claim about the existence of deities, and am an agnostic.
I don't have absolute knowledge and don't make absolute knowledge claims. There might be a god hiding under a rock somewhere, but I highly doubt it.
Of course, an agnostic atheist and a gnostic atheist both see no justification for belief, and both think any deity almost equally unlikely (99.99% vs 100%), so there is no practical difference in how either approaches reality or conducts one's existence.
There is more of a difference between gnostic and agnostic theism (simplistically, fundamentalist and liberal theism) because there is a variety of god concepts in play. There is only one "no gods concept", by definition.
Theists sometimes make the claim that atheism is arrogant and claims to know everything. This is based in part on the specious notion that one must have absolute knowledge of the non-existence of gods (despite personal gods being an inherently unfalsifiable concept) in order not to believe -- in other words it's a claim that belief is the rational default, along the lines of Pascal's Wager. When in fact skepticism is the rational default in the absence of certainty and facts. Because of this, many atheists seek to more explicitly distance themselves from a knowledge claim that they aren't making. We do not believe precisely BECAUSE we do not know. It is not in most cases that there are niggling doubts that god might exist, true; the real point is, there is no basis whatsoever to think so.
Even for self-labeled gnostic atheists, if you really press them, most will admit to this. Truly gnostic atheists are quite rare; mostly people who identify in that way are just tired of these pedantic debates over technicalities and crave the simplicity of the semantic shortcut of saying "there are no gods" despite it sounding like an explicit knowledge claim. But the nuance is important to many of us, myself included. Even if it largely falls on deaf ears when it comes to theist demagogues.
Quid Verum has some awfully carefully crafted posts for such a low post count. I think this is a new handle for someone who has posted here many times before. It's funny that QV uses "Fact is" to state an opinion related to gnositicism and theism. I am not sure whether QV is confused about what it means to be agnostic or just pretending to be.
It is possible QV is a nom de plume of someone else here but if so I don't recognize the writing style. It doesn't matter; the poster, whoever s/he is, is invested in a perception about atheism that they have come to believe (or claim to believe) is undisputedly factual and correct. And the handle (which means "that which is right or correct") suggests up front that they come dispensing Truth and correcting everything that is contrary to what is perceived by them as Truth. It is not exactly brimming with epistemological humility, openness or a desire to understand the position of others and integrate it into the poster's own understanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReachTheBeach
Being agnostic doesn't mean that you don't realize that one conclusion is far more likely to be correct than another. The ridiculous position is stating as fact that which cannot be proven IMO.
Just so. Everything is preponderance of evidence and weighing of odds. No one can actually make an honest knowledge claim about any invisible personal interventionist deity, for or against. But the honest belief position is that such a deity is so unlikely that belief is totally unjustified.
the fact is some people are so sure of themselves it can't be any other way then theirs. If you can show me it's because of belief I'll bite on this anti religious thing like its real.
I'll be waiting. Until then jerks are jerks no matter what they believe. Of course some here are more interested in spirit wear than actual logic. so down with those that don't think like us ... they aint even human!!!!!!
Fact is, atheism was no longer a logical position to argue from, so it changed its own definition to avoid looking ridiculous. If you take anything from what I've said, let it be this: agnosticism is not just the absence of belief, it is the non-committal approach to any kind of claim about the origin of the universe. You cannot claim to be any kind of agnostic while also claiming or believing anything. You can't be half-agnostic. Although atheism seems so broad and wishy-washy, you could probably be half atheist.
Like I tell my lower 80%-er atheists soldiers. Apologetics is the only rational position for a belief. It basically means "I think this way until I can evaluate new information." it really is normal and we do not have to listen to mentals that force anything else on us.
joining a side because of the color of the spirit wear is cool. as long as you are honest about it and don't dry hump us that think about logic first.
Re-defined from what? Simply your understanding up to this point? Have you not considered that what may be mistaken is your own understanding of what position most atheists today actually take?
Some (older) dictionaries consider the atheist stance a knowledge claim. Newer definitions consider it an absence of belief, which doesn't really distinguish it from agnosticism, but I guess dictionary definitions don't have the length needed to separate the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Theists sometimes make the claim that atheism is arrogant and claims to know everything. This is based in part on the specious notion that one must have absolute knowledge of the non-existence of gods (despite personal gods being an inherently unfalsifiable concept) in order not to believe -- in other words it's a claim that belief is the rational default, along the lines of Pascal's Wager. When in fact skepticism is the rational default in the absence of certainty and facts. Because of this, many atheists seek to more explicitly distance themselves from a knowledge claim that they aren't making. We do not believe precisely BECAUSE we do not know. It is not in most cases that there are niggling doubts that god might exist, true; the real point is, there is no basis whatsoever to think so.
Even for self-labeled gnostic atheists, if you really press them, most will admit to this. Truly gnostic atheists are quite rare; mostly people who identify in that way are just tired of these pedantic debates over technicalities and crave the simplicity of the semantic shortcut of saying "there are no gods" despite it sounding like an explicit knowledge claim. But the nuance is important to many of us, myself included. Even if it largely falls on deaf ears when it comes to theist demagogues.
Well said. I guess it could be said that the earlier definitions for atheism were really more appropriate for gnostic atheism, and due to the fact that early on, most atheists were gnostic, gnostic atheism was what atheism as a whole was thought of as when the term atheist was used.
I must say though, it seems now that my problem isn't with atheism's definition, it is with the idea that agnosticism is inclusive of atheism. If atheism is a position of belief, how is it not in conflict with agnosticism, a position of denying belief? They both lack belief in god, but they don't both lack belief.
Is not agnosticism the denial of the legitimacy of belief, however empirically justified, while atheism is the belief in the denial of the existence of god, justified by empirical evidence?
Perhaps this is why we call it 'agnostic atheism' and not 'atheistic agnosticism'?
I used to feel perfectly comfortable considering myself a devout agnostic, and maybe it's just a personal thing, but I'd prefer not to categorize myself with the stereotypical atheist. When you tell people that you're an agnostic atheist, do they just assume you're a gnostic atheist or is the true nature of atheism something that only I have misinterpreted/poorly understood?
I must say though, it seems now that my problem isn't with atheism's definition, it is with the idea that agnosticism is inclusive of atheism. If atheism is a position of belief, how is it not in conflict with agnosticism, a position of denying belief? They both lack belief in god, but they don't both lack belief.
Is not agnosticism the denial of the legitimacy of belief, however empirically justified, while atheism is the belief in the denial of the existence of god, justified by empirical evidence?
I think the possible conflation is with belief and knowledge.
Epistemology would say that your knowledge is (mainly) your justified and true beliefs. Where in order to be true, it must be a falsifiable or coherent concept. And where justified means that you have rationally good reasons for holding the belief.
The Gettier diagram (Google search it if not familiar) is a good way to look at it. Which is why most of us would say that knowledge is a subset of your beliefs....which are both justified and true.
We all hold beliefs, try as we might otherwise, which are not completely justified nor always true. Being atheist is essentially a response to theistic claims. I don't believe them....that's my belief position. It would be dishonest for me to say "well, I'm not sure if I believe them"....I just don't. That's all the position of atheist need say.
But the question of knowledge is where agnosticism or gnosticism is concerned. Since the question of a god is generally incoherent and unfalsifiable....I am agnostic to such a question because I can't know such a concept to be not true. Precisely because of its incoherence.
There are threads on this forum where atheists have debated the merits of using different words to describe ourselves given the baggage attached to it. But I generally come down on the side of not running from a label just because it has been derided for so long that it's pervasive to even irreligious people. We simply have to stand up and explain the definition of an atheist over and over....until it permeates back to its actual meaning. Because it really doesn't matter what word we use next.....it will be the next target of derision by those vested heavily in religious dogma. And then how would we rationally argue for clear and concise definition of terms in religious discussion if we abandon the very word which most appropriately describes us.
there is no one word. I am atheist by definition and have no emotional attachment to the word. People that have strong feeling towards it morph it into something else. Militants act like fundies and ex fundies are out for revenge. I can't side with them just because of the same color spirit wear.
Then there are the kind that tell us that we can't be in the middle for some strange reason. Or others that will ignore any observation to counter their lack of belief in anything. even a living biosphere. They go so far as to say we "shouldn't talk like that because the theist will use it". I really don't fine that kind of angle usable in anything but one belief fighting another. essentially it becomes two religions fighting when that kind of logic is employed.
so yeah. we have to keep hammering the definition home. anti-religion is something else using atheism as cover. Kind like Christian fundies use Christianity as cover.
I agree, all I say is "I do not believe in magic nor some of the traits you assign ... like "poof there it is" floods, city wide destruction as punishment, and 6-day earth type things. I don't have to defend a claim I don't make.
The point I've been trying to get at is that agnosticism is not inclusive of any kind of claim. So when someone says that they lack belief in god, they assume that they share the position of the agnostic, but they betray the agnostic position when they say that they believe that no god exists. Agnosticism is not simply the denial of knowledge claims, it is the position that no claims, knowledge or belief, are justified. Agnosticism is a category of its own, occupied only by those that make no claim and refuse to justify a belief, in respect to god or the facts about the origin of the universe. Agnostics are the unconvinced.
As Arach said, one doesn't have to defend a claim that they don't make. That is the position of the agnostic. And also as MartinEden has pointed out, a claim of knowledge is based on belief, so separating the two is irrational. Whether you claim no god exists as a claim of knowledge, or you say that you simply believe that there is no god based on empirical evidence, you are essentially doing the same thing. Both exclude you from agnosticism.
This completely negates the necessity for the use of 'atheist' in the term 'agnostic atheist'. An agnostic by this definition is an agnostic atheist, and there are no other regions excluded in their overlap. In logical terms: All agnostics are agnostic atheists, and all agnostic atheists are agnostics. Because of this, I see no point even referring to agnosticism with any other terms. All we've done is added the term 'atheist' to the term 'agnostic' as if it adds something, which it does not.
Also, anyone about to say that I am getting in way too deep in concern to the use of language needs to study some philosophy. Language is a huge barrier in philosophical arguments, best overcome by deep discussion to establish a specific definition of all terms that leaves meaning unquestionable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
