As a athiest I have problems with my own mortality, I am not at a point were I can say "I am cool with dying and there being nothing after my death, my conciousness ceasing and thats it" even typing that out gives me anxiety (not that I am going to die any time soon)
Since I never grew up with any church exposure the idea that there is a god, or heaven or I have a soul or whatever just doesnt make any sense at all, I see it as a childrens story to make humanity feel better about death, and I cant buy into it to make myself feel better as it doesnt fit in with my world view or understanding of reality.
Part of me is envious of those who have faith and don't have the anxiety of worrying about obvilion, but the other side of me just wants to make sure my life is full of doing things that will make me happy with what I have done so I can go without fear.
As a athiest I have problems with my own mortality, I am not at a point were I can say "I am cool with dying and there being nothing after my death, my conciousness ceasing and thats it" even typing that out gives me anxiety (not that I am going to die any time soon)
Since I never grew up with any church exposure the idea that there is a god, or heaven or I have a soul or whatever just doesnt make any sense at all, I see it as a childrens story to make humanity feel better about death, and I cant buy into it to make myself feel better as it doesnt fit in with my world view or understanding of reality.
Part of me is envious of those who have faith and don't have the anxiety of worrying about obvilion, but the other side of me just wants to make sure my life is full of doing things that will make me happy with what I have done so I can go without fear.
Hmm, this never bothered me. Mostly because I already experienced non-existence before I was born, and it didn't trouble me much.
Though, when I want to feel cosmic and woah, I remember that time is an illusion. "After" I die has no meaning, and I won't be gone. I'll forever be embedded in the shape of 4-space, and as far as I know nothing can change that.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
What's there to worry about? If there's nothing, there's nothing. What makes you so anxious, specifically?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Well then, I'll attempt to be more specific in how I define the term. Atheism is the refusal to believe something we cannot prove within reasonable doubt with our current understanding of the world. It makes assumptions and believes in certain things we can't really prove (like the big bang or string theory etc) while being open to these things being either proven further, or disproven at some point.
A point of order: I don't think that string theory and the big bang belong in the same epistemological category like that. It's a bit of a tangent, so I'll put it in spoiler tags:
You used the word "prove" in your post in reference to the big bang and string theory. "Prove" is one of those sticky problematic words that means different things in different contexts, and I want to be sensitive to that.
The big bang is 'proven' as far as an empirical statement can be - it fits with the available evidence and no plausible alternative explanation for that evidence exists. It isn't 'proven' in a deductive, mathematical sense (no empirical statement ever is) but it is 'proven' in a scientific sense. Meanwhile it is disprovable in a classic Karl Popper sense in that we can easily imagine a state of affairs in which the big bang would not be a plausible theory (say, a universe in which there wasn't background radiation with temperature and scattering consistent with expectations of the big bang).
To compare, string theory isn't proven in that sense. String theory is internally consistent - there are no mathematical or logical errors - but it isn't testable in an empirical sense. There's no experiment or natural observation that can demonstrate whether string theory is right or wrong.
You said that atheists are open to certain things "being proven further, or disproven at some point." How is that any different from a weak agnostic who says "I don't believe in God now, but maybe after I die he'll present himself in the afterlife?" Both parties are at least superficially willing to change their conclusions in response to new data (though I recognize that people are often more stubborn than they admit).
I mean, I am open to new data. I suspect that it is extremely unlikely that my ego and identity will maintain continuity in some unobservable-to-living-humans manner after my somatic death, but I don't know this with absolute certainty.
An atheist to me would not believe in an afterlife, a soul etc, we are chemical machines and electrical impulses. Some people would call this faith in science, and there is certainly a discussion to be had on that point.
An agnostic on the other hand presumably has rather similar views, but they are open to the concept of spirits, souls, reincarnation or a myriad other different beliefs related to human spirituality. This does not mean they believe in gods in any way, or that they have decided not to believe. It simply means they have not really decided what they think for different reasons.
I don't really agree with those uses of those labels.
I recognize and respect the observation you're making. Atheism usually trucks with certain sorts of scientific physicalism; a belief that all phenomena are either emergent from or reducible to physical causes (though whether things are emergent and/or reducible are matters of internal controversy). And this atheist-physicalist paradigm adheres to a certain epistemology; one that says that ideas should be believed when we have observable evidence in their favor and rejected when we do not.
And I admit that I am an adherent to this particular trifecta of atheism, general physicalism, and soft empirical verificationism.
But I don't think that they necessarily go together. I've met Buddhists who believe in reincarnation and call themselves atheists. I've met atheists who believe in psychic powers or magic. My father called himself an agnostic and didn't believe in anything remotely supernatural at all (though, to be fair, I suspect his adoption of the agnostic label was a diplomatic maneuver to avoid controversy with my devout Catholic mother).
My personal, prescriptive preference is that we use the word "atheist" to describe what its root words mean - simply, nonbelief in God. Anthropological/political/social observations that self-described atheists also tend to be skeptics, physicalists, materialists, and/or soft empiricists are useful; I don't want to dismiss such observations off-hand. But we have perfectly good words to describe these other philosophical positions; I think it doesn't really serve us to smear the word 'atheist' across all of them.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
For me, this is one of the few cases where technically correct loses to practically correct, and it's mostly because of the fickle nature of beliefs. The point of a label is to broadly categorize something, and as such you will almost never have labels which can 100% explain the details of every individual case. They are there to be a starting point for discussion, not an ending. In this sense, because beliefs are fickle, I think you have to bend the rules a bit.
wilting's four corners of belief (TM) in the picture posted previously is probably the most rigorously correct interpretation of the labels but it feels inefficient to me. Almost no one exists at binary extremes of belief. Even the most stout atheist or theist will have moments of doubt, and most of us experience quite a lot of doubt, so creating categories for the 100% believers seems wasteful. As a broad strokes label if you believe in a god for most of the time then you are theist and vice versa for atheists. That is the most useful definition. Even though technically you might be uncertain at times, and may even switch beliefs under certain circumstances, the belief that you generally hold is the most appropriate label.
Which brings us to the drez's of the world, and I think the more practically useful definition of agnostic. While I agree with feral and others that agnostic is not technically a belief, when your doubts reach the point where you are equally as likely to be atheist or theist from one moment to the next then those labels begin to lose their usefulness for you. Technically you could, every time you were asked, take a moment to decide which way you were leaning right then, but responding with a certain type of belief would imply that you generally hold that belief to be true (see previous paragraph) which is a lie in this case. Hence the agnostic as a belief position. It's not technically a belief, but it is the most accurate assessment of what your beliefs are, in that you are uncertain.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
I think another interesting point in the definitions is the phrase "standard of evidence". When most people say "standard of evidence", they're talking about something objective that two people can utilize and reach the same answer every time, like a rigorous experiment. But I don't think that's necessarily how everyone approaches religious questions -- or life in general, for that matter.
I don't know that I can level a specific criticism at that aspect of the definition, because I don't have an especially good replacement or alteration, but it jumped out at me when I read the OP.
It's kinda strange when we are talking theism but I think standard of evidence applies.
I have heard lots of theist talk about their conversions where they were swayed by persuasive arguments or evidence or even personal experience. The amount and validity of evidence is up to the individual.
What gets confusing is that in a normal debate the standard of evidence corresponds to the certainty of the proposition but here that isn't the case , with some people claiming absolute certainty from no evidence (not that there is anything wrong with that)
I think another interesting point in the definitions is the phrase "standard of evidence". When most people say "standard of evidence", they're talking about something objective that two people can utilize and reach the same answer every time, like a rigorous experiment. But I don't think that's necessarily how everyone approaches religious questions -- or life in general, for that matter.
I don't know that I can level a specific criticism at that aspect of the definition, because I don't have an especially good replacement or alteration, but it jumped out at me when I read the OP.
It's kinda strange when we are talking theism but I think standard of evidence applies.
I have heard lots of theist talk about their conversions where they were swayed by persuasive arguments or evidence or even personal experience. The amount and validity of evidence is up to the individual.
What gets confusing is that in a normal debate the standard of evidence corresponds to the certainty of the proposition but here that isn't the case , with some people claiming absolute certainty from no evidence (not that there is anything wrong with that)
honestly I think any discussion about theism/atheism/agnosticism is going to devolve into epistemology given enough time and depth
whether you believe in god depends a lot on your personal 'standards of evidence' of belief
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I think my objection is to the word "standard". A standard (typically!) is something that you hold yourself to and think can be reasonably applied to/by others, without alterations. That is, "If that fellow over there had the same standard of evidence that I do, then we would believe the same things, given time."
I'm not sure that accurately describes the beliefs of a significant portion of theists, atheists, or any other group. I'm 80% certain it doesn't describe my own theism.
I recognize and respect the observation you're making. Atheism usually trucks with certain sorts of scientific physicalism; a belief that all phenomena are either emergent from or reducible to physical causes (though whether things are emergent and/or reducible are matters of internal controversy). And this atheist-physicalist paradigm adheres to a certain epistemology; one that says that ideas should be believed when we have observable evidence in their favor and rejected when we do not.
And I admit that I am an adherent to this particular trifecta of atheism, general physicalism, and soft empirical verificationism.
But I don't think that they necessarily go together. I've met Buddhists who believe in reincarnation and call themselves atheists. I've met atheists who believe in psychic powers or magic. My father called himself an agnostic and didn't believe in anything remotely supernatural at all (though, to be fair, I suspect his adoption of the agnostic label was a diplomatic maneuver to avoid controversy with my devout Catholic mother).
My personal, prescriptive preference is that we use the word "atheist" to describe what its root words mean - simply, nonbelief in God. Anthropological/political/social observations that self-described atheists also tend to be skeptics, physicalists, materialists, and/or soft empiricists are useful; I don't want to dismiss such observations off-hand. But we have perfectly good words to describe these other philosophical positions; I think it doesn't really serve us to smear the word 'atheist' across all of them.
I'm one of the atheist Buddhists that Feral is talking about here, and it's actually really common to get a bunch of other beliefs and observations attributed to what I believe because I self-identify as an atheist specifically because of this phenomenon. People smear the word atheist across the entire spectrum of physicalism, skepticism, materialism, soft and hard empiricism, etc. and while any one of those positions are likely (and almost undoubtedly must be) ones that include atheism and are popular among atheists, being an atheist does not automatically mean you adhere to them. Being an atheist doesn't automatically make you an empiricist anymore than being a theist automatically makes you say, a Muslim.
All being an atheist says is that you don't believe in a God or gods. Full stop. That's the literal definition of the term. Adding anything else to it is making it needlessly complex and frustrating to use, and making it hard for people who simply do not believe in such things to describe themselves. People who are against the very idea of gods and religions describe themselves as anti-theists and/or irreligious. People who, for varying reasons, don't want to use the term atheist because they don't feel it's accurate to what they believe or feel or want to think or how they want to be perceived call themselves agnostic. There are words for these things. Atheist doesn't need to be a wide brush for all of them.
I think my objection is to the word "standard". A standard (typically!) is something that you hold yourself to and think can be reasonably applied to/by others, without alterations. That is, "If that fellow over there had the same standard of evidence that I do, then we would believe the same things, given time."
I'm not sure that accurately describes the beliefs of a significant portion of theists, atheists, or any other group. I'm 80% certain it doesn't describe my own theism.
I was more thinking in a sense that "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "a preponderance of the evidence" are different standards. Like I said, it gets confusing because in (back of the napkin) law they correspond to how sure of a proposition a person is but when talking about theism people are sometimes 100 percent sure about things with 0 evidence (not that that is a bad thing.)
I think another interesting point in the definitions is the phrase "standard of evidence". When most people say "standard of evidence", they're talking about something objective that two people can utilize and reach the same answer every time, like a rigorous experiment. But I don't think that's necessarily how everyone approaches religious questions -- or life in general, for that matter.
I don't know that I can level a specific criticism at that aspect of the definition, because I don't have an especially good replacement or alteration, but it jumped out at me when I read the OP.
It's kinda strange when we are talking theism but I think standard of evidence applies.
I have heard lots of theist talk about their conversions where they were swayed by persuasive arguments or evidence or even personal experience. The amount and validity of evidence is up to the individual.
What gets confusing is that in a normal debate the standard of evidence corresponds to the certainty of the proposition but here that isn't the case , with some people claiming absolute certainty from no evidence (not that there is anything wrong with that)
honestly I think any discussion about theism/atheism/agnosticism is going to devolve into epistemology given enough time and depth
I really cant figure out how they got entangled.
Like, I regularly run into people who are agnostic because it is impossible to know anything. Which is a perfectly rational position to take but they have beliefs about other topics just fine. "How can I know which movie is the best of the year when I only know what is filtered thru my senses? Maybe I didn't even watch a movie."
I don't believe in god is a completely accurate statement of the beliefs of nobody, it only defines a relatively minor subset of persons beliefs.
Nothing to do with souls, magic, after life, spiritually in general or what not.
Do you accept the claim that god (or gods) exist as true? No? Atheist.
I can't tell if you're trolling or not, but my response would be, "What is god?"
Not trolling, just fed up how people often seem to think being branded an atheist would somehow be insulting, no matter how accurate the word would be.
I mean, i understand how it might be inconvenient if you are a priest, but outside that...
And if you lack even the concept of god, you pretty much are atheist be definition.
Of course people have such insane and stupid concepts of god, that "what is god", is a perfectly valid question to ask of a religious person.
And I'm fed up with atheists who cannot conceptualize a middle ground position between theist/religious and agnostic and argue tirelessly that I belong to the same philosophical mindset that they do. I absolutely guarantee you: I do not have the same mindset about God or religion as you do. I do not technically "believe in God" but our philosophies are as unalike as possible.
What philosophy? There is no philosophy, it's a single question, do you believe in a god or not.
Atheism is not a philosophy.
It's like asking someone whether water is frozen, and they say the question does not apply because water is vaporized.
And i assume you mean a middle ground between theist and atheist
And there are many atheists who are religious, Buddhists (some of them) being a fairly well known group), because Theist and agnostic are not even in the same category (first is a position on belief, later is position on knowledge (or claim whether you have it or not).
You make a fair point, but "atheism" is unfortunately a word loaded with connotation. Going with the by-the-book definition, I suppose I am an atheist. However, I disagree that it is not a philosophy. You have some rather vocal atheists denouncing religion at every turn. That has become a part of the "atheism" as far as I'm concerned. It has shaped the way other people view "atheism." A lot of people consider atheism a belief in and of itself. That you believe there is no God. Is that accurate? No. But it's how people use the word. That's how people think of "atheism" and "atheists."
Someone on the last page accused you of trying to expand the term, but I believe you are guilty of the opposite: Reducing it to its dictionary definition. I don't believe that's what "atheism" is anymore. I understand that you simply don't believe in God and that is what the root of atheism means, but atheism, with all its connotations, does not accurately describe my position on the question of whether or not there is a God.
Does that make sense? Granted a part of it is how vocal atheists "act" but that's not entirely it either. People hear "atheist" and they think "this guy just doesn't believe in God." That isn't true. So I refuse to identify as atheist. It gives people the wrong idea. And it's just a label anyway. Why not use a label that accurately depicts my belief? I may be an atheist, but I don't want people to think of me as an atheist. Not because "atheists are assholes" but because what other people think "atheism" means does not describe my position.
Sorry if I was a bit dickish in my response but I'm getting apparently as tired as you of having to defend why I identify as "agnostic" rather than "atheist" even if the latter is technically true. Maybe in academic circles, people immediately understand exactly what you mean when you say "I am atheist" but 99% of the populace don't.
Also, I'm a descriptivist when it comes to the meaning of words, so take this for what it is.
I'd argue with about the reducing the term, i am fighting those who would expand it from what it actually is (or who mistake the meaning for what it is not), though it is more accurate than the accusation of me trying to expand the term (which i find downright ludicrous).
And i can see where you are coming from, even if i disagree with it.
But muddying the meaning of atheism and agnosticism is not going help, and using one term, while meaning the other isactually harmful to a conversation about faith, religion and religious positions.
And while in real life it might at times be necessary to dodge the questions about religious faith (there is, even where there should not be, still lot of religious persecution going on, even if it's simply people bullying others about not going to church), in a debate forum like D&D, you can just bow out of a conversation, or say that your position is not relevant to the topic and refuse to talk about it.
As for People hear "atheist" and they think "this guy just doesn't believe in God." part.
I'm not sure what is inaccurate about that, sounds like a fairly decent summation of atheism, someone who does not believe in god.
Am i missing something? I might be, not a native English speaker.
I don't believe in god is a completely accurate statement of the beliefs of nobody, it only defines a relatively minor subset of persons beliefs.
Nothing to do with souls, magic, after life, spiritually in general or what not.
Do you accept the claim that god (or gods) exist as true? No? Atheist.
I can't tell if you're trolling or not, but my response would be, "What is god?"
Not trolling, just fed up how people often seem to think being branded an atheist would somehow be insulting, no matter how accurate the word would be.
I mean, i understand how it might be inconvenient if you are a priest, but outside that...
And if you lack even the concept of god, you pretty much are atheist be definition.
Of course people have such insane and stupid concepts of god, that "what is god", is a perfectly valid question to ask of a religious person.
And I'm fed up with atheists who cannot conceptualize a middle ground position between theist/religious and agnostic and argue tirelessly that I belong to the same philosophical mindset that they do. I absolutely guarantee you: I do not have the same mindset about God or religion as you do. I do not technically "believe in God" but our philosophies are as unalike as possible.
What philosophy? There is no philosophy, it's a single question, do you believe in a god or not.
Atheism is not a philosophy.
It's like asking someone whether water is frozen, and they say the question does not apply because water is vaporized.
And i assume you mean a middle ground between theist and atheist
And there are many atheists who are religious, Buddhists (some of them) being a fairly well known group), because Theist and agnostic are not even in the same category (first is a position on belief, later is position on knowledge (or claim whether you have it or not).
You make a fair point, but "atheism" is unfortunately a word loaded with connotation. Going with the by-the-book definition, I suppose I am an atheist. However, I disagree that it is not a philosophy. You have some rather vocal atheists denouncing religion at every turn. That has become a part of the "atheism" as far as I'm concerned. It has shaped the way other people view "atheism." A lot of people consider atheism a belief in and of itself. That you believe there is no God. Is that accurate? No. But it's how people use the word. That's how people think of "atheism" and "atheists."
Someone on the last page accused you of trying to expand the term, but I believe you are guilty of the opposite: Reducing it to its dictionary definition. I don't believe that's what "atheism" is anymore. I understand that you simply don't believe in God and that is what the root of atheism means, but atheism, with all its connotations, does not accurately describe my position on the question of whether or not there is a God.
Does that make sense? Granted a part of it is how vocal atheists "act" but that's not entirely it either. People hear "atheist" and they think "this guy just doesn't believe in God." That isn't true. So I refuse to identify as atheist. It gives people the wrong idea. And it's just a label anyway. Why not use a label that accurately depicts my belief? I may be an atheist, but I don't want people to think of me as an atheist. Not because "atheists are assholes" but because what other people think "atheism" means does not describe my position.
Sorry if I was a bit dickish in my response but I'm getting apparently as tired as you of having to defend why I identify as "agnostic" rather than "atheist" even if the latter is technically true. Maybe in academic circles, people immediately understand exactly what you mean when you say "I am atheist" but 99% of the populace don't.
Also, I'm a descriptivist when it comes to the meaning of words, so take this for what it is.
I'd argue with about the reducing the term, i am fighting those who would expand it from what it actually is (or who mistake the meaning for what it is not), though it is more accurate than the accusation of me trying to expand the term (which i find downright ludicrous).
And i can see where you are coming from, even if i disagree with it.
But muddying the meaning of atheism and agnosticism is not going help, and using one term, while meaning the other isactually harmful to a conversation about faith, religion and religious positions.
And while in real life it might at times be necessary to dodge the questions about religious faith (there is, even where there should not be, still lot of religious persecution going on, even if it's simply people bullying others about not going to church), in a debate forum like D&D, you can just bow out of a conversation, or say that your position is not relevant to the topic and refuse to talk about it.
But I do think it is relevant. You may take a prescriptivist stance and disagree with my use of the terms, or call it "muddying" the definition, but I take a descriptivist stance and believe that the terms do not mean what you suggest they mean, at least not anymore.
In a discussion on labels, perception, and self-description, what I believe these words means and the reasons behind it is very relevant.
As for People hear "atheist" and they think "this guy just doesn't believe in God." part.
I'm not sure what is inaccurate about that, sounds like a fairly decent summation of atheism, someone who does not believe in god.
Am i missing something? I might be, not a native English speaker.
Technically, I don't believe in God. But the answer is more complicated than that. So if someone asks me what I believe, and I say "atheist," most people make some common assumptions and stop thinking about it. They won't even inquire further. I am given no opportunity to clarify or expound on what I actually believe in. They conjure up this - call it a "straw atheist" if you like - and that's the end of the conversation.
When I say that the assumption they make is "this guy just doesn't believe in God" - well, the word "just" is key there. I don't want my perspective to be dismissed out of hand because I "don't believe in God," as accurate as that statement in a pedantic/technical/academic/scientific context may be.
So, I say "agnostic" because it connotes something far more accurate and is not dismissed as non-belief or anti-belief such as the term "atheist" does.
I guess my point is, if I am going to explain my thoughts and beliefs to someone - anyone - I am going to do so carefully. And online communication is not very different from real life communication. People work from the same set of assumptions and contexts and connotations and biases that no matter where they are. So I don't think it's very fair to invite me to "bow out" of a conversation on how I identify myself because we have different ways of viewing these terms. I use the terms I use in the way I use them because I think it appropriately communicates my beliefs to the largest audience. Sure, those approaching the conversation from a prescriptivist, academic, scientific, or pedantic perspective may get a little confused at first, but I believe those people are in the minority. I think most people know exactly what I mean when I say "I'm agnostic." Which is what matters most to me. In fact, I haven't even seen anyone disagree with that here. So I'd like to know why anyone gives a shit if I identify as agnostic rather than atheist? I'm accurately painting a picture of who I am with that word. Why does it bother anyone?
If you want to argue with my underlying beliefs, fine, but a word is just a word. "Agnostic," as understood by most, describes who I am. "Atheist," as understood by most, does not.
The lack of a belief that the evidence for a god or gods overcomes an arbitrary standard of evidence. Sometimes further split into "strong" and "weak" atheism where strong is a positive claim that no god exists and weak is simple the rejection of the claim that god exists.
This is not a good definition of "atheist" in my mind.
I consider myself agnostic. I don't believe analysis of empirical data can say whether or not something exists outside the frame of observable phenomena. As such, I'm not willing to say one way or another. I can hope there's an afterlife for instance, but that hope is not rational. Dismissing it out of hand would be similarly irrational IMO.
I can certainly disbelieve certain doctrines but I do so mostly because they are not internally coherent.
Now if someone were to label me an "atheist", that would falsely indicate I held an ideology that is a member of a greater category of ideologies that held that there was not anything resembling a deity in reality. That is counterproductive not because of a label but because of an inaccurate label. Calling a rock an amphibian doesn't mean that biological taxonomy is useless, it means that you should understand what the terms mean.
Similarly, "theist" is not a particularly strong category because the ideologies contained within are so discordant and diffuse. A Unitarian Universalist and Jainist both are "theist" but are very different in their cosmological, theological and possibly moral ideologies. Its only real meaning as a category is to differentiate it from "atheist" and "agnostic." And in many ways a theist such as a Deist can be closer to an atheist than an atheist is to an agnostic as both believes definitively about how most of reality works.
So yes labels are not only useful but necessary. But logical and correct labels are what's needed rather than artificial ones seeking to create false divisions
The lack of a belief that the evidence for a god or gods overcomes an arbitrary standard of evidence. Sometimes further split into "strong" and "weak" atheism where strong is a positive claim that no god exists and weak is simple the rejection of the claim that god exists.
This is not a good definition of "atheist" in my mind.
I consider myself agnostic. I don't believe analysis of empirical data can say whether or not something exists outside the frame of observable phenomena. As such, I'm not willing to say one way or another. I can hope there's an afterlife for instance, but that hope is not rational. Dismissing it out of hand would be similarly irrational IMO.
I can certainly disbelieve certain doctrines but I do so mostly because they are not internally coherent.
Now if someone were to label me an "atheist", that would falsely indicate I held an ideology that is a member of a greater category of ideologies that held that there was not anything resembling a deity in reality. That is counterproductive not because of a label but because of an inaccurate label. Calling a rock an amphibian doesn't mean that biological taxonomy is useless, it means that you should understand what the terms mean.
Similarly, "theist" is not a particularly strong category because the ideologies contained within are so discordant and diffuse. A Unitarian Universalist and Jainist both are "theist" but are very different in their cosmological, theological and possibly moral ideologies. Its only real meaning as a category is to differentiate it from "atheist" and "agnostic." And in many ways a theist such as a Deist can be closer to an atheist than an atheist is to an agnostic as both believes definitively about how most of reality works.
So yes labels are not only useful but necessary. But logical and correct labels are what's needed rather than artificial ones seeking to create false divisions
So whats a logical and correct definition of atheism and theism?
So whats a logical and correct definition of atheism and theism?
I don't have an absolute answer, but it would probably make more sense to work starting from what beliefs exist out there, and generate useful terms to categorize them. That's not how language, or conceptual thought, work though. I mean, look at the word atheist: a - theist. It's a term that literally derives as non-theist, which might have made sense back in the day when everybody was Catholic, but in our broader more diverse world of beliefs now, it doesn't make much practical sense to view the world as divided into theist and non-theist.
Of course, attempting to categorize different sorts of atheists would be rather difficult, since there's no organizational hierarchy amongst their ranks. Although, really, a lot of this conversation is as much about identity as it is about accuracy; the truth is that most Catholics actually hold disparate sets of beliefs, just as different Jews, different Buddhists, different Muslims, and different Protestants do. But they're largely willing to be identified simply as "Catholic" so it doesn't unsettle them to describe all people who ascribe to the Pope as Catholic, even though they actually have different belief systems.
Drez is nicely illustrating why I try to dodge this issue as much as possible, really.
I do too. But if someone's going to tell me "no, you're an atheist" I feel compelled to explain why I don't believe so or at least why I don't identify as such.
The lack of a belief that the evidence for a god or gods overcomes an arbitrary standard of evidence. Sometimes further split into "strong" and "weak" atheism where strong is a positive claim that no god exists and weak is simple the rejection of the claim that god exists.
This is not a good definition of "atheist" in my mind.
I consider myself agnostic. I don't believe analysis of empirical data can say whether or not something exists outside the frame of observable phenomena. As such, I'm not willing to say one way or another. I can hope there's an afterlife for instance, but that hope is not rational. Dismissing it out of hand would be similarly irrational IMO.
I can certainly disbelieve certain doctrines but I do so mostly because they are not internally coherent.
Now if someone were to label me an "atheist", that would falsely indicate I held an ideology that is a member of a greater category of ideologies that held that there was not anything resembling a deity in reality. That is counterproductive not because of a label but because of an inaccurate label. Calling a rock an amphibian doesn't mean that biological taxonomy is useless, it means that you should understand what the terms mean.
Similarly, "theist" is not a particularly strong category because the ideologies contained within are so discordant and diffuse. A Unitarian Universalist and Jainist both are "theist" but are very different in their cosmological, theological and possibly moral ideologies. Its only real meaning as a category is to differentiate it from "atheist" and "agnostic." And in many ways a theist such as a Deist can be closer to an atheist than an atheist is to an agnostic as both believes definitively about how most of reality works.
So yes labels are not only useful but necessary. But logical and correct labels are what's needed rather than artificial ones seeking to create false divisions
So whats a logical and correct definition of atheism and theism?
As far as it goes
Atheistism - the number of theistic entities in reality is zero
Theism - the number of theistic entities in reality is non-zero
Agnostic - the number of theistic entities in reality is unknown
I just don't think its a particularly useful categorization most of the time. It only really serves on particular point of contention - whether or not atheists are "right." Its like a category system that includes "heathens" or "pagans" for everyone who doesn't share your denomination. It doesn't create a useful division of concept because it lumps in diverse concepts merely as "other." A "theist" is largely a non-atheist (which is why agnostics are inaccurately grouped with atheists oftentimes).
The lack of a belief that the evidence for a god or gods overcomes an arbitrary standard of evidence. Sometimes further split into "strong" and "weak" atheism where strong is a positive claim that no god exists and weak is simple the rejection of the claim that god exists.
This is not a good definition of "atheist" in my mind.
I consider myself agnostic. I don't believe analysis of empirical data can say whether or not something exists outside the frame of observable phenomena. As such, I'm not willing to say one way or another. I can hope there's an afterlife for instance, but that hope is not rational. Dismissing it out of hand would be similarly irrational IMO.
I can certainly disbelieve certain doctrines but I do so mostly because they are not internally coherent.
Now if someone were to label me an "atheist", that would falsely indicate I held an ideology that is a member of a greater category of ideologies that held that there was not anything resembling a deity in reality. That is counterproductive not because of a label but because of an inaccurate label. Calling a rock an amphibian doesn't mean that biological taxonomy is useless, it means that you should understand what the terms mean.
Similarly, "theist" is not a particularly strong category because the ideologies contained within are so discordant and diffuse. A Unitarian Universalist and Jainist both are "theist" but are very different in their cosmological, theological and possibly moral ideologies. Its only real meaning as a category is to differentiate it from "atheist" and "agnostic." And in many ways a theist such as a Deist can be closer to an atheist than an atheist is to an agnostic as both believes definitively about how most of reality works.
So yes labels are not only useful but necessary. But logical and correct labels are what's needed rather than artificial ones seeking to create false divisions
So whats a logical and correct definition of atheism and theism?
As far as it goes
Atheistism - the number of theistic entities in reality is zero
Theism - the number of theistic entities in reality is non-zero
Agnostic - the number of theistic entities in reality is unknown
I just don't think its a particularly useful categorization most of the time. It only really serves on particular point of contention - whether or not atheists are "right." Its like a category system that includes "heathens" or "pagans" for everyone who doesn't share your denomination. It doesn't create a useful division of concept because it lumps in diverse concepts merely as "other." A "theist" is largely a non-atheist (which is why agnostics are inaccurately grouped with atheists oftentimes).
The problem then becomes finding someone that is actually an atheist.
As far as I know, the absolute belief in the non existance of god is very rare.
The lack of a belief that the evidence for a god or gods overcomes an arbitrary standard of evidence. Sometimes further split into "strong" and "weak" atheism where strong is a positive claim that no god exists and weak is simple the rejection of the claim that god exists.
This is not a good definition of "atheist" in my mind.
I consider myself agnostic. I don't believe analysis of empirical data can say whether or not something exists outside the frame of observable phenomena. As such, I'm not willing to say one way or another. I can hope there's an afterlife for instance, but that hope is not rational. Dismissing it out of hand would be similarly irrational IMO.
I can certainly disbelieve certain doctrines but I do so mostly because they are not internally coherent.
Now if someone were to label me an "atheist", that would falsely indicate I held an ideology that is a member of a greater category of ideologies that held that there was not anything resembling a deity in reality. That is counterproductive not because of a label but because of an inaccurate label. Calling a rock an amphibian doesn't mean that biological taxonomy is useless, it means that you should understand what the terms mean.
Similarly, "theist" is not a particularly strong category because the ideologies contained within are so discordant and diffuse. A Unitarian Universalist and Jainist both are "theist" but are very different in their cosmological, theological and possibly moral ideologies. Its only real meaning as a category is to differentiate it from "atheist" and "agnostic." And in many ways a theist such as a Deist can be closer to an atheist than an atheist is to an agnostic as both believes definitively about how most of reality works.
So yes labels are not only useful but necessary. But logical and correct labels are what's needed rather than artificial ones seeking to create false divisions
So whats a logical and correct definition of atheism and theism?
As far as it goes
Atheistism - the number of theistic entities in reality is zero
Theism - the number of theistic entities in reality is non-zero
Agnostic - the number of theistic entities in reality is unknown
I just don't think its a particularly useful categorization most of the time. It only really serves on particular point of contention - whether or not atheists are "right." Its like a category system that includes "heathens" or "pagans" for everyone who doesn't share your denomination. It doesn't create a useful division of concept because it lumps in diverse concepts merely as "other." A "theist" is largely a non-atheist (which is why agnostics are inaccurately grouped with atheists oftentimes).
The problem then becomes finding someone that is actually an atheist.
As far as I know, the absolute belief in the non existance of god is very rare.
So-called "strong atheism" is generally part of a larger philosophical or religious or ideological viewpoint that is outright incompatible with the existence of a deity, which is why a person who holds to such a viewpoint holds to it despite not necessarily having "proof" of it in perhaps a more objective sense.
To use myself as an example, the existence of a deity is incompatible with my particular religious beliefs (the denomination I adhere to expressly rebukes such a notion of a God, as it is both unnecessary for the function of my belief structure and would be directly contrary to core tenants). Other, secular atheist viewpoints that also take absolute viewpoints on the nonexistence of a deity are usually in a similar circumstances for their own reasons.
In those cases you could call such a viewpoint an active belief in the non-existence of God an article of faith in and of itself (I consider myself an adherent of an atheist religion in this vein), and it is in those circumstances that people try to equivocate atheism and theism as if they are two sides of the same coin. I wouldn't call them equivalent per se, but I can see how a person could perceive them as such.
A person who isn't making such absolute statements, a so-called "weak atheist" or similar, can feel quite alienated by being lumped into the same category, which is quite understandable.
Anyway, what you are confused about is that atheism is a absolute, positive belief in non existance of god. There are atheist (usually called strong) that make a positive claim that there isn't a god but almost none of them claim that they know absolutely that no god exist.
More or less, but it's also used as a cop-out by some more vocal atheists. Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins use that as a defense, usually right after being called out for being antireligious rather than just Atheist. Maher in particular loves to say he "just has questions" after making jokes or flat out saying that religious people are inherently less intelligent. Dawkins certainly uses his status as an authority figure to declare against religion, but when actually questioned on the absoluteness of his statements will admit that he does not have the authority on that particular subject he presents them from.
Unfortunately I've run into too many Atheists who will gladly parrot the comments of the more prevalent atheists and use them as the basis of an appeal to authority, inherently creating an atheistic dogma in the process. One of the reasons I generally avoid declaring myself an Atheist.
I've some gnostic, some agnostic positions, case to case. Some things are unknown. Some things are just untrue. And some things look gramatically correct, and all, but don't make much sense beyond that.
Atheism is merely the lack of belief in god or gods, it is not a claim to knowledge that there are no god or gods. Agnosticism or Gnosticism are positions on whether or not it is possible to know, not actual beliefs themselves.
I had a letter published in the Irish Times on Wednesday the 22 of August 2012 about labels of belief (and particularly non belief) in response to an opinion piece which basically argued 'I call myself an agnostic because atheists are big meanies' (Theo Dorgan - August 18th, 2012).
Sir, – Theo Dorgan makes a common mistake (Opinion, August 18th).
Gnosticism and agnosticism are positions on whether it is possible to know if there is a god or gods. Theism and atheism are the belief, or lack thereof, in a god or gods. It is possible to be a gnostic theist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist or agnostic atheist. Mr Dorgan would appear to be an agnostic atheist, however much effort he has put into convincing himself otherwise. Many people who call themselves agnostic are agnostic atheists, but some can be agnostic theists. It is this double use that undermines the utility of the term.
Most self-described atheists are also agnostic- atheists, and are not the ideologues Mr Dorgan would like to portray them as. It is hard to be dogmatic without a dogma. Likewise, many who believe in a god or gods will readily admit they cannot know for certain. Mr Dorgan would do better to direct his ire towards anti-theists, who are actively against religious belief. An anti-theist could be agnostic or gnostic atheist and it is well worth pointing out that there are no lack of theists who disagree with religious organisations on one matter or another or may have a distaste for organised religion.
Or as this picture puts it:
[/img]
The long and short of it is that calling yourself an Agnostic isn't making a particularly clear statement about your beliefs - nor does calling yourself an Atheist imply a claim to absolute certainty or hostility to religious belief.
I don't think its possible to be 100% sure one way or the other about the existence of God.
You can say you are, but to me your just kidding yourself.
Here's an idea. Instead of labeling ourselves and others using broad strokes labels, why don't we just not assume anything about someone else? If there's a need for a conversation about a topic, why not just have the conversation on the topic and not try to bring our own biases into it or try to load up the opposition to our opinions with a lot of implied or imagined biases?
Atheism is merely the lack of belief in god or gods, it is not a claim to knowledge that there are no god or gods. Agnosticism or Gnosticism are positions on whether or not it is possible to know, not actual beliefs themselves.
I had a letter published in the Irish Times on Wednesday the 22 of August 2012 about labels of belief (and particularly non belief) in response to an opinion piece which basically argued 'I call myself an agnostic because atheists are big meanies' (Theo Dorgan - August 18th, 2012).
Sir, – Theo Dorgan makes a common mistake (Opinion, August 18th).
Gnosticism and agnosticism are positions on whether it is possible to know if there is a god or gods. Theism and atheism are the belief, or lack thereof, in a god or gods. It is possible to be a gnostic theist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist or agnostic atheist. Mr Dorgan would appear to be an agnostic atheist, however much effort he has put into convincing himself otherwise. Many people who call themselves agnostic are agnostic atheists, but some can be agnostic theists. It is this double use that undermines the utility of the term.
Most self-described atheists are also agnostic- atheists, and are not the ideologues Mr Dorgan would like to portray them as. It is hard to be dogmatic without a dogma. Likewise, many who believe in a god or gods will readily admit they cannot know for certain. Mr Dorgan would do better to direct his ire towards anti-theists, who are actively against religious belief. An anti-theist could be agnostic or gnostic atheist and it is well worth pointing out that there are no lack of theists who disagree with religious organisations on one matter or another or may have a distaste for organised religion.
Or as this picture puts it:
[/img]
The long and short of it is that calling yourself an Agnostic isn't making a particularly clear statement about your beliefs - nor does calling yourself an Atheist imply a claim to absolute certainty or hostility to religious belief.
I don't think its possible to be 100% sure one way or the other about the existence of God.
You can say you are, but to me your just kidding yourself.
Sure you can. Because what is God? Is it Allah, Yahweh? Is is it "Oneness with the Universe"? Is it a being of great power? The Go'auld?
I can be absolutely certain I'll never meet a concept so ill-defined as "God".
Or alternatively, we could just understand that people are trying to express complex terms in simple words, expend a little brainpower and respect on trying to work out their meaning, and take their statements of self-identity at face value without a VERY good reason not to. (E.g I'm not a racist, but...)
You can't be sure your car is red. Or that it even exists.
You can't be sure that I can't be sure that my car is red. Or that I even exist. Don't be daft.
The notion that God is an ill-conceived concept is obvious enough that it doesn't require epistemological nihilism to grasp. Even within Christianity, the Old Testament and the New Testament are inconsistent in their characterization of God, whether he's the sort who's going to destroy all life on Earth if he gets fed up enough or whether he's always open to redemption and forgiveness. Or between religions, Zeus is a very different sort of entity than Yahweh. Aristotle's "prime mover" is a "God" of sorts, too, yet I'd have second thoughts about characterizing someone who ascribed to Aristotle's theology as "religious".
Other still believe in destiny, or entities that are beyond the boundaries of space-time or determinism, or a universal spirit, or Gaea. God(s) or not God(s)? You really think there'll be an easy consensus on this?
You do realize that epistemology and skepticism are real areas of knowledge, right. Belittle them all you want, but they are.
Of course. But when someone states who they are, what they believe, it's a measure of linguistic, social, and logical prowess to say 'OK'.
And being sure of something is a word with multiple aspects. When I say 'I am sure Yahweh does not exist' that is quite a different thing statement than, 'it can be logically proven that this entity does not exist.'
AND when we talk about God what do we even mean? That is another issue.
AND I find some of the more obvious sophomoric epistemological positions tremendously irritating, in that speakers profess to hold them and find them rationally necessary, while not actually acting in a manner consistent with the existential point being put forth and refusing to examine this fertile area of contradiction. Telling people at parties they are probably just solipsistic illusions, or pointing out that you certainly can't be certain about anything fall into this group.
You do realize that epistemology and skepticism are real areas of knowledge, right. Belittle them all you want, but they are.
Yes, and you're aware this isn't an epistemology and skepticism thread, right? Like, if we wanted, we could reduce every thread in this forum to an epistemological conundrum, but I think we'd prefer not to. The current line of conversation is the technicality of the word "atheism" versus the practicality of it... and you've just ramped the technicality up to a million. "You're all wrong; there are no theists because they can't be 100% sure that God exists and there are no atheists because they can't be 100% sure that God doesn't exist!"
I guess what I really want is for you not to derail this conversation, and the best way to achieve that is probably not to mock - which is always my go-to response - but maybe just to ask you.
Of course people fight over definitions. It's an attempt for control. I particularly hate the one where people tell agnostics they are actually atheists. The people saying they are agnostics are trying to express something about their beliefs, and being shut down because this particular area of though (belief) is seen as binary and logical. Which it isn't.
I am an atheist. But I was raised Catholic. There are dozens of ways in which that culture still affects my thinking. But much more importantly, I'm only an atheist most of the time. I've prayed when in serious life-threatening danger. I've prayed for the health of my loved ones when they were in danger. So my belief isn't 100%. It feels complete, but in certain, replicable, situations will change. I totally accept the logic of 'God doesn't exist.' I feel perfectly certain that that is a logical position to hold. But I'm not logical, and neither are you. I'm not saying you'll pray when your family are near death. I'm saying that I do, and I'm an atheist, because belief is not a simple binary. Logical positions are simple binaries, and those are what we hold to, express, communciate, and conclude. But they are not identities.
Basically:
People aren't syllogisms, persecution complexes are self-fulfilling, and a hilarious experiment could be carried out with a cliff, an atheist, a rope, and a bible. Also probably a box, some poison, some uranium, and a cat, because fuck cats, mirite?
While I understand what you mean, 'agnosticism' simply isn't the right term; it literally means, 'without knowledge' (in that sense, essentially everyone is 'agnostic', given that not absolutely everything about the universe is yet known).
It's not an 'attempt for control' - it's a desire to have the language be understandable. If I call myself a Young Earth Creationist, for example, and then both:
a) Tell people that I don't actually believe in a Young Earth
b) Get offended when people tell me that I'm probably not a Young Earth Creationist
...Well, then I'm probably being a silly goose, and / or deliberately just antagonizing whatever audience I have.
Are these labels helpful? Do you use them in everyday life? Why is this so much harder to agree on them than in other debates?
I'm not approached on the topic often enough to use any of those terms in everyday life.
I find that someone saying, "I'm [x denomination]" tends to mean that they identify with that position for real world networking & benefits (financial connections via the church, buddies they have in church, someone they want to fuck that they saw in church), and they get frothy at the mouth at anything which they perceive as a threat to that pot of honey, and this can (and often does) include simple semantics. In that sense, while I find it useful to hear about someone's religious denomination, it's mostly for the same reason I find it useful to know their brand loyalties, corporate culture associations, national identity, political identity, etc. The deity concept itself is just window dressing.
I don't really agree that it's really much harder to agree on religious terms than any other terms where large issues of personal identity are at play.
I don't think you can be 100% certain about much in life. And God is not one of them.
Also "God" being an open concept would only increase your chances of encountering it.
It is in fact so open that I have encountered it, and do believe in it. Did you know that are brands of pantheism so milquetoast that "God" is functionally a synonym for "reality" or "the world" with no concrete additions to what's normally understood by those terms?
Of course, I have also encountered opinions to the effect that it doesn't count, because it's too different from pop-christianity, but as a cultured european, I've encountered too much diversity in concepts of gods, spirits and ghosts to think that's a valid criterion.
Related but opposite, there are also brands of gods with internal inconsistencies too severe to exist.
Edit: There's a sort of "possibility by association" at work when we say "you can't know this thing X because you can't know this thing Y", where X and Y are too different to support eachother.
"A god, any god" means too little to be more than a red herring.
Posts
Since I never grew up with any church exposure the idea that there is a god, or heaven or I have a soul or whatever just doesnt make any sense at all, I see it as a childrens story to make humanity feel better about death, and I cant buy into it to make myself feel better as it doesnt fit in with my world view or understanding of reality.
Part of me is envious of those who have faith and don't have the anxiety of worrying about obvilion, but the other side of me just wants to make sure my life is full of doing things that will make me happy with what I have done so I can go without fear.
Hmm, this never bothered me. Mostly because I already experienced non-existence before I was born, and it didn't trouble me much.
Though, when I want to feel cosmic and woah, I remember that time is an illusion. "After" I die has no meaning, and I won't be gone. I'll forever be embedded in the shape of 4-space, and as far as I know nothing can change that.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
A point of order: I don't think that string theory and the big bang belong in the same epistemological category like that. It's a bit of a tangent, so I'll put it in spoiler tags:
The big bang is 'proven' as far as an empirical statement can be - it fits with the available evidence and no plausible alternative explanation for that evidence exists. It isn't 'proven' in a deductive, mathematical sense (no empirical statement ever is) but it is 'proven' in a scientific sense. Meanwhile it is disprovable in a classic Karl Popper sense in that we can easily imagine a state of affairs in which the big bang would not be a plausible theory (say, a universe in which there wasn't background radiation with temperature and scattering consistent with expectations of the big bang).
To compare, string theory isn't proven in that sense. String theory is internally consistent - there are no mathematical or logical errors - but it isn't testable in an empirical sense. There's no experiment or natural observation that can demonstrate whether string theory is right or wrong.
You said that atheists are open to certain things "being proven further, or disproven at some point." How is that any different from a weak agnostic who says "I don't believe in God now, but maybe after I die he'll present himself in the afterlife?" Both parties are at least superficially willing to change their conclusions in response to new data (though I recognize that people are often more stubborn than they admit).
I mean, I am open to new data. I suspect that it is extremely unlikely that my ego and identity will maintain continuity in some unobservable-to-living-humans manner after my somatic death, but I don't know this with absolute certainty.
I don't really agree with those uses of those labels.
I recognize and respect the observation you're making. Atheism usually trucks with certain sorts of scientific physicalism; a belief that all phenomena are either emergent from or reducible to physical causes (though whether things are emergent and/or reducible are matters of internal controversy). And this atheist-physicalist paradigm adheres to a certain epistemology; one that says that ideas should be believed when we have observable evidence in their favor and rejected when we do not.
And I admit that I am an adherent to this particular trifecta of atheism, general physicalism, and soft empirical verificationism.
But I don't think that they necessarily go together. I've met Buddhists who believe in reincarnation and call themselves atheists. I've met atheists who believe in psychic powers or magic. My father called himself an agnostic and didn't believe in anything remotely supernatural at all (though, to be fair, I suspect his adoption of the agnostic label was a diplomatic maneuver to avoid controversy with my devout Catholic mother).
My personal, prescriptive preference is that we use the word "atheist" to describe what its root words mean - simply, nonbelief in God. Anthropological/political/social observations that self-described atheists also tend to be skeptics, physicalists, materialists, and/or soft empiricists are useful; I don't want to dismiss such observations off-hand. But we have perfectly good words to describe these other philosophical positions; I think it doesn't really serve us to smear the word 'atheist' across all of them.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I like existing!
wilting's four corners of belief (TM) in the picture posted previously is probably the most rigorously correct interpretation of the labels but it feels inefficient to me. Almost no one exists at binary extremes of belief. Even the most stout atheist or theist will have moments of doubt, and most of us experience quite a lot of doubt, so creating categories for the 100% believers seems wasteful. As a broad strokes label if you believe in a god for most of the time then you are theist and vice versa for atheists. That is the most useful definition. Even though technically you might be uncertain at times, and may even switch beliefs under certain circumstances, the belief that you generally hold is the most appropriate label.
Which brings us to the drez's of the world, and I think the more practically useful definition of agnostic. While I agree with feral and others that agnostic is not technically a belief, when your doubts reach the point where you are equally as likely to be atheist or theist from one moment to the next then those labels begin to lose their usefulness for you. Technically you could, every time you were asked, take a moment to decide which way you were leaning right then, but responding with a certain type of belief would imply that you generally hold that belief to be true (see previous paragraph) which is a lie in this case. Hence the agnostic as a belief position. It's not technically a belief, but it is the most accurate assessment of what your beliefs are, in that you are uncertain.
I have heard lots of theist talk about their conversions where they were swayed by persuasive arguments or evidence or even personal experience. The amount and validity of evidence is up to the individual.
What gets confusing is that in a normal debate the standard of evidence corresponds to the certainty of the proposition but here that isn't the case , with some people claiming absolute certainty from no evidence (not that there is anything wrong with that)
honestly I think any discussion about theism/atheism/agnosticism is going to devolve into epistemology given enough time and depth
whether you believe in god depends a lot on your personal 'standards of evidence' of belief
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm not sure that accurately describes the beliefs of a significant portion of theists, atheists, or any other group. I'm 80% certain it doesn't describe my own theism.
I enjoy being conscious, but when I'm deeply asleep and unconscious I'm not bothered by it because I don't perceive that I'm unconscious.
This is basically how I think things will go once I die.
I'm one of the atheist Buddhists that Feral is talking about here, and it's actually really common to get a bunch of other beliefs and observations attributed to what I believe because I self-identify as an atheist specifically because of this phenomenon. People smear the word atheist across the entire spectrum of physicalism, skepticism, materialism, soft and hard empiricism, etc. and while any one of those positions are likely (and almost undoubtedly must be) ones that include atheism and are popular among atheists, being an atheist does not automatically mean you adhere to them. Being an atheist doesn't automatically make you an empiricist anymore than being a theist automatically makes you say, a Muslim.
All being an atheist says is that you don't believe in a God or gods. Full stop. That's the literal definition of the term. Adding anything else to it is making it needlessly complex and frustrating to use, and making it hard for people who simply do not believe in such things to describe themselves. People who are against the very idea of gods and religions describe themselves as anti-theists and/or irreligious. People who, for varying reasons, don't want to use the term atheist because they don't feel it's accurate to what they believe or feel or want to think or how they want to be perceived call themselves agnostic. There are words for these things. Atheist doesn't need to be a wide brush for all of them.
but I am rather Buddhish.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I was more thinking in a sense that "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "a preponderance of the evidence" are different standards. Like I said, it gets confusing because in (back of the napkin) law they correspond to how sure of a proposition a person is but when talking about theism people are sometimes 100 percent sure about things with 0 evidence (not that that is a bad thing.)
I really cant figure out how they got entangled.
Like, I regularly run into people who are agnostic because it is impossible to know anything. Which is a perfectly rational position to take but they have beliefs about other topics just fine. "How can I know which movie is the best of the year when I only know what is filtered thru my senses? Maybe I didn't even watch a movie."
I'd argue with about the reducing the term, i am fighting those who would expand it from what it actually is (or who mistake the meaning for what it is not), though it is more accurate than the accusation of me trying to expand the term (which i find downright ludicrous).
And i can see where you are coming from, even if i disagree with it.
But muddying the meaning of atheism and agnosticism is not going help, and using one term, while meaning the other isactually harmful to a conversation about faith, religion and religious positions.
And while in real life it might at times be necessary to dodge the questions about religious faith (there is, even where there should not be, still lot of religious persecution going on, even if it's simply people bullying others about not going to church), in a debate forum like D&D, you can just bow out of a conversation, or say that your position is not relevant to the topic and refuse to talk about it.
As for People hear "atheist" and they think "this guy just doesn't believe in God." part.
I'm not sure what is inaccurate about that, sounds like a fairly decent summation of atheism, someone who does not believe in god.
Am i missing something? I might be, not a native English speaker.
But I do think it is relevant. You may take a prescriptivist stance and disagree with my use of the terms, or call it "muddying" the definition, but I take a descriptivist stance and believe that the terms do not mean what you suggest they mean, at least not anymore.
In a discussion on labels, perception, and self-description, what I believe these words means and the reasons behind it is very relevant.
Technically, I don't believe in God. But the answer is more complicated than that. So if someone asks me what I believe, and I say "atheist," most people make some common assumptions and stop thinking about it. They won't even inquire further. I am given no opportunity to clarify or expound on what I actually believe in. They conjure up this - call it a "straw atheist" if you like - and that's the end of the conversation.
When I say that the assumption they make is "this guy just doesn't believe in God" - well, the word "just" is key there. I don't want my perspective to be dismissed out of hand because I "don't believe in God," as accurate as that statement in a pedantic/technical/academic/scientific context may be.
So, I say "agnostic" because it connotes something far more accurate and is not dismissed as non-belief or anti-belief such as the term "atheist" does.
I guess my point is, if I am going to explain my thoughts and beliefs to someone - anyone - I am going to do so carefully. And online communication is not very different from real life communication. People work from the same set of assumptions and contexts and connotations and biases that no matter where they are. So I don't think it's very fair to invite me to "bow out" of a conversation on how I identify myself because we have different ways of viewing these terms. I use the terms I use in the way I use them because I think it appropriately communicates my beliefs to the largest audience. Sure, those approaching the conversation from a prescriptivist, academic, scientific, or pedantic perspective may get a little confused at first, but I believe those people are in the minority. I think most people know exactly what I mean when I say "I'm agnostic." Which is what matters most to me. In fact, I haven't even seen anyone disagree with that here. So I'd like to know why anyone gives a shit if I identify as agnostic rather than atheist? I'm accurately painting a picture of who I am with that word. Why does it bother anyone?
If you want to argue with my underlying beliefs, fine, but a word is just a word. "Agnostic," as understood by most, describes who I am. "Atheist," as understood by most, does not.
I consider myself agnostic. I don't believe analysis of empirical data can say whether or not something exists outside the frame of observable phenomena. As such, I'm not willing to say one way or another. I can hope there's an afterlife for instance, but that hope is not rational. Dismissing it out of hand would be similarly irrational IMO.
I can certainly disbelieve certain doctrines but I do so mostly because they are not internally coherent.
Now if someone were to label me an "atheist", that would falsely indicate I held an ideology that is a member of a greater category of ideologies that held that there was not anything resembling a deity in reality. That is counterproductive not because of a label but because of an inaccurate label. Calling a rock an amphibian doesn't mean that biological taxonomy is useless, it means that you should understand what the terms mean.
Similarly, "theist" is not a particularly strong category because the ideologies contained within are so discordant and diffuse. A Unitarian Universalist and Jainist both are "theist" but are very different in their cosmological, theological and possibly moral ideologies. Its only real meaning as a category is to differentiate it from "atheist" and "agnostic." And in many ways a theist such as a Deist can be closer to an atheist than an atheist is to an agnostic as both believes definitively about how most of reality works.
So yes labels are not only useful but necessary. But logical and correct labels are what's needed rather than artificial ones seeking to create false divisions
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I don't have an absolute answer, but it would probably make more sense to work starting from what beliefs exist out there, and generate useful terms to categorize them. That's not how language, or conceptual thought, work though. I mean, look at the word atheist: a - theist. It's a term that literally derives as non-theist, which might have made sense back in the day when everybody was Catholic, but in our broader more diverse world of beliefs now, it doesn't make much practical sense to view the world as divided into theist and non-theist.
Of course, attempting to categorize different sorts of atheists would be rather difficult, since there's no organizational hierarchy amongst their ranks. Although, really, a lot of this conversation is as much about identity as it is about accuracy; the truth is that most Catholics actually hold disparate sets of beliefs, just as different Jews, different Buddhists, different Muslims, and different Protestants do. But they're largely willing to be identified simply as "Catholic" so it doesn't unsettle them to describe all people who ascribe to the Pope as Catholic, even though they actually have different belief systems.
I do too. But if someone's going to tell me "no, you're an atheist" I feel compelled to explain why I don't believe so or at least why I don't identify as such.
As far as it goes
Atheistism - the number of theistic entities in reality is zero
Theism - the number of theistic entities in reality is non-zero
Agnostic - the number of theistic entities in reality is unknown
I just don't think its a particularly useful categorization most of the time. It only really serves on particular point of contention - whether or not atheists are "right." Its like a category system that includes "heathens" or "pagans" for everyone who doesn't share your denomination. It doesn't create a useful division of concept because it lumps in diverse concepts merely as "other." A "theist" is largely a non-atheist (which is why agnostics are inaccurately grouped with atheists oftentimes).
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I mean, I definitely believe atheists exist. I guess I subscribe to atheistism.
As far as I know, the absolute belief in the non existance of god is very rare.
So-called "strong atheism" is generally part of a larger philosophical or religious or ideological viewpoint that is outright incompatible with the existence of a deity, which is why a person who holds to such a viewpoint holds to it despite not necessarily having "proof" of it in perhaps a more objective sense.
To use myself as an example, the existence of a deity is incompatible with my particular religious beliefs (the denomination I adhere to expressly rebukes such a notion of a God, as it is both unnecessary for the function of my belief structure and would be directly contrary to core tenants). Other, secular atheist viewpoints that also take absolute viewpoints on the nonexistence of a deity are usually in a similar circumstances for their own reasons.
In those cases you could call such a viewpoint an active belief in the non-existence of God an article of faith in and of itself (I consider myself an adherent of an atheist religion in this vein), and it is in those circumstances that people try to equivocate atheism and theism as if they are two sides of the same coin. I wouldn't call them equivalent per se, but I can see how a person could perceive them as such.
A person who isn't making such absolute statements, a so-called "weak atheist" or similar, can feel quite alienated by being lumped into the same category, which is quite understandable.
More or less, but it's also used as a cop-out by some more vocal atheists. Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins use that as a defense, usually right after being called out for being antireligious rather than just Atheist. Maher in particular loves to say he "just has questions" after making jokes or flat out saying that religious people are inherently less intelligent. Dawkins certainly uses his status as an authority figure to declare against religion, but when actually questioned on the absoluteness of his statements will admit that he does not have the authority on that particular subject he presents them from.
Unfortunately I've run into too many Atheists who will gladly parrot the comments of the more prevalent atheists and use them as the basis of an appeal to authority, inherently creating an atheistic dogma in the process. One of the reasons I generally avoid declaring myself an Atheist.
I don't think its possible to be 100% sure one way or the other about the existence of God.
You can say you are, but to me your just kidding yourself.
Sure you can. Because what is God? Is it Allah, Yahweh? Is is it "Oneness with the Universe"? Is it a being of great power? The Go'auld?
I can be absolutely certain I'll never meet a concept so ill-defined as "God".
Also "God" being an open concept would only increase your chances of encountering it.
I love chocolate. I am a chocolate-lover.
Or more cerebral? I am a socialist.
But nothing ever 100% certainly.
So the same rubric should be applied to everything. When I say my car is red, you should pop up and point out I can't be sure. Please do that. Please!
Well....
You can't be sure your car is red. Or that it even exists.
No no. Pop up in real life, coz I have a Probable Stick with Possible Nails. But don't worry, you can't be certain...
And pain is merely an illusion, caused by things hurting
You can't be sure that I can't be sure that my car is red. Or that I even exist. Don't be daft.
The notion that God is an ill-conceived concept is obvious enough that it doesn't require epistemological nihilism to grasp. Even within Christianity, the Old Testament and the New Testament are inconsistent in their characterization of God, whether he's the sort who's going to destroy all life on Earth if he gets fed up enough or whether he's always open to redemption and forgiveness. Or between religions, Zeus is a very different sort of entity than Yahweh. Aristotle's "prime mover" is a "God" of sorts, too, yet I'd have second thoughts about characterizing someone who ascribed to Aristotle's theology as "religious".
Other still believe in destiny, or entities that are beyond the boundaries of space-time or determinism, or a universal spirit, or Gaea. God(s) or not God(s)? You really think there'll be an easy consensus on this?
You do realize that epistemology and skepticism are real areas of knowledge, right. Belittle them all you want, but they are.
Of course. But when someone states who they are, what they believe, it's a measure of linguistic, social, and logical prowess to say 'OK'.
And being sure of something is a word with multiple aspects. When I say 'I am sure Yahweh does not exist' that is quite a different thing statement than, 'it can be logically proven that this entity does not exist.'
AND when we talk about God what do we even mean? That is another issue.
AND I find some of the more obvious sophomoric epistemological positions tremendously irritating, in that speakers profess to hold them and find them rationally necessary, while not actually acting in a manner consistent with the existential point being put forth and refusing to examine this fertile area of contradiction. Telling people at parties they are probably just solipsistic illusions, or pointing out that you certainly can't be certain about anything fall into this group.
Yes, and you're aware this isn't an epistemology and skepticism thread, right? Like, if we wanted, we could reduce every thread in this forum to an epistemological conundrum, but I think we'd prefer not to. The current line of conversation is the technicality of the word "atheism" versus the practicality of it... and you've just ramped the technicality up to a million. "You're all wrong; there are no theists because they can't be 100% sure that God exists and there are no atheists because they can't be 100% sure that God doesn't exist!"
I guess what I really want is for you not to derail this conversation, and the best way to achieve that is probably not to mock - which is always my go-to response - but maybe just to ask you.
While I understand what you mean, 'agnosticism' simply isn't the right term; it literally means, 'without knowledge' (in that sense, essentially everyone is 'agnostic', given that not absolutely everything about the universe is yet known).
It's not an 'attempt for control' - it's a desire to have the language be understandable. If I call myself a Young Earth Creationist, for example, and then both:
a) Tell people that I don't actually believe in a Young Earth
b) Get offended when people tell me that I'm probably not a Young Earth Creationist
...Well, then I'm probably being a silly goose, and / or deliberately just antagonizing whatever audience I have.
I'm not approached on the topic often enough to use any of those terms in everyday life.
I find that someone saying, "I'm [x denomination]" tends to mean that they identify with that position for real world networking & benefits (financial connections via the church, buddies they have in church, someone they want to fuck that they saw in church), and they get frothy at the mouth at anything which they perceive as a threat to that pot of honey, and this can (and often does) include simple semantics. In that sense, while I find it useful to hear about someone's religious denomination, it's mostly for the same reason I find it useful to know their brand loyalties, corporate culture associations, national identity, political identity, etc. The deity concept itself is just window dressing.
I don't really agree that it's really much harder to agree on religious terms than any other terms where large issues of personal identity are at play.
It is in fact so open that I have encountered it, and do believe in it. Did you know that are brands of pantheism so milquetoast that "God" is functionally a synonym for "reality" or "the world" with no concrete additions to what's normally understood by those terms?
Of course, I have also encountered opinions to the effect that it doesn't count, because it's too different from pop-christianity, but as a cultured european, I've encountered too much diversity in concepts of gods, spirits and ghosts to think that's a valid criterion.
Related but opposite, there are also brands of gods with internal inconsistencies too severe to exist.
Edit: There's a sort of "possibility by association" at work when we say "you can't know this thing X because you can't know this thing Y", where X and Y are too different to support eachother.
"A god, any god" means too little to be more than a red herring.