The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Atheism
Brian888
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Taken from the Mormon thread:
There seems to be some disagreement as to what "atheism" actually means, and it looks to me like it's been awhile since this was last discussed in depth. Let's hash it out here.
As quoted above, I'd posit that "atheism" encompasses far more than just the assertion that there is no god.
Headspace Cools wrote: »Headspace Cools wrote: »Since the literal definition of Athiest is someone who denies the existence of God....
Well, that's open to debate. If we define "theism" as the belief in a god or gods, then "atheism" would probably be something more like "the lack of belief in a god or gods." That's actually different than active denial of the existence of divinity. There are, of course, some atheists who fall in that camp, but the term itself encompasses more than just those who actively deny the existence of gods.
I agree that it's a topic to debate, but not here... already got in shit for it yesterday... don't want to tread those dark waters again today.
I'm not dodging such a debate, I welcome it warmly, but not in this thread. :P
(also, every thread I've ever created has been deleted, even threads that were later restarted by someone else and NOT deleted... so if I were to create a thread about this it would just be doomed in this grand conspiracy that surrounds my thread-creation ((mods don't like me or somethin')) but if someone else makes a thread I'll hop in right away)
There seems to be some disagreement as to what "atheism" actually means, and it looks to me like it's been awhile since this was last discussed in depth. Let's hash it out here.
As quoted above, I'd posit that "atheism" encompasses far more than just the assertion that there is no god.
Brian888 on
0
Posts
I see a difference.
GENERALLY Athiesm, Apathiesm and - to an extent - Agnosticism are all very much the same sort of idea.
GENERALLY Presbyterianism, Catholicism and Mormonism are all the same sort of idea too.
The differences - as with many devils - lie in the details.
So I don't disagree that they're GENERALLY the same school of thought, but it is commonly accepted that Athiests deny the existence of God, Agnosticists think there could be a higher power but don't subscribe to a doctrine and Apathiests don't think there is or is not a god and frankly don't care.
Also, weird thing I learned on wikipedia recently: the word atheism actually predates the word theism. I know, right? What the hell?
EDIT: "Blind Watchmaker Agnostic" also fails to describe me accurately; I may not actually quibble with deists, but I personally find the watchmaker to be logically unnecessary and don't really preoccupy myself with him.
Atheists say there is no god, or there's no evidence for any gods; agnostics say they're not sure, or that they're on the fence, or that they don't care. However: these people act exactly the same way with respect to any given religion. Agnostics don't pray periodically to random deities "just in case," to hedge their bets. They act as though they are just as certain as atheists that there are no gods.
I also think a lot of the backlash against atheism is really a backlash against certainty. But this doesn't seem fair—I doubt any atheist would say he or she is 100% certain about anything. According to quantum mechanics, there is a small chance that my chair will turn immaterial when I go to sit down on it, and I'll fall on my ass.
So I think we need to distinguish between "philosophical certainty" and "functional certainty." In other words, I'm not 100% sure that my chair isn't going to disippate, but I'm sure enough that I'm going to sit down in it. I'm not 100% sure that Zeus or Yahweh don't exist, but I'm sure enough that I'm not going to waste my time sacrificing burnt offerings or hecatombs to either deity, or even to bother going to church.
I don't know about that. It *is* wikipedia, after all. It's to be taken with a big grain of salt at times.
It's generally very informative but not always accurate on the details.
I could log into Wikipedia right now and edit that page to read that the word 'Athiest' originally meant 'buttered toast'.
No, not quite the same difference, but you understand the point I was making. There are similarities, ie: not adhering to a doctrine and generally being looked-down-upon by religious people. The interpretations of those labels are different but the general 'I don't believe in God' is the same.
Whereas Presbyterians, Catholics, and Mormons have specific differences that hugely affect the behavior, even if it is just limited to ritualistic repetitive behavior each Sunday. These three groups might disagree about whether or not the other ones qualify as "Christians," but you won't see any Mormons arguing that Prespyterians are really Mormons based on their beliefs/behavior. They're mutually exclusive and self-contained categories.
But I think our debates about this topic prove that there is a fundamental difference in behaviour between Athiests/Agnostics/Apathiests, which can contrast directly with the differences in behaviour between Mormons/Catholics/Presbyterians/etc.
Do you go to church, ever? Do you ever pray?
I think that might be the common MISPERCEPTION of atheists. As I said above, atheism is literally the lack of belief in divinity. It is equivalent to saying "I have no belief in the existence of gods."
That Carl Sagan article about the undetectable dragon in the garage is helpful here. If someone presented me with such a claim, I'd have to say that given the (lack of) evidence in front of me, I cannot just take their word for it and believe that there's a dragon in the garage. That would make me an adragoninthegarageist, I suppose. It's different than making the assertion that there absolutely IS NO DRAGON in the garage, though. That's taking a positive stance.
As I understand it, then, atheism is the default position, as it were. It's the position that says, "If you've got evidence of god, show me. Otherwise, you're just making a claim that you can't back up, and I'm not going to believe you."
This one should be retitled to "Atheism vs. Agnosticism vs. Apathei- actually fuck it I mean, like, whatever"
This is clearly false. I don't see many self-proclaimed agnostics declaring religion to be a mental defect.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
OK, good point.
I do know a few self-titled Agnostics who go to church. One of them actually goes to a few different churches (Catholic, Zen-Buddhist and a mosque).
But that isn't the norm, and I recognize that.
I still think that the difference in the details is important when someone is claiming to be one or the other. I've met Athiests that weren't sure if their was a God and thought there could maybe be a supreme being... yet they called themselves Athiests, which I think is totally inaccurate.
Emotionally/intuitively I do feel like there may be a high power and hopefully life after death. But I don't believe this being or beings interferes with our lives or shapes events but does care about our conduct and character. At least partially irrational? Yes. Inconsistent with a reality without a deity in which I act ethically on my own accord? No.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Atheists and agnostics act the same with regards to the actual principles and tenets of a religion.
They most certainly do not, as you note, act the same with regards to the actual social phenomenon of religion, or religious people themselves.
I'll admit I didn't read all of Wonder Hippy's thread, but from what I saw it was a lot more about whether or not atheists are assholes, not about the subtle differences between atheism, agnosticism and other terms.
:^:
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't think that makes much sense.
Can everyone here honestly say that every Athiest they've ever known has been apathetic towards the denial/assurance of a supreme being? Most of the self-described Atheists I've met have been very clear in saying that there "is no God". That's ignorant, in my books, and that's the difference between an Athiest and an Agnostic.
The difference between an Agnostic (PantsB demonstrated this well) and an "Apathiest" (oh how I know you guys love that term... too bad) would be that an Agnostic won't confirm/deny the existence of god but generally believes there is some form of higher power (or hopes there is one / hopes for an afterlife) and they really just don't know. An Apathiest doesn't confirm/deny the existence of god but also just doesn't really care and - more importantly - doesn't think it is actually all that important in the grand scheme of things... or tends to believe that there really shouldn't be any sort of concern with 'gods' and the ethereal in the 21st century... that it is a distraction and there are more important things to worry about.
So I think it's more a word that religious people use to describe people like me. Also, I think there are some people who are actively against religions and they identify as atheists, like Richard Dawkins, but I think anti-theist would be a better word for them.
Allow me to clarify. I think we should distinguish argumentative style from behavior with respect to any given religion.
Feral, we obviously disagree on how strongly non-religious people (atheists, agnostics, whoever) should argue for their position. We also may have differing views as to why religious people believe what they do. But these differences between us have zero to do with whatever ideas we personally have about the truth-value of religious claims. In the same way, two Democrats can strongly disagree on strategy or whether or not to engage in political discussions, or whether or not you should ditch Republican friends. But these disagreements have nothing to do with their actual political positions. With respect to those, they are functionally equivalent; both people would vote for Obama.
The difference between an Athiest and an Apathiest is very nit-picky. I've never denied this. It's extreme in it's detail-reliance.
A sandwich artist, however, is defined as; probably the best job NecroSYS could ever hope to hold.
ZIIIING! :P
never "zing" your own post.
also, "atheist."
they are not athier than other people.
All you're basically saying is, "Neither atheists nor agnostics worship." Okay, news at 11, I guess?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Really though I can't see what you're getting at here. Is it bad that there is a word to describe lack of belief? If so, why?
Unless you're talking about Wonder_Hippie.
He's totally athier than me.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I always Zing my own posts, because my ultimate goal is to entertain myself. Fuck everyone else.
As for Atheist, I frequently edit my posts to fix that mistake and simply forgot to this time. I do know how to properly spell the words, but my fingers always go with the 'ie'. They're little bastards that don't know how to listen and I'm going to have to take them out behind the shed and beat some sense into them.
No. Most I've met (myself included) aren't apathetic at all about the issue, given the importance that religious belief plays in our culture and our policies.
OK, but recognize that not all atheists make that claim. They're still not agnostics.
EDIT - Or, they could be agnostics. Agnosticism is really on a different axis than atheism/theism.
I don't think it's just a descriptive word, though, I think it's an facet of personal identity.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I dunno. I'd have to see the behavior of the person in question. Does he own a book (or multiple books) on why people shouldn't watch football? Does he regularly make jokes or disparaging comments about people who watch football? Does he act like watching football is a moral failing or a sign of ignorance? Does he eat beans at a movie with George Wendt? Does he have discussions with people on the Internet or in person about why watching football is wrong?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I agree, but it might make them Apatheists.
And I think you're mistaking the difference between;
A) Apathy about the existence of God
&
I do believe those can be mutually exclusive. I don't give two shits about whether or not there's a God... doesn't mean I don't recognize that wars are fought in His name and that people are persecuted because they don't fit into His plan.