But it's not analogous to religious belief. Religious belief is the belief in the unseen. Atheism is not believing in the unseen. To say that it's a belief that the unseen isn't there is overestimating what atheism is. Yes, there are people who firmly believe there is no god. But I think it's perfectly acceptable to be an atheist that doesn't know one way or the other.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Atheism is a belief.
- Thread starter Tht1Gy!
- Start date
But it's not analogous to religious belief. Religious belief is the belief in the unseen. Atheism is not believing in the unseen. To say that it's a belief that the unseen isn't there is overestimating what atheism is. Yes, there are people who firmly believe there is no god. But I think it's perfectly acceptable to be an atheist that doesn't know one way or the other.
Simon Anders
Of course it is unreasonable to say without evidence that they are wrong.
Unsupported supernatural claims can be dismissed out of hand. It is unnecessary to prove claims about gods, tooth fairies and unicorns are wrong. Instead the onus in upon the claimant to show they are real.
This would be a good time for you to point out that the bible is poor even for anecdocal evidence!
Unsupported supernatural claims can be dismissed out of hand. It is unnecessary to prove claims about gods, tooth fairies and unicorns are wrong. Instead the onus in upon the claimant to show they are real.
This would be a good time for you to point out that the bible is poor even for anecdocal evidence!
Agreed. And Simon is a smart guy, but even the smartest theists fall onto that old strawman of "prove I'm wrong", which is impossible even when talking about something like the tooth fairy. It's a bogus request.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
I have not fallen into that 'strawman' as you call it. I have never said that a claim that there is a God is supported by someone else's inability to prove there is not God. I am very careful about that one.Agreed. And Simon is a smart guy, but even the smartest theists fall onto that old strawman of "prove I'm wrong", which is impossible even when talking about something like the tooth fairy. It's a bogus request.
My last post in this thread says specifically
I react in situations where atheists, over and over, confuse a lack of evidence with proof there is no God. I make it clear that I understand why those without certain experiences dismiss for themselves belief in God(I assume I always need to point out that I am not confusing this with a proof of God's existence. I am simply pointing out that speculation like that is unscientific.)
However atheists here imply or state, often, that they can prove there is no God and this I call them on over and over. I also find their implicit assumption that it is always best not to belief in something not currently supported by scientific evidence regardless of one's own experiences. For themI can, of course, understand why scientists are not convinced or consider the experiences and beliefs of other people as evidence.
no proof for me=you are irrational if you believe it regardless of what you experience
and never consider the implications of such a rule.
Swarm, by the way, I have on ignore. If you check out our interaction toward the end of the Englightenment thread, you will see that he has his own beliefs without evidence. and when it concerns his own beliefs, suddenly the onus is on the other person.
I react in situations where atheists, over and over, confuse a lack of evidence with proof there is no God. I make it clear that I understand why those without certain experiences dismiss for themselves belief in God
There may be one or two on this forum who say they can prove there is no god, but it's not the cancer you claim it to be. Also, I see no problem with them saying that it's unlikely there is a god, based on the lack of evidence. Maybe you're confusing the two stances?
However atheists here imply or state, often, that they can prove there is no God and this I call them on over and over. I also find their implicit assumption that it is always best not to belief in something not currently supported by scientific evidence regardless of one's own experiences. For them
no proof for me=you are irrational if you believe it regardless of what you experience
and never consider the implications of such a rule.
There aren't many people here saying that it is experience that makes them know their god is real.
And honestly, the atheists are on the attack because the theists brought the fight first. So why, I ask, are you not calling out "over and over again" the theists that make radical claims without evidence? You may not say you believe in a god, but your actions indicate that you do.
Phlog,
"It's simply not believing in god(s)."
Swarm,
"Unsupported supernatural claims can be dismissed out of hand. It is unnecessary to prove claims about gods, tooth fairies and unicorns are wrong. Instead the onus in upon the claimant to show they are real."
Jdawg,
"Religious belief is the belief in the unseen. Atheism is not believing in the unseen."
I agree with all of these points.
My only point is that to not believe in gods or that you don't believe in the unseen is still a belief. It does not imply that you have to prove it one way or the other and yes the theists have the burden of proof on them. I am agnostic because I can't prove there is no god, even though I don't believe there is a god. I stop short of being an atheist for that reason and that reason only. I also choose not to care because it is a topic that is unproveable at this time.
Took this as a definition of atheism.
"The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist."
When someone asks you point blank if you believe in god and you answer no, then you believe in no god. However, if you claim no denials than that in my mind is closer to agnostic. At which point we are splitting hairs between agnostic and atheist and I don't care to get into an argument that there is no god with someone who doesn't believe in god. Just not worth it.
JA
"It's simply not believing in god(s)."
Swarm,
"Unsupported supernatural claims can be dismissed out of hand. It is unnecessary to prove claims about gods, tooth fairies and unicorns are wrong. Instead the onus in upon the claimant to show they are real."
Jdawg,
"Religious belief is the belief in the unseen. Atheism is not believing in the unseen."
I agree with all of these points.
My only point is that to not believe in gods or that you don't believe in the unseen is still a belief. It does not imply that you have to prove it one way or the other and yes the theists have the burden of proof on them. I am agnostic because I can't prove there is no god, even though I don't believe there is a god. I stop short of being an atheist for that reason and that reason only. I also choose not to care because it is a topic that is unproveable at this time.
Took this as a definition of atheism.
"The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist."
When someone asks you point blank if you believe in god and you answer no, then you believe in no god. However, if you claim no denials than that in my mind is closer to agnostic. At which point we are splitting hairs between agnostic and atheist and I don't care to get into an argument that there is no god with someone who doesn't believe in god. Just not worth it.
JA
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Nope. If you look at the post where I reacted to swarm's description of the 'rantings of sheepherders', it seems to me fair to say he is going well beyong saying that he sees nothing that is evidence. Apart from questionable implied ideas like sheep herders cannot be wise - would it have been better if it was a well-educated city person, a St. Thomas Aquinas, or someone else - which has the smack of classism or cultural superiority claims apart from being an ad homimim and beside the point attack - he describes scripture - and not mine by the way - as rantings. IOW he knows there is nothing valuable in it. To me that implies more than not taking it as evidence for himself.There may be one or two on this forum who say they can prove there is no god, but it's not the cancer you claim it to be. Also, I see no problem with them saying that it's unlikely there is a god, based on the lack of evidence. Maybe you're confusing the two stances?
I think actually most of them would say that experience is part of why they believe. And further it is certainly how most mystics, writers of scripture or religious texts will explain the roots of their beliefs, at least in part. Sure the bible belt will refer to the Bible as authority - though I'll bet a lot of them will also talk about their own experiences too. But then most adherents of evolutionary theory base their beliefs on a pretty poor understanding of evolutionary theory and tend to believe because of their families or on authority. At least very few I know could explain punctuated equilibrium or symbiotic evolution say in the development of mitochodria. Or even the mechanisms of something banal like natural selection. (and, of course, I feel I have to add, that I believe in evolutionary theory). when atheists think of theists they think Bible Belt bible thumpers and if they are American they imagine Moslem suicide terrorists. They have little nuance in their ideas and seem to forget that the average adherent of ideas they believe in - evolution, for example - also have rather poor notions and explanations also.There aren't many people here saying that it is experience that makes them know their god is real.
Oh, I do believe in God. I've been open about that before here.And honestly, the atheists are on the attack because the theists brought the fight first. So why, I ask, are you not calling out "over and over again" the theists that make radical claims without evidence? You may not say you believe in a god, but your actions indicate that you do.
Atheists tend to be a subset of rationalists or what I call reasonists, who have a constitutional need to divide the world into the irrational people and the rational people. Where I come from I have the fundamentalists one one side and the atheists on the other AND THEY BOTH ATTACK.
When fundies or religious people express things here I disagree with, I call them on it, or challenge their ideas. And have even come to the defense, several times, of atheists when generalizations are hurled at them. I have atheists in my family and friends and know that they, obviously, can be moral and creative, etc.
You have flexibility.
But when I run into condescension and silly ideas in Q or swarm, I react. It would be nice if some atheists also felt the urge to react similarly, against their own kind, on occasion.
If you go back in this thread you can find a long interchange between me and Phlogistan. I think you came in near the end of it, or your posts overlapped in any case. He claimed that Fundamentalists have recently changed the ´meaning of the word atheism. I specifically went to the library to look in a dictionary that shows the definition of a word throughout history (the OED). it does not support his claim. It shows that the word has meant both those who do not believe in God and those who believe there is no God, for a long, long time.
Phlogistan, being right, because he is right and a rational atheist, feels no need to admit he is wrong or support his claims. I finally had to put him on Ignore because it just got so irritating.
I did not notice another atheist come in and say 'hey, Phlog, you are talking out of you ass on this issue. I mean I agree with your position in general and that is what the word should mean, but come on.'
Last edited:
My only point is that to not believe in gods or that you don't believe in the unseen is still a belief.
I disagree, and you make my point for me later in your post.
"The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist."
Exactly. If I grew up in my cellar and had no knowledge of anything such as a god, then would I believe that no god existed? Of course not, because I wouldn't even know there was such an idea.
The point I'm making is that lack of belief is valid.
When someone asks you point blank if you believe in god and you answer no, then you believe in no god. However, if you claim no denials than that in my mind is closer to agnostic. At which point we are splitting hairs between agnostic and atheist and I don't care to get into an argument that there is no god with someone who doesn't believe in god. Just not worth it.
You need to understand that agnostic is a term that came later. It is a politically-correct ploy by a person who wasn't comfortable admitting that they did not have faith. In truth, whether you claim to be an agnostic or admit to being an atheist, you are an atheist in practice. I deny no gods, and I readily admit that I don't know if one (or many) exist or not, and for you (or anyone else) to tell me that my position isn't valid is an insult. You most certainly can lack belief.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
1) you also wouldn't believe in trees, a round world, anything abstract, love, communication, other minds, etc......2) you have stated that this must be the case, but that is all.Exactly. If I grew up in my cellar and had no knowledge of anything such as a god, then would I believe that no god existed? Of course not, because I wouldn't even know there was such an idea.
I agree.The point I'm making is that lack of belief is valid.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
I think it did come later, but I don't think it was a 'politically correct term'. It was coined in the 1800's by a guy named Huxley and his point was to focus on the idea of not knowing. He did not mean 'maybe yes, maybe no'. His focus was on saying that what we do not have access to, we should not claim to have knowledge about. Agnosticism is often presented as wishy washy, but the fact is he was anything but and his intention was epistemological. He felt that people could not know what they claimed to know and so he coined the rather careful concept of agnostic for someone who does not claim to know things - such as God - that are inacessible.You need to understand that agnostic is a term that came later. It is a politically-correct ploy by a person who wasn't comfortable admitting that they did not have faith.
Jdawg,
"You most certainly can lack belief."
Yes you can. But you can't dodge the question if someone asks you "do you believe in god" your answer. No I don't. Then you believe there is no god. If you don't answer the question yes or no then you are agnostic, simply because you can't answer that question with claimed knowledge. If you do I ask you know this how ?
"The point I'm making is that lack of belief is valid."
Yes it is. It is the onus of the theists to prove there is a god. I agree. You don't have to try and prove anything to me.
However, I still am agnostic because I won't go there. Call me a coward for claiming to not know. But I won't claim that kind of knowledge.
Agnostics are basically atheists you are right. The tweak was to accomadate the lack of claimed knowledge of no existence.
JA
"You most certainly can lack belief."
Yes you can. But you can't dodge the question if someone asks you "do you believe in god" your answer. No I don't. Then you believe there is no god. If you don't answer the question yes or no then you are agnostic, simply because you can't answer that question with claimed knowledge. If you do I ask you know this how ?
"The point I'm making is that lack of belief is valid."
Yes it is. It is the onus of the theists to prove there is a god. I agree. You don't have to try and prove anything to me.
However, I still am agnostic because I won't go there. Call me a coward for claiming to not know. But I won't claim that kind of knowledge.
Agnostics are basically atheists you are right. The tweak was to accomadate the lack of claimed knowledge of no existence.
JA
Jdawg,
"and I readily admit that I don't know if one (or many) exist or not"
I could not agree more with this statement and that is where I am at as well. I don't believe in god(s) but can not prove they don't exist. I don't go to church and I don't put my teeth under my pillow.
JA
"and I readily admit that I don't know if one (or many) exist or not"
I could not agree more with this statement and that is where I am at as well. I don't believe in god(s) but can not prove they don't exist. I don't go to church and I don't put my teeth under my pillow.
JA
jpappl said:Yes you can. But you can't dodge the question if someone asks you "do you believe in god" your answer. No I don't. Then you believe there is no god. If you don't answer the question yes or no then you are agnostic, simply because you can't answer that question with claimed knowledge. If you do I ask you know this how ?
I think that's false. And you contradict yourself. You say first that you can lack belief, but then you say that announce you lack belief is to actually have belief...doesn't work that way. I do not believe in a god, but that does not mean I do believe a god exists. I simply don't know. I don't know if it's even possible.
Hence, I lack a belief. Really, you shouldn't be going down this road. This is a typical theist strawman setup in order to make it appear that atheism is some form of religion. Because another religion is all a theist can fight. They can't fight science. They've tried, and lost every time. (except in Alabama, of course)
However, I still am agnostic because I won't go there. Call me a coward for claiming to not know. But I won't claim that kind of knowledge.
If you want to be PC about your stance, that's your right. But you aren't claiming anything different than I am. And by your own admission, if you don't answer the question, you are ducking it. "I don't know" is not an answer to "Do you believe in God". You either believe, or you don't. There is no limbo. So, like it or not, you will have to take one side or the other. Stop letting the theists brainwash you into believing that admitting you don't believe is some sort of, pardon the pun, deadly sin. It isn't. And again, no matter what you call yourself, you are an atheist in practice.
Agnostics are basically atheists you are right. The tweak was to accomadate the lack of claimed knowledge of no existence.
But there was no need for it. Atheism does not mean inherently that you believe in the non-existence of a god--any god, for that matter--it simply means you have no reason to believe. Allow those who claim they have impossible knowledge change the terminology, not us.
I call them anti-theists, by the way.
I could not agree more with this statement and that is where I am at as well. I don't believe in god(s) but can not prove they don't exist. I don't go to church and I don't put my teeth under my pillow.
Hate to break it to ya, bud, but you're an atheist. And just so we're clear...
You said:But you can't dodge the question if someone asks you "do you believe in god" your answer. No I don't. Then you believe there is no god.
You Again said:I don't believe in god(s)
Kinda painted yourself into a corner. See how easy that was? Trust me, you know first-hand now that I've pointed it out to you that you can lack faith without having to believe that there is no god. You can have no opinion on the matter other than you not believing in it.
Jdawg,
I never stated I was not an atheist, I stated I was an agnostic. You and I are so close that we are splitting hairs on the points and that's ok. At least we are on the same planet. I have not apparently made my points clear enough, that is my fault. I understand why you are concerned that people stating they are agnostic might open the door to the theist. It does not.
Let me try to be clearer about my position and why I am agnostic.
Atheism fits into agnosticism with no problem, it all depends on how the question is phrased. However, agnosticism doesn't fit into atheism because it doesn't deny the possibility that a god could exist, no way to prove that. It does not make an agnostic a theist and in no way does it make atheism a religion.
For example. If I ask you, do you believe in god and you answer no, then you are an atheist but if I ask can you prove there is not one, the answer is of course no. Even though you are not the one that has the burden to do so. The answer would still be no as you have pointed out in your own arguments. The answer no to the second question allows the theist to say to the atheist how can you prove there is no god ? It's not so much a matter of contradiction but of being able to answer the question honestly without having to change your postion on the fly which would be to tweak it to agnosticism.
Agnostics can answer the first one no and the second one no with no contradicition in their belief whatsoever. The theist is still left with the burden of proof but can not accuse you of stating the impossible, which is that you can prove there is no god.
So in fact we are both atheists and agnostic based on both of our arguments. Since the agnostic position is stronger because both questions can be answered no with solid logic, then I choose agnostic because my belief there is no god fits into that larger belief. I can not prove there is no god but I don't believe there is.
So I hate to break it to you but based on your statements you are actually agnostic.
JA
I never stated I was not an atheist, I stated I was an agnostic. You and I are so close that we are splitting hairs on the points and that's ok. At least we are on the same planet. I have not apparently made my points clear enough, that is my fault. I understand why you are concerned that people stating they are agnostic might open the door to the theist. It does not.
Let me try to be clearer about my position and why I am agnostic.
Atheism fits into agnosticism with no problem, it all depends on how the question is phrased. However, agnosticism doesn't fit into atheism because it doesn't deny the possibility that a god could exist, no way to prove that. It does not make an agnostic a theist and in no way does it make atheism a religion.
For example. If I ask you, do you believe in god and you answer no, then you are an atheist but if I ask can you prove there is not one, the answer is of course no. Even though you are not the one that has the burden to do so. The answer would still be no as you have pointed out in your own arguments. The answer no to the second question allows the theist to say to the atheist how can you prove there is no god ? It's not so much a matter of contradiction but of being able to answer the question honestly without having to change your postion on the fly which would be to tweak it to agnosticism.
Agnostics can answer the first one no and the second one no with no contradicition in their belief whatsoever. The theist is still left with the burden of proof but can not accuse you of stating the impossible, which is that you can prove there is no god.
So in fact we are both atheists and agnostic based on both of our arguments. Since the agnostic position is stronger because both questions can be answered no with solid logic, then I choose agnostic because my belief there is no god fits into that larger belief. I can not prove there is no god but I don't believe there is.
So I hate to break it to you but based on your statements you are actually agnostic.
JA
Jdawg,
You wrote:
"You can have no opinion on the matter other than you not believing in it."
I respect that as a non-believer. I was arguing the point from a have to answer the question one way or the other. Not engaging the question is a avoiding it. When push comes to shove and you take a stance, you can't prove there is no god. That is why the logical step for an atheist knowing there is no way to prove there is no god, is agnosticism.
Theists are in a completely different world (of their own ) than either atheists or agnostics.
JA
You wrote:
"You can have no opinion on the matter other than you not believing in it."
I respect that as a non-believer. I was arguing the point from a have to answer the question one way or the other. Not engaging the question is a avoiding it. When push comes to shove and you take a stance, you can't prove there is no god. That is why the logical step for an atheist knowing there is no way to prove there is no god, is agnosticism.
Theists are in a completely different world (of their own ) than either atheists or agnostics.
JA
Jdawg,
You wrote:
"You can have no opinion on the matter other than you not believing in it."
This is atheism and agnosticism. But you can't prove there is no god. So logically I don't choose to be so knowing of the impossible to be an atheist without having it under the umbrella of agnosticism, even though I do not believe in god, there is no proof either way.
So percentages for me are: 100% agnostic, 99.9999999 to infinity atheist.
JA
You wrote:
"You can have no opinion on the matter other than you not believing in it."
This is atheism and agnosticism. But you can't prove there is no god. So logically I don't choose to be so knowing of the impossible to be an atheist without having it under the umbrella of agnosticism, even though I do not believe in god, there is no proof either way.
So percentages for me are: 100% agnostic, 99.9999999 to infinity atheist.
JA
Jdawg,
Here instead of my words I found this which my help us find a common ground.
"Confusion about agnosticism commonly arises when people assume that “agnosticism” actually just means that a person is undecided about whether or not a god exists, and also that “atheism” is limited to “strong atheism” — the assertion that no gods do or can exist. If those assumptions were true, then it would be accurate to conclude that agnosticism is some sort of “third way” between atheism and theism. However, those assumptions are not true. Commenting on this situation, Gordon Stein wrote in his essay “The Meaning of Atheism and Agnosticism”:
Obviously, if theism is a belief in a God and atheism is a lack of a belief in a God, no third position or middle ground is possible. A person can either believe or not believe in a God. Therefore, our previous definition of atheism has made an impossibility out of the common usage of agnosticism to mean “neither affirming nor denying a belief in God.” Actually, this is no great loss, because the dictionary definition of agnostic is still again different from Huxley’s definition. The literal meaning of agnostic is one who holds that some aspect of reality is unknowable. Therefore, an agnostic is not simply someone who suspends judgment on an issue, but rather one who suspends judgment because he feels that the subject is unknowable and therefore no judgment can be made. It is possible, therefore, for someone not to believe in a God (as Huxley did not) and yet still suspend judgment (ie, be an agnostic) about whether it is possible to obtain knowledge of a God. Such a person would be an atheistic agnostic. It is also possible to believe in the existence of a force behind the universe, but to hold (as did Herbert Spencer) that any knowledge of that force was unobtainable. Such a person would be a theistic agnostic.
I am of the atheist/agnostic variety.
JA
Here instead of my words I found this which my help us find a common ground.
"Confusion about agnosticism commonly arises when people assume that “agnosticism” actually just means that a person is undecided about whether or not a god exists, and also that “atheism” is limited to “strong atheism” — the assertion that no gods do or can exist. If those assumptions were true, then it would be accurate to conclude that agnosticism is some sort of “third way” between atheism and theism. However, those assumptions are not true. Commenting on this situation, Gordon Stein wrote in his essay “The Meaning of Atheism and Agnosticism”:
Obviously, if theism is a belief in a God and atheism is a lack of a belief in a God, no third position or middle ground is possible. A person can either believe or not believe in a God. Therefore, our previous definition of atheism has made an impossibility out of the common usage of agnosticism to mean “neither affirming nor denying a belief in God.” Actually, this is no great loss, because the dictionary definition of agnostic is still again different from Huxley’s definition. The literal meaning of agnostic is one who holds that some aspect of reality is unknowable. Therefore, an agnostic is not simply someone who suspends judgment on an issue, but rather one who suspends judgment because he feels that the subject is unknowable and therefore no judgment can be made. It is possible, therefore, for someone not to believe in a God (as Huxley did not) and yet still suspend judgment (ie, be an agnostic) about whether it is possible to obtain knowledge of a God. Such a person would be an atheistic agnostic. It is also possible to believe in the existence of a force behind the universe, but to hold (as did Herbert Spencer) that any knowledge of that force was unobtainable. Such a person would be a theistic agnostic.
I am of the atheist/agnostic variety.
JA
Thomas Aquinas was an ignorant jerk.
Once again someone can't/won't understand the difference between "I don't believe there are gods" & "I believe there are no gods".
I've had experiences which lead me to logical conclusions which I cannot prove to others. But any experience attributed to god(s) can be attributed to other causes & cannot be well proven even to oneself to be due to gods.
Evolution & the Big Bang are totally wrong thus there is a god. BULLSHIT! The former does not lead to, does not imply in the slightest any possibility of the latter.
"It shows that the word atheist has meant both those who do not believe in God and those who believe there is no God, for a long, long time." Neither Phlog nor JDawg nor I ever contradicted this. "Those who believe there is no god" is a subset of "Those who don't believe in gods". Atheist = no belief in gods.
Once again someone can't/won't understand the difference between "I don't believe there are gods" & "I believe there are no gods".
I've had experiences which lead me to logical conclusions which I cannot prove to others. But any experience attributed to god(s) can be attributed to other causes & cannot be well proven even to oneself to be due to gods.
Evolution & the Big Bang are totally wrong thus there is a god. BULLSHIT! The former does not lead to, does not imply in the slightest any possibility of the latter.
"It shows that the word atheist has meant both those who do not believe in God and those who believe there is no God, for a long, long time." Neither Phlog nor JDawg nor I ever contradicted this. "Those who believe there is no god" is a subset of "Those who don't believe in gods". Atheist = no belief in gods.
Last edited by a moderator:
jpappl
Definately atheist/theist is about belief; gnostic/agnostic is about knowing.
I find atheists who claim a gnosis about the question have a difficult position because they forfiet the position of forcing the theist to support their original gnostic position in making their own claim of knowing. Personally I see no point in this. I've no need for absolute cetainty about gods, unicorns or tooth faries nor do I actually know anything about them beyond the fantasies people are want to spout from time to time.
Indeed I'm want to say that "god" would be so far beyond the ken of mortal minds that if there actually were such things anything some one might care to say about the subject would be so far off as to be more wrong than right. So gods exist, gods don't exist, gods both exist and don't exist, gods neither exist nor don't exist...all equally meaningless. But that is just playing with the concept.