Atheism - what it means - a proposed forum standard

[S.A.M.]

I think the poll is based on self identification.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Well I doubt it since I find it difficult to believe anyone would classify themselves as 'secular unaffiliated'. Its a sign of poll manipulation since they try in no way of defining what is meant by secular affiliated organizations.

 

[S.A.M.]

This is what their website says:

This group, in turn, is fairly evenly divided between the "secular unaffiliated," that is, those who say that religion is not important in their lives (6.3% of the adult population), and the "religious unaffiliated," that is, those who say that religion is either somewhat important or very important in their lives (5.8% of the overall adult population).

 

[iceaura]

You have it, right there. An atheist is someone who believes there is no God. Babies do not think about God, agnostics take no position and autistic or retarded may not be able to think or communicate what they think. Dogs, cats and viruses are unable to communicate their theological positions.

Hence the only ones who are atheists are those who say they are.

Now all you need is a word for the vast majority of those who do not believe in any gods, including those who remind you that their lack of belief is not itself a belief, those who have religions that do not feature deity, those who are unfamiliar with the concept, and so forth.

"Atheistic" came in quite handy, in many circumstances, back there when it had the obvious meaning of "not theistic".

See OriginalBiggles' post for why no one cares what you or your organisation think.

I certainly see, in that post, an explanation for the garbage theists throw around on the question - they tend to take that kind of argument very seriously, in theist world.

And as most atheistic people in my culture were conditioned to accept such reasoning during their formative years, it's found among them as well.

But surely even a solidly theistic person has a little bit of discomfort when they read things like this:

Morally and intellectually, it is imposed upon us to be as convinced of our convictions as the faithful are of theirs. Otherwise we are being so open-minded as to be vulnerable to the jibe of "fence-sitter", of having no inviolate core adherence to truth as we see it.

Nothing like that is "imposed upon" me. Quite the contrary.

 

[swarm]

Some years back it seemed like a good idea to establish what is meant by “atheism” ...

Too many attempts at a definition of atheism end up debased by special pleading for "god" by the theists. Personally I see no point in atheism being anything more than refusing to accept that theists can create "gods" by fiat. I.e. it is refusing to blindly accept theism and not any particular sub aspect of their delusion. Just like refusing to believe in unicorns isn't actually about "unicorns," its refusing to accept the unicornist can inflict unsupported fantasy on people as if it were real.

So now to Agnosticism.

Going to an atheist to learn about agnosticism is as useful and biased as going to a theist to learn about atheism. In short it is disingenuous at best and merely shows an ignorance of the issues involved.

The essential idea here is that Agnosticism is THE BASIS FOR ATHEISM, NOT AN ALTERNATIVE TO IT.

No, agnosticism addresses a fundamentally different question than atheism and is equally compatible and incompatible with both atheism and theism depending on which bent of either you are proposing. If there is a claim of knowing about gods then agnosticism says baloney!

In this characterization, which we can take as authoritative

Because every field freezes at its inception. That's why we take Aristotle as authoritative in science to this day.

There may still be those who call themselves "Agnostics" as if that names their position or frees them from the necessity of taking a position.

There are basically two agnostic stances. The "weak" stance can be characterized as "a reasonable position can be reached on the question, but I have not yet found it." Usually such people see themselves as "seekers" and they generally have a direction they favor, but still have unresolved reservations about it.

In your "choice" metaphor they are still making their choice.

The "strong" stance is that the question is either inherently unintelligible or unanswerable. Such people feel neither the theist nor the (hard) atheist has a defensible position claiming to know about such things.

In your choice metaphor, they choose neither.

As for your claim that agnostics have to be atheists, it just isn't true. There are any number of theistic schools who hold that god is fundamentally unknowable by human endeavor and either requires direct revelation or is simply a matter of unsupportable faith. Clearly a theist and agnostic position.

 

[swarm]

"All theists have a belief in the existence of god. If it doesn't have a belief in the existence of god it is atheist".

You are assuming a simple dichotomy, but you have not and cannot established this to be the case. The weak point is the phrasing "doesn't have a belief in the existence of god" which you are assuming is the sole realm of the atheist when there are those (agnostics) who deny the atheist position while also not entertaining any belief in the existence of god, or non existence of god.

Remember all things can be split into two diametrically opposed positions: Those which can be split into two diametrically opposed positions, and, those which can't.

 

[swarm]

So I would add to the definition allowing for this by proposing;
Atheism is the conviction that deities do not exist except as figments of the human imagination [or the human capacity for fantasy/the fantastic].

Or to make it a positive statement and take it off something they don't believe in...

Atheism is the conviction that theistic claims about deities only concern figments of the theist's imagination until proven otherwise.

Atheists hold implacably to the scientific method as being the only accurate means of describing, defining and investigating all of existence.

There is no necessary requirement that an atheist hold with any particular methodology. Also science makes no claim to be the only method or even best method of describing, defining and investigating reality. It only claims to be a repeatable and open method whose claims are subject to disproof.

 

[swarm]

The reason one is an atheist (i.e. not a theist) is because there is no evidence to support the existence of God - i.e. agnosticism.

Except "strong" atheists hold that there definately is no god.

an agnostic would hold such metaphysical issues to be fundamentally unknowable.

So, surely one can consider the metaphysical issues to be knowable but still not have the personal evidence to call yourself a theist?

or atheist.

Strong and weak angnosticism.

I have no direct reference to where Huxley stated that holding the question to be "fundamentally unknowable"

Well then you can have said it.

It hangs own its on merit, not its source.

 

[Sarkus]

You are assuming a simple dichotomy, but you have not and cannot established this to be the case.

It is established through definition alone. Unless you can provide something that is not theist or atheist when one defines an atheist as "not theist"?
Cris is suggesting that one needs to reach atheism through consideration, whereas my preference is that one is born atheist... and it really does mean "not theist".
But if you can name an atheist that falls outside the definition of "not theist" then I would like to hear it.

The weak point is the phrasing "doesn't have a belief in the existence of god" which you are assuming is the sole realm of the atheist when there are those (agnostics) who deny the atheist position while also not entertaining any belief in the existence of god, or non existence of god.

There is no weak point in the phrasing, only in your understanding.

"Not having the belief in X" is a different statement than "Having the belief in not-X".

When X is "the existence of gods" the first defines ALL atheists (as currently utilised in the OP and used by me), the second merely a subset, although I feel you, like others, take this second to be the only definition of atheism, when Cris in the OP is indicating the former (albeit slightly modified by needing to be a considered position).

Agnosticism, as you rightly point out and as agreed by Cris and myself, is about epistemology... but if you have read the posts fully then you will see why Cris is going down the "agnosticism being the BASIS for atheism"... basically if you are agnostic then there should be no other position with regard belief in god than atheism - being the absence of belief rather than belief of absence.

I am an agnostic atheist.
I neither believe in the existence of god, nor the non-existence of god - because there is no evidence, and I consider the issue to be unknowable.
The latter makes me agnostic, which led me to the former (atheism), and thus I am an agnostic atheist.

But Cris is proposing that agnosticism, as initially coined by Hucley) is merely a personal lack of knowledge - and anyone who is not theist is so because there is no evidence / knowledge.
Lack of evidence is surely the basis for not holding all beliefs - And it is only dishonest/irrational people who have no evidence of X and still hold a belief in X.
So Cris' comment, as I understand it, is reasonable.


If you disagree with the definition of atheism being proposed then argue your case as to why your definition should be used, rather than just countering arguments that are not using your definition in the first instance.

 

[Sarkus]

Except "strong" atheists hold that there definately is no god.

But the point being made is that they are first and foremost atheist due to the lack of evidence in the existence of god.
"Strong" atheists then make additional assertions about the non-existence of god - whether or not through evidence of lack.
But this is IN ADDITION to their atheist position of not having the belief in the existence of god.

or atheist.
Strong and weak angnosticism.

I am aware of strong / weak agnosticism.
If you follow the discussion fully you will see that I disagree with Cris as to the definition of agnosticism - as he currently only assumes (or at least uses) "weak", as this he has taken as the intended usage by Huxley.

Well then you can have said it.
It hangs own its on merit, not its source.

Not when the aim of the OP is to use the word as originally intended by the source (i.e. Huxley).

 

[Gustav]

I am an agnostic atheist.
I neither believe in the existence of god, nor the non-existence of god - because there is no evidence, and I consider the issue to be unknowable.
The latter makes me agnostic, which led me to the former (atheism), and thus I am an agnostic atheist.

thats fucking funny shit

/titter

 

[Gustav]

oh
what god are we talking about, chris?

 

[S.A.M.]

Is logic now defunct?

All A is not B. Therefore all B is not A???

Now all you need is a word for the vast majority of those who do not believe in any gods, including those who remind you that their lack of belief is not itself a belief, those who have religions that do not feature deity, those who are unfamiliar with the concept, and so forth. .

So you unequivocally state that you do not believe in ANY gods, past present or future? Since atheism is the position that deities do not exist, that makes sense.

 

[Sarkus]

Is logic now defunct?

All A is not B. Therefore all B is not A???

All atheists are not theists. Therefore all theists are not atheists.

Yep - makes sense to me.
Any issues with it, SAM?

 

[S.A.M.]

Yeah, lets ask an agnostic what he thinks. Or an ignostic.

 

[Sarkus]

I am agnostic. I'm saying it's fine.

Agnosticism is NOT a middle position between atheism and theism, which you seem to think.

 

[S.A.M.]

If you think getting evidence is possible when you simultaneously also believe that no knowledge of something is possible then you are neither an agnostic nor an atheist, you are what is clinically called as woo-woo [incapable of comprehending simple logic]. An agnostic neither believes there is a God nor does he believe there isn't one. Agnosticism is not about belief, its about knowledge.

 

[swarm]

It is established through definition alone. Unless you can provide something that is not theist or atheist when one defines an atheist as "not theist"?

An agnostic is neither necessarily a theist nor an atheist. The assumption that the universe is solely composed of atheists and theists is false.

For that matter there are also animists, apathists, Buddhists and many others who don't care to include themselves in the a/theist mutual admiration society.

There is no weak point in the phrasing, only in your understanding.

No your phrasing makes an unwarranted assupmtion, as I explaned.

why Cris is going down the "agnosticism being the BASIS for atheism"...

Atheism doesn't require any basis. Its bare minimum is only a refusal of the deity proposition and self identification as an atheist. That is the only definition which includes ALL atheists as opposed to just the atheists you admire.

basically if you are agnostic then there should be no other position with regard belief in god than atheism

-

Except that isn't the case.

I am an agnostic atheist.

That's fine. There are also agnostic theists and pure agnostics.

But Cris is proposing that agnosticism, as initially coined by Hucley) is merely a personal lack of knowledge

That is one way it can be spun, but not the only way.

and anyone who is not theist is so because there is no evidence / knowledge.

Not necessarily.

And it is only dishonest/irrational people who have no evidence of X

It is dishonest of you to lump the irrational with the dishonest.

The irrational atheist/theist is still part of the population and must be accounted for.

So Cris' comment, as I understand it, is reasonable.

Being reasonable or rational is not a requirement for being an athiest. This is why the "brights" (talk about self denying propositions) went rogue from the general atheist population.

The bottom line is despite what you would like atheism to mean...To be an atheist one need only claim to be an atheist and refuse claims of deities.

 

[swarm]

If you think getting evidence is possible when you simultaneously also believe that no knowledge of something is possible

An agnostic beleives certain questions are unintelligable or unanswerable. That doesn't mean that ALL questions are unintelligable or unanswerable.

An agnostic neither believes there is a God nor does he believe there isn't one.

Actually there is more nuance than just that.

Some agnostics believe the question has an answer. They just don't know it.

Some believe the question itself is inherantly either unintelligable or unanswerable.

 

[Sarkus]

If you think getting evidence is possible when you simultaneously also believe that no knowledge of something is possible then you are neither an agnostic nor an atheist, you are what is clinically called as woo-woo [incapable of comprehending simple logic].

Where have I said that getting evidence is possible? :shrug:
Please don't make stuff up to support a case which isn't there.

An agnostic neither believes there is a God nor does he believe there isn't one.

Not necessarily. An agnostic can still believe in god, despite thinking the issue unknowable. He can also still believe in the non-existence of God.

Agnosticism is not about belief, its about knowledge.

Correct. So why do you insist on putting agnosticism on the same scale as issues of belief?