What exactly is atheism?

[swarm]

lixluke, I know this is difficult to understand, but try.

There are two aspects to the question of god which are often conflated to the great confusion of the issue.

One is about what you can know. (Gnostic/Agnostic)
The other is about what you believe. (Theist/Atheist)

A typical theist believes in god and thinks you can know god exists.

Some theists believe in god and think you cannot know god exists (i.e. it requires a "leap of faith").

A soft agnostic may believe or not believe in god and doesn't know if god exists.

A hard agnostic may believe or not believe in god and thinks it is impossible to know if god exists.

A soft atheist does not believe in god and doesn't know if god exists. This is why a soft atheist is open to the possibility of proof.

A hard atheist does not believe in god and thinks you can know god does not exist.

These are sometimes collapsed into those who believe (theists), those who don't know (agnostics) and those who don't believe (atheists).

Your error is the you are trying to change "those who don't believe (atheists)" into the the hard atheist position of knowing god doesn't exist (hard atheist).

This is like saying some theists commit murder therefore all theists are murderers.

If you want to attack the hard atheist position, be my guest. It is weak and easily attacked. But it is by no means representitive of atheism as a whole.

Also, in attacking the claim of hard atheism to know about god you are also attacking the position of theist to know about god and you end up an agnostic who arbitrarily believes for no good reason.

 

[DiamondHearts]

swarm, brilliant post.
This makes it a lot easier to understand.

 

[Sarkus]

This definitions are incorrect.
Atheism is the belief that God does not exist.
Theism is the belief that God does exist.
Agnosticism is the belief that man cannot know whether or not God exists.

In this case, it is impossible for either theist or atheist to also be agnostic. If one believes that man can or cannot know that God exists, one cannot be theist or atheist. Agnostics are not Godless or Godful so to speak. The simply do not know, and believe such knowledge is not possible.

So you are saying that if it is impossible to know if God exists or not, you are not able to also believe he exists?

Your thought process appears irrational.
Your initial assumptions appear flawed.

I seriously suggest you broaden your readings to include the etymology of the word "atheist", and also to include the many and broad ideas of what atheism is (or isn't). And I hope you also realise that the meaning of words often change over 2,000 years or so, especially when they seep into one language from another.

But, if you wish to continue to claim that atheism can only mean "belief in the non-existence of God", please provide proof, or at least evidence to support your claim.

 

[phlogistician]

It is by standard, intended to signify athe-ism which is the antithesis of theism.

It only seems that way if your mental prowess limits you to binary thinking.

Clearly, you are limited. See Swarm's post that illustrates the many options nicely.

 

[Simon Anders]

It only seems that way if your mental prowess limits you to binary thinking.

Clearly, you are limited. See Swarm's post that illustrates the many options nicely.

Um, Phlog. swarm writes about hard and soft atheists.

 

[greenberg]

Um, Phlog. swarm writes about hard and soft atheists.

I wonder when it is that they are soft, and when it is that they are hard. Before or after cooking?

 

[Simon Anders]

I wonder when it is that they are soft, and when it is that they are hard. Before or after cooking?

It depends on how much they train.

 

[lixluke]

lixluke, I know this is difficult to understand, but try.

There are two aspects to the question of god which are often conflated to the great confusion of the issue.

One is about what you can know. (Gnostic/Agnostic)
The other is about what you believe. (Theist/Atheist)

A typical theist believes in god and thinks you can know god exists.

Some theists believe in god and think you cannot know god exists (i.e. it requires a "leap of faith").

A soft agnostic may believe or not believe in god and doesn't know if god exists.

A hard agnostic may believe or not believe in god and thinks it is impossible to know if god exists.

A soft atheist does not believe in god and doesn't know if god exists. This is why a soft atheist is open to the possibility of proof.

A hard atheist does not believe in god and thinks you can know god does not exist.

These are sometimes collapsed into those who believe (theists), those who don't know (agnostics) and those who don't believe (atheists).

Your error is the you are trying to change "those who don't believe (atheists)" into the the hard atheist position of knowing god doesn't exist (hard atheist).

This is like saying some theists commit murder therefore all theists are murderers.

If you want to attack the hard atheist position, be my guest. It is weak and easily attacked. But it is by no means representitive of atheism as a whole.

Also, in attacking the claim of hard atheism to know about god you are also attacking the position of theist to know about god and you end up an agnostic who arbitrarily believes for no good reason.

I'm not attacking or discussing anybody's position. I am clarifying the definitions, terms, and standard use of positions.
EVERYTHING in your explanation is not only an illogical format for term definitions, it is not standard use of term definitions.

As stated:

So before I move on, the reason I consider all of your arguments totally circular is because you do not seem to be arguing against the points that I am making. It is in my conclusion that you have no idea what I am saying. It isn't complicated, so I will explain my position as I have done many times as clear as I can.

My main solid point is:
1. The term "atheism" 'was' orignilally intended and 'is' commonly accepted as a term to describe the position that there is no such thing as God. It is the antithesis to theism which is the position that there is such thing as God.

2. SW wants to change it so that the term "atheism" includes everybody who is not theism. Moreover, they want to use the term "strong atheism" to replace the term "atheism" to those who fall under the idea of atheism as described in #1.

3. It is my position that the term "atheism" is best used in its original context. To describe those who believe there is no God. Not to describe everybody that does not abide by theism.

1 and 2 are pretty much the same argument how the term atheism is used. #3 is more of an argument about the best use of the term atheism.

As it stands in #3, my position on the use of the term also implies that the term atheism/agnosticism impossible in definition #1 of atheism, but possible in definition #2 of atheism.
-If atheism is defined as those who state there is definitely no God, it is impossible for agnosticism to fall under that.
-If atheism is defined as those all who do not fall under theism, then agnosticism simply falls under one type of atheism.


If you wish to discuss your agreement/disagreement with my position, it is important that you are clear on what exactly my position is. Aside from any problems you might have with my conclusions, are you at all unclear of what my conclusions are? If and only if you are clear about what my conclusions are, I welcome you to comment on them.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2074884&postcount=278

 

[greenberg]

It depends on how much they train.

Well, cooking many sweet desserts would make a person ... soft, I guess ...


Please, this thread is silly! Atheists either don't care about God, don't like God, don't know God, don't care about theists or scriptures, think they know better than anyone else, are unhappy, deluded, spell-bound, or any combination of these, and this is all there really is to atheism thank you very much.

 

[Simon Anders]

Well, cooking many sweet desserts would make a person ... soft, I guess ...

Unless they are marathoners.

Please, this thread is silly! Atheists either don't care about God, don't like God, don't know God, don't care about theists or scriptures, think they know better than anyone else, are unhappy, deluded, spell-bound, or any combination of these, and this is all there really is to atheism thank you very much.

I could not disagree more (with the first sentence). I have learned so much by what is not addressed.

The hard atheists and the soft atheists never sort out their differences here. Telling, eh? While the religious may spar, even in sciforums, over points of belief, the incredible difference in epistemological outlook between the two camps of atheists slides by as if unnoticed by atheists.

 

[lixluke]

Unless they are marathoners.

I could not disagree more (with the first sentence). I have learned so much by what is not addressed.

The hard atheists and the soft atheists never sort out their differences here. Telling, eh? While the religious may spar, even in sciforums, over points of belief, the incredible difference in epistemological outlook between the two camps of atheists slides by as if unnoticed by atheists.

There is no such thing as hard or soft atheists. Everybody you categorize as a soft atheist is not an atheist or a theist. The only atheists that can legititmately be called atheist are those who you categorize as hard atheists.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2068486&postcount=1

 

[phlogistician]

Um, Phlog. swarm writes about hard and soft atheists.

While I might not agree with the labels he uses, ie, splitting the term 'atheist' into hard and soft, he describes the varying viewpoints accurately. It was more important to illustrate that the issue is not a binary one to lixluke, than to nitpick over labels with swarm.

 

[phlogistician]

Oh, and lixluke, you're wrong. Here's the proof;

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2075806&postcount=293

 

[lixluke]

If a person believes that God definitely does not exist, it is impossible for that person to be an agnostic.

 

[lixluke]

When a person claims to know for sure that X is true, that does not mean X is true in actuality. In logic, there is a simple way of describing this. I shall start by providing definitions. Then I will proceed with logical analysis based on the definitions provided.

DEFINITIONS
BELIEF = Something an individual claims to be 100% certainly true.
KNOWLEDGE = When something an individual claims to be true with 100% certainty is actually true.

ANALYSIS
(Note: Whether or not you agree with the definitions above, the tems in the following analysis abide by the definitions above.)

1. If an individual is 100% certain X is true, does that mean X is actually true? => No.
2. Is everything an individual is 100% certain of a belief? => Yes.
3. Is everything an individual is 100% certain of knowledge? => No. It is only knoweldge when what an individal believes to be true is actually true.
4. Can anything that an individual is not certain of be a belief? => No. BY DEFINITION a belief is only everything one is 100% certain of.
5. Are there those who claim that God certainly does not exist? => Yes.
6. Is it possible for those who claim that ‘God certainly does not exist’ to claim, in logic, that ‘it is impossible for man to possess 100% certainty of anything’? => No. If I claim to be certain of something, I cannot, in logic, claim that ‘it is impossible for man to possess 100% certainty of anything’.
7. Is it possible for those who claim that ‘it is impossible for man to possess 100% certainty of anything’ to believe that God does not exist? => No. A belief is an individual’s 100% certainty of something. Thus, an individual who is 100% certain God does not exist cannot claim, in logic, that ‘it is impossible for man to possess 100% certainty of anything’.

FACTS ON BEING OPEN TO BEING WRONG
-No matter how certain one is about something, it is impossible to not be open to being wrong.
-100% certainty of something DOES NOT imply one is not open to being wrong.
-Being open to being wrong DOES NOT imply uncertainty.

MISDEFINING BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE
It is illogical to define belief in terms of an individual being uncertain. It is illogical to define knowledge as an individual’s certainty.[/SIZE]

 

[lixluke]

[SWARM’S DILLEMAS
A typical theist believes in god and thinks you can know god exists.
A theist simply believes that God exists. Anybody who believes anything naturally believes that knowledge is possible.

Some theists believe in god and think you cannot know god exists (i.e. it requires a "leap of faith").
This is impossible. What is the purpose of considering a belief to be something that a person is not certain of? Why do you want to complicate definitions beyond their actual meaning?
A Theist is simply an individual who is certain God exists.

A soft agnostic may believe or not believe in god and doesn't know if god exists.
This is incorrect again. An agnostic is an individual who believes that certain knowledge of God is impossible. An individual who believes that certain knowledge of God is impossible CANNOT claim knowledge of God’s existence/non-existence. There is no such thing that somebody who can believe in something, yet claim that one cannot know something for certain. All a belief is, is an individual’s proclamation of certain knowledge.

A hard agnostic may believe or not believe in god and thinks it is impossible to know if god exists.
There is no such thing as hard or soft agnostic. There never has been. These are concocted terms. An agnostic period does not claim that God does or does not exist, but claims that it is most definitely impossible for man to know whether or not God exists. Why bother grouping them into different categories?

A soft atheist does not believe in god and doesn't know if god exists. This is why a soft atheist is open to the possibility of proof.
This implies that there are theists or atheists that are not open being proven wrong. Just because you are 100% certain of X, it doesn’t necessarily mean you are no open to being proven wrong. This is a fact for all beliefs and anything any rational individual is 100% certain of. I am certain of X. If you can prove to me that X is false, please enlighten me.[/SIZE]

 

[lixluke]

1. An individual who claims God certainly does exist cannot claim => It is impossible for man to have certain knowledge of God’s existence/non-existence.
2. An individual who claims God certainly does not exist cannot claim => It is impossible for man to have certain knowledge of God’s existence/non-existence.
3. An individual who claims it is impossible for man to have certain knowledge of God’s existence/non-existence cannot claim => God certainly exists. God certainly does not exist.
4. It is erroneous to claim that those who abide by any of the above 3 or any form of certainty in any case is not open to being wrong. Furthermore, it is erroneous to claim that being open to being wrong impies uncertainty.

 

[greenberg]

Unless they are marathoners.

Okay.

I could not disagree more (with the first sentence). I have learned so much by what is not addressed.

The hard atheists and the soft atheists never sort out their differences here. Telling, eh? While the religious may spar, even in sciforums, over points of belief, the incredible difference in epistemological outlook between the two camps of atheists slides by as if unnoticed by atheists.

True. Atheism seems to be a very relative phenomenon in that it is contingent on a large number of factors - as it is said somewhere: the intelligence of those who are irresolute is many-branched.

The differences between atheists and the way they either fight about them or don't fight about them - this does strike me as silly, though, but "silly" is a mild word. There is something extremely shameful and embarrassing to, on the one hand, profess such certainty as atheists usually do, and, on the other hand, to have such unresolved issues in one's outlook.

 

[Sarkus]

Lixluke - your definitions are inaccurate, and thus your conclusions are flawed.

An agnostic is, as you say, someone who holds that certain knowledge is impossible - but you miss the other meaning... which is that someone merely has no knowledge of the subject.

e.g. I am agnostic regarding the quality of whiskey's... not because I think that it is impossible to tell a good from bad whiskey, but because I personally have no knowledge of it.

Also, Pascal's Wager might tempt you into making a choice without having knowledge, if the pay-off for for being right is good enough... and he felt that eternal paradise was sufficient for one to choose to be an agnostic theist.


Also - in your analysis you are confusing "belief" with "certainty".
Belief is merely the holding of a proposition to be true but when the assumptions can not be taken as knowledge. i.e. belief is the acceptance of the proposition when there is no logical reason to do so based on the knowledge available.

Certainty is different... it is an emotion attached to the belief, and is a measure with the strength with which the belief is held. But not all beliefs need to be held with certainty.

And a theist is not someone who is "certain" god exists - but who "believes" god exists.

Agnostic theists exist - e.g. those who believe the Universe was created but whose creator sits outside the creation and can not interact with it. The can be no evidence of the existence of this god (beyond our own existence as "evidence") but these people choose to believe he does.

Your analysis is flawed because you can not account for these people within your definitions, and thus your definitions must be incorrect.

 

[lixluke]

Lixluke - your definitions are inaccurate, and thus your conclusions are flawed.

An agnostic is, as you say, someone who holds that certain knowledge is impossible.

What? Where the hell did I say that?
Agnosticism: Knowledge of God is not possible.
Skepticism: Knowledge of anything is not possible.


-All skeptics are by default agnostics. Skepticism - Man cannot know anything for certain. Therefore, man cannot know for certain whether or not God exists.
-All agnostics are not necessarily skeptics. Agnosticism - Man cannot know for certain whether or not God exists. I may or may not also believe that man cannot know anything for certain.

e.g. I am agnostic regarding the quality of whiskey's... not because I think that it is impossible to tell a good from bad whiskey, but because I personally have no knowledge of it.

WTF??!!
You people cannot be serious. You have no clue what agnosticism or gnosticism means.

belief is the acceptance of the proposition when there is no logical reason to do so based on the knowledge available.

Wrong. It is a misconception that belief implies uncertainty. Belief is acceptance of a proposition period. A belief is anything an individual is certain of whether a person is certain of something due to logical proof. 1+ 1 =2. Or a person is certain of something for any other reason. The reason for an individual's certainty is irrelevant. Furthermore, belief does not and cannot imply uncertainty.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2075844&postcount=1