To me, it’s all about the labels we are comfortable self applying. For my own, personal and philosophic reasons I self apply the label ‘agnostic’ to my own belief system, because that’s what I’m comfortable with. The part I’m not comfortable with ‘atheist’ when applied to myself is the conviction part. Most atheists I personally know have absolute and rock solid conviction…I do not. I have belief…belief that there is no evidence of god/God, and that based on this lack of evidence that there is no god/God. It’s essentially unprovable, and in the greater scheme of things it really doesn’t matter…we’re here NOW, and it’s fairly obvious that any God or gods doesn’t take a direct hand in things in any case, so why the fuss? I think of the possibility of God or the gods as a singularity.
That’s really all there is too it. I’m good with folks who DON’T have absolute conviction self applying ‘atheist’ to themselves…to me, it’s really about whatever floats thy boat. I see them as agnostics who are uncomfortable with the label (due to the wimpy connotations ;)), but I think that labels are whatever a person is comfortable with. Some people apply ‘liberal’ to themselves…some ‘conservative’. Some ‘progressive’, or ‘libertarian’.
It is quite possible to put forth the arguments to support one definition or another to permit it to be employed in a specific context. Certainly that is what this thread is about.
However, given the extraordinarily wide variety of definitions that have been put forth by self-described atheists and agnostics in thread after thread on this board, (along wiith differing understanding of the terms as employed by theists, deists, animists, and others), added to the many varying and often contradictory definitions and usages that appear in the outside world, to say nothing of the very malleability of language, itself, it does require that one ignore most of the rest of the world in order to put forth a single definition of one’s own that one then asserts is the true and only definition or usage.
It would be pleasant if all the participants in any given thread would agree to specific definitions for the durations of specific threads. Claiming, however, that one has TRUTH on one’s side require that one ignore everything outside one’s own skull as well as ab abuility to control the speech of all others.
That said, I have no interest in deciding what definition is most appropriate for the posters in this thread, as long as you all behave yourselves, so leave me out of the discussion and go back to (politely) hammering out whatever definition would please you.
I didn’t see anyone mention Richard Dawkin’s 7-point scale, on which I am a 6 leaning towards 7:
Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, ‘I do not believe, I know.’
Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.’
Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. ‘I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.’
Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. ‘God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.’
Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. ‘I don’t know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be sceptical.’
Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’
Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God, with the same conviction Jung “knows” there is one.’
How many atheists can dance on the head of a pin? This thread have a medieval feeling to it. I suppose you can divide atheists into 100 percentiles and debate which percentile each person resides in. But being an atheist, means you have flipped the switch. There is no degree of god not existing. If you conclude god does not exist, he is gone. Not sort of gone. but gone.
Agnostics are a different thing. They are trying to come to grips with whats apparent. It is not easy to toss off the training of our youth. I think most agnostics will come to the atheists view. I wonder how many go the other way. Personally I think the way back is difficult.
Atheists spend about zero time thinking about god. It is not an element in our every day life. Religious folk waste a lot of time on wondering what god will think or if the church will approve their actions.
There needs to be a position on that scale between six and seven. Six is still too much of that “well, there might be” nonsense which we do not afford other plainly mythical hypotheses like Santa Claus. But seven seems phrased too strongly: I would go on record saying “there is no Santa Claus,” but I would not say “I know there is no Santa Claus with the same conviction that Jung knows there is a god,” because that is both ridiculous and unnecessary.
Am I the only one to think the OP nailed it in one? As I observe the terms used today, theism and atheism are ontological statements about what is, whereas agnosticism is epistemological, about what can be known. Frank hasn’t done a good job of explaining the distinction in this thread, but ISTM from his posts in other threads that it’s his main point. FWIW, I don’t agree with the distinction, but that’s because I’m a materialist. Before I believe in something - whether it’s God (or gods), the Loch Ness Monster or astrology - I want evidence. To somone who applies or is open to a different epistemology, I’m barking up the wrong tree.
Stated a little differently, I’m comfortable with my ontological and epistemlogocal approaches, but I recognize that others can see things differently. In particular, I don’t see agnostics as closet atheists. As Tom observes, there is by current convention an important distinction between the two.
That is an assertion…and I suspect it to be an incorrect assertion.
I suspect atheism has, from classical times until relatively very recently, meant a denial that gods exist.
If you have some evidence to substantiate your assertion that atheism has never meant anything else but someone who does not believe in gods…please produce it so we can evaluate it.
Personally, I think it is merely a gratuitous comment with no foundation whatever.
I thought I was fairly clear in what I was arguing.
Anyone suggesting there is no “belief” involved in atheism is disingenuous in the extreme…because many atheists definitely mention that they “believe there are no gods.” Not all…but some. And quite honestly, outside of debate on the Internet, almost all the atheists I know do so! Almost the only atheists I know who insist they are merely “not believing in gods” as opposed to pro-actively “believing there are no gods”…are debating atheists. And quite honestly, from listening to their arguments, I suspect they are not being completely truthful. I think they do BELIEVE THERE ARE NO GODS. That IS a belief. In fact, I suspect EVERY person who identifies him/herself as an atheist has a belief there are no gods.
Lots of “believing” going on there!
If you say so…but for me, when in a discussion of religion, the word “belief” is most often used by theists and atheists to disguise a wild, blind guess. I often claim I do not have beliefs…because I refuse to disguise the guesses, speculations, approximations I make…and call them that rather than “beliefs.” I am sure you realize that different people mean different things when the say “I believe…x…”
I no more accept that than I would “if you have the property of not believing there are no gods, then you are a theist or deist.
Granted it IS used in some dictionaries…but often with qualification. And it is a definition that I wish lexicographers would re-think.
I do not believe in gods…and I am not an atheist. I do not believe there are no gods…and I am not a theist or deist.
Begbert, if you think so…you don’t know me!
Whatever! I have defined my personal agnosticism several times. Accept it or reject it as you see fit. But if you are suggesting that by merit of my not believing in gods, I must accept that I am an atheist…I am telling you that is not going to happen. And the arguments for why you people suppose this must be…have been faulty.
There aren’t really different epistemologies. Nor is there a truly significant distinction between someone who doesn’t have a positive belief in a god or gods because they haven’t seen any evidence of such, and someone who has a positive belief in the non-existence of god or gods because they haven’t seen any evidence.
The category of “agnostic”, as has been pointed out, is orthogonal to the atheism/theism binary opposition. It is not, in and of itself, in opposition to either. It’s nonsensical to say that people on both sides of the binary division can be dead certain, and that’s fine, but if they admit the possibility of investigatory doubt why, then we need an entirely separate category that tells us nothing about anybody’s theism or lack thereof.
The strong/weak atheism divide is a useful one, as is the theist/atheist divide, and I suppose if you really want a strong/weak theist divide as well. But beyond that, what difference does it make? Some people have a positive belief in the existence of a god or gods. Some people have a positive belief in the non-existence of a god or gods. Some people simply do not believe in a god or gods.
The fallacy of bifurcation would see this sliced up into “believe Yes, believe No”, but in the middle lies “not believe.” And the simple fact of the matter is that if you talk to pretty much any religious person and and ask “so, do you believe in God” and you answer “No, I have no belief in God”, then by the use of English language, they’ll answer “Oh, so you’re an atheist.”
And they’ll be right, because that’s how the word is used via connotation.
One compliment that can be paid to theists is that they “believe” there is a god…and simply say they “believe there is a god.”
Atheists like to pretend they do not all “believe” there are no gods…but the moment they open their mouths to talk…or poise their fingers to type…the truth seeps out like the smell of dirty linens.
All theists “believe” there is a god.
My guess is that all atheists “believe there are no gods.” There apparently are some who deny that…but their words and arguments give them away.
Obviously many atheists have reasons to pretend they do not have a positive belief there are no gods…so they try to put that notion into words that obfuscate the reality of their “beliefs.”
Are there any atheists here in this forum who do not believe there are no gods?
Are there any atheists here in this forum willing to state unequivocally that they do not believe there are no gods?
What you’re describing it the Fallacy Fallacy. No, for serious.
Just because a myth is created doesn’t mean that the conclusion must, by necessity, be false. The creation myth, for instance, doesn’t invalidate the later work into Mitochondrial Eve.
Fantome, sorry I couldn’t get in a response yesterday. I’m not going to respond to each statement in depth, but I think we are mostly just having a debate of different definitions. A couple points of clarification:
(1) You frequently mention the term “a little belief” as odd and I agree. I was never trying to quantify the belief but rather the certainty in that belief, hence my phrasing “a weak belief”. So both the guy who would change his position at the drop of a hat and the guy who will have the same mindset on his deathbed are both believers, just one is much less certain than the other. Applied to the question of gods, yes, this means everyone is either an atheist or theist.
I am not advocating some sort of distribution of belief based on how sure you are. When I flipped the lottery example, it was on the converse of the original statement (I win, weak belief <=> I will not win, strong belief) One of them sounds weird but they mean the same thing and only specify a single belief position.
(2) On the difference between non-belief and active negative belief, I think this is just a huge point of triviality that unfortunately seems to be the only thing many debates between atheists, agnostics, and theists arrive at. I don’t see any meaningful difference between the statements “I do not believe X” and “I believe not X”. Of course, the key word there is meaningful. I am perfectly happy to say “I believe there is no God”, just as every other person would say the exact same thing with no hesitation about any other fictional entity where it isn’t controversial to deny its existence.
But above all, be aware that when I use the word believe I do not mean I have absolute faith and would never change my mind no matter what evidence you brought to the table. If I did mean this, then people would be justified in bringing out the same old tired “oh, but how can you claim to know everything in the universe…”. Please. Nobody thinks you meant anything like that when you weren’t talking about God; there’s no need to apply a massive double standard when it is God.
So this is why I put together a non-believer and an active negative believer together on spectrum, because really the difference is certainty, not whether you actually have a real belief in the negative hypothesis.
Not sure where you are going with this, but there most assuredly is a huge difference between “I do not believe X” and “I believe not X!”
The former is a reactive statement…the later is pro-active.
The former is an assertion of what one does not “believe”…and says nothing about what else the person does “not believe”…or what else the person does “believe.”…and that is a significant difference.
One can logically state, for instance: I do not believe in gods…and I do not believe gods do not exist.
One cannot logically state: I believe gods do not exist…and I believe gods do exist.
So wherever you are going with it, you probably should give it a bit more thought—at least until you do “see a meaningful difference” between them.
I’ll tell you what. If you refrain from insultingly telling everyone what someone else thinks, I will refrain from Warning you for trolling.
Thew posters on this thread cannot even come to a definitive agreement that defines an atheist, and here you are throwing in claims about what every atheist believes, (when we’re not sure who might be an atheist), along with snide remarks about bad odors.
A touch of asperity or a bit of sarcasm is par for the course, around here, but making up the rules about what other posters do or do not believe and then insulting them based on your assertions for something you have asserted without proving is rather beyond the appropriate limits.
Yep, pretty much. Tom has gotten it wrong, as there’s really no difference between not believing in any gods and not believing in any of those suggested to date. If you don’t believe in any gods that have been suggested to date, you still have no belief in any gods; obviously you can not believe in a god or gods you haven’t even heard about yet any more than I can believe that a movie I haven’t seen let alone heard of yet is my favorite movie.
The dividing line between strong and weak atheists is pretty much their use of the null hypothesis. A weak atheist will use it as the default ending point (i.e. “I have seen no evidence of god or gods and have not falsified the null hypothesis, so I do not believe in any god or gods.”). A strong atheist will use it as the default starting point (i.e. I have seen no evidence of god or gods and have not falsified the null hypothesis, so I believe that god and gods simply do not exist.")
It is somewhat of a minor distinction as both are simply applying standard logic to the NH. It’s something we do all the time.
I conceive of WA’s as someone who’s starting a clinical trial “as of yet we have not seen that Compound X outperforms the placebo, so we have not falsified the NH and I have no reason to believe that Compound X works as advertised.”
And SA’s as someone who’s completed a clinical trial “after all of our experiments we found that Compound X performs with no greater efficacy to the placebo, so we have concluded that Compound X does not, in fact, work as advertised.”
But then again faith isn’t about proof or they wouldn’t call it faith, which I why I don’t generally find that the use of the NH is all that significant among the theist community.
It would make debating the claims you made mush easier if you did, since you make similar claims again in your above post and I’ll just have to repeat my replies again rather than you responding to the ones I already made.
While this is an interesting discussion, and I see where you’re coming from, I think this conclusion of yours is a problem.
A baby, we can say, is born without sexuality, or political affiliation, or a preference for sports vs academics. He has not had experiences to mold him or inform him in order for him to make a decision one way or another. Even further, he lacks the ability to even weigh the information and process it. So, if we say that a baby is apolitical, asexual, or a-academics/sports, we are—rightly—NOT putting him into EITHER dichotomous camp. We need a way to talk about babies being in neither category when it comes to theism/atheism, as well.
Now, I think part of where you’re coming from is that belief in a deity requires learning, and that a baby hasn’t learned that there even are deities or what they are, so he is necessarily “without belief in god”. But, to be fair, the default is more “does not compute”. A child is no more able to fall into a god/no god camp as he is able to be classified as heterosexual/homosexual, republican/democrat, or academic/athletic.
A baby is “a-” everything. He is a-theistic. He is also a-atheist, in the way that atheism is in any way a meaningful word.
*Please, let’s not derail the discussion concerning nature/nurture aspects of homosexuality.
I can’t agree with you here. Atheism is a meaningful descriptor even if it applies to babies.
If it helps. think instead of the “feral child alone on a tropic island” or "civilization which evolved with the concept of god being introcuded "examples I gave earlier. All that’s required for atheism is a lack of belief in God. A baby lacks a belief in God, a feral child lacks a belief in God, a civilization where nobody ever invented the idea of god lacks a belief in God.
Now, it’s true that a baby doesn’t have the very capability to come up with a system of logic and epistemology to justify any views, that goes without saying. But by the same token it is inarguable that a baby does not, in fact, believe in God. If the issue hadn’t been politicized (sorry, I know that’s not the best word but it’s the one I’m using…), then it really wouldn’t be much of an issue. We don’t have a problem saying, as you pointed out, that a baby is not a sports enthusiast, or not involved with politics, but if we point out that a baby is not a believer in God then we need to find another way to say it because we’ve reached a state where there are two different ‘camps’.
I think that’s part of the problem in the first place, that theism is considered so strongly to be the default that we need to explain the specifics and justification of not being a theist. Nobody would bat an eye if it was pointed out that a baby didn’t believe in supply-side economics, but the concept that a baby doesn’t believe in God, well… And sure, you can state that it’s about “does not computer”, but that’s a reason for a lack of belief, it doesn’t change the fact that there’s a lack of belief. A baby’s atheism isn’t based on a philosophical analysis of the issues, it’s simply based on the fact that human beings lack theism until they either invent it themselves or someone tells them about it and convinces them.