Wow, Finn…that was a winner. I’m gonna steal that and use it in one of my op ed pieces. Thanks.
Listen, no matter how you try to cloud this issue…”theos” means gods…and “a-theos” means without gods. It has nothing to do with “theist=believer in gods+”a”=not a believer in gods.
As I see it…you want to pretend that I am one of you because obviously you want to improve the gene pool.
So do it.
I am not an atheist…but you can erect billboards proclaiming me an atheist so that people will have more respect for you.
No real problem…I’m happy to help.
Of course, if they ask…I’ll tell ‘em the truth…that I am an agnostic, not an atheist. And except for the few that also might be atheists trying to improve the gene pool, most of them will easily see the difference.
So anyway, Finn, did you hear the one about the atheist woman who walked into a bar carrying a toy poodle…and the bartender say, “Whatta you doing in here with that dog?”
The atheist woman replies, “You mean I can’t bring my dog in here?”
And the bartender says, “I wasn’t talking to you, I was talking to the poodle.”
“How about if I say that Pink Bunnies created the universe?”
That would be an argument for belief and have some relevance to empirical testing, just like Jesus Christ does.
Agnostics generally aren’t saying they aren’t sure whether Jesus Christ exists, there saying they’re unsure whether any sort of afterlife or higher power exists at all, with no clear idea of what that might be.
Once one is arguing for detailed divinities like that, you’re heading into theism, where you believe a specific explanation might answer those questions and atheists can point to the absence of evidence for that particular concept.
Oops, Tom…I honestly was posting while that moderating message of yours was posted. I did not see it before posting. I tried to make my response light hearted, but I do not want you to think I was just ignoring your comments.
I still think it is best to get away from the designations completely. Forget whether one is an atheist or an agnostic…and just state the position he/she is taking without the designation.
Maybe we can then get away from all the definitional nonsense.
I do not even have to define myself as a non-theist to state that I think the god of the Bible is an absurdity…almost certainly the invention of ancient Hebrews intent on inventing a god with the characteristics of many of its neighbors…murderous, jealous, vindictive, petty, tyrannical and all that sort of stuff.
Atheism refers to people who don’t believe that God exists (or at least has done so for roughly the last 200 years, a time period long enough that words like “snickerdoodle” now sound funny). At no point in history has it meant anything else. A subset of that definition would include those who do not simply not believe that God exists, but who make the active claim that God does not exist. The recent convention to delineate strong/weak atheists is one thing, but that delineation reflects reality and not the other way around.
Most people are fine with the grammatical/linguistic/semantic/morphological principle involved when anything but religion is the topic under discussion.
“Are you a hunter?”
“No, I am not a hunter.”
“Are you a widower?”
“No, I am not a widower.”
“Are you a veteran of any wars?”
“No, I am not a veteran of any ways.”
“Are you someone who is exclusively attracted to the same sex?”
“No, I am not a homosexual.”
"Are you a professional ninja?
“No, I am not a professional ninja.”
Why, then, would you propose that the rules totally change when the question is:
“Are you a theist (ie. do you believe in God?)”
“No, I am not a theist (ie. I am an a-theist.)”
If you contend that atheism does not fit that semantic niche, please provide an alternative word for someone who, when asked “Do you believe in God” replied with “Nope.”
We’ve had the argument advanced that “agnostic” should properly cover the niche for “I’m not sure”, but we’ve also shown that one cannot, functionally, not know if they hold a belief or not and that as theism is belief in a god or gods of one form of another and atheism is a lack of belief (a subset of which is active disbelief), that it’s the alternate to theism. What word do you contend someone who does not believe in any god or gods should be described as in the interest of accuracy?
What we have seen is that atheism has become something of a dirty word, much like “liberal”. But if you do not believe in a God, then you don’t.
I’m also a little bit confused by your comments Tom, as the OP made the defintions that the thread is operating under clear, and also made clear that the discussion was about whether or not they were accurate (thus the thread title).
“What we have seen is that atheism has become something of a dirty word”
And? Atheists clearly dont think much of agnostics either.
All belief systems think theirs is right and the others are silly. Picking a system to avoid offense is by definition futile, other than going with the majority.
First, speaking about a group of people as if they’re fungible is silly.
Second, it’s also patently incorrect as “agnostics” are people who don’t have a positive belief in God. So you’ve essentially just said that atheists don’t think much of atheists, which is… weird.
Now, if you’re using “agnostic” to refer to an uncertainty as to what exactly happens at death, some atheists may or may not have a lack of respect for that view, but there’s hardly anything inherent in a lack of theism that mandates it.
Atheism is not a belief system any more than not working out is a training regimen or not studying martial arts is an organized fighting style. Now, some atheists often support their views with epistemology, but epistemology really isn’t a belief system either, it’s just a series of statements about the nature and limits of reason and observation. If epistemology is a belief system, then you might as well throw your lot in with those who claim evolution is 'just another belief system and might as well be a religion."
Facts and mathematical logic are not what we mean when we talk about belief systems.
Why? Someone in this thread has voiced a lack of belief for the Jewish/Christian/Islamic God but continually insults atheists and “atheism” as he sees it and this thread was started because of his equivocation of believing in religion(s) with not believing in them.
We offer this deference to no other concept in society, not one. We don’t say that people who don’t collect coins have a hobby, and that it needs to be defended. We don’t say that people who don’t play sports are engaged in a sport, but it’s malignant and needs to be defended.
Many people do say that folks who don’t believe in God are dangerous and cannot be trusted. And so we’ve seen many people say, in essence “Oh, I’m not like them, see I’ll even insult them, they’re stupidheads. But, well, I don’t believe in God either. But I’m okay, because I’m not one of the bad thems.”
Do you really think that if the word “atheist” hadn’t been slimed so thoroughly (and if not having a belief in god or gods even needed a word any more than we have a word for not collecting coins), people would be afraid to apply the accurate label for a lack of theism?
I certainly do not think “atheist” is a dirty word…and although I was taken to task for mentioning this before, I’ll mention it again. I have many atheistic friends…people whom I dearly love. I doubt Bernie, Lola, Jonathan, Bob, Ed, or Jane would mind my mentioning that. We get along just fine.
They accept that I am an agnostic…and they do not suggest that by virtue of my “not believing in god” I am an atheist any more than they suggest that by virtue of my “not believing there are no gods” makes me a theist.
They ACCEPT that I am an agnostic…and leave it at that.
Some agnostics ( and SOME definitions of agnostic) claim “knowing these things is impossible.” I do not subscribe to that…and I fail to see how I can claim to not know if there are gods and not know if there are no gods…but can know that it is impossible to know.
I do not know if there are gods; I do not know if there are no gods…and I do not know if it is impossible to know if there are gods. (I am certain it is impossible to know if there are no gods.)
Rather than use definitions of designations that are difficult to agree on…why not just stay away from the designations and simply speak to the issues.
I left this out: To suggest that there is no “belief” involved in atheism (not that anyone here has) 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 personally know do so! Internet debating atheists are often the other kind of atheist.
I believe, strongly, there are no gods or any sort of afterlife (or angels, devils, demons, ghosts, unicorns, leprechauns, etc) and that both are concepts rooted in human biology. Most people are inclinded towards spiritural belief; it’s how their brains work.
However, I don’t think there’s any way to prove that there are no gods, realms of heaven and hell, leprechauns, etc and there is a chance, statistically speaking, that all of them exist.
I’m definitely an atheist. Right? But my beliefs are still faith-based. There’s no real evidence that supports the god theory, but there’s no evidence that proves it wrong either.
I’m in witnessing mode here, and don’t really want to get embroiled in the heated aspects of this debate, especially since I’ve seen this subject come up before and it simply comes down to finger pointing and (off hand) insults towards agnostics as atheists call us all manner of unflattering things. I actually think that (some) atheists dislike us more than they dislike theists.
Anyway, I’m an agnostic (‘welcome to the meeting XT…now, get your weak ass out of here and don’t come back until you have courage of your convictions. Loser!’). I don’t believe in the existence of God or the gods. I’ve seen no evidence one way or the other, so my belief is simply that…based on the evidence (or lack there-of) I’m pretty well convinced that there is no god. I’m comfortable saying that I believe there is no god. But the lack of evidence is no guarantee that there really IS no god. There is nothing in physics or quantum theory that specifically precludes the existence of a creator, or of beings humans would consider ‘gods’…there is simply no evidence that they actually do exist. So, I reserve judgment, and acknowledge that I’m unsure, while pointing out that I BELIEVE there to be no God or gods, that there is zero evidence that there are or ever was/were a God or gods, etc etc.
I used to get quite worked up over the more fervent atheists when they would call me names, but honestly I just have to laugh now. It’s the same fervent convictions and nearly the same language I hear from theists when they rail against me and my ‘wimpy’ position. Besides, I don’t know what I’d do with myself if I wasn’t always in a cross fire from opposing fervent believers of one kind or another.
To answer the OP’s question (might as well since I’ve come this far), I’d say that, no…certainly atheism and agnosticism aren’t mutually exclusive. Nor is theism and agnosticism (necessarily) mutually exclusive. It depends on the nuanced stance of the individual agnostic. For my part, theism and my own brand of agnosticism IS probably mutually exclusive, while atheism is, without all that conviction and fervor stuff, pretty much where I’m at. For other agnostics I know they lean more towards the theistic side, while still maintaining the stance that it’s their BELIEF, with no real evidence one way or the other.
XT: you’ve just described an agnostic atheist. Not all atheists have to be Der, you know
(P.S. Well, you’ve also described agnostic theists, too)
Yep and yep. But, by the same token, not only has the null hypothesis not been falsified, by design in some cases it is unfalsifiable (e.g. Beyond all possible knowledge, proof, and refutation lies a God).
Right-O.
It is not a theory. It might potentially be an hypothesis, but its construction is too sloppy (deliberately avoiding proof/refutation) that it is more properly seen as an aesthetic choice. “Chocolate is tastier than vanilla”, “Swiss is better than cheddar”, “Life seems as if it has a purpose”.
The null hypothesis doesn’t work that way. If someone says “jellybeans cure cancer” and you respond “No they don’t, and if they do, show me some evidence” that’s not faith based. That’s adhering to the null hypothesis.
Now, of course, the null hypothesis may go through a long period of standing and then be falsified, stranger things have happened. But it is not phenomenologically valid to shift the burden of proof or discard the NH before it’s falsified.
Are you arguing against the statement that atheism is not a “belief system”? 'Cause if so, you forgot a word - a rather important one.
I’d be willing to concede that every single thought and opinion in your head is a belief - every last one of them. You think you know things? Those are just beliefs without a lack of certainty. Well, without lacking much certainty, anyway. It’s all beliefs.
As for terms, to most of the world, if you have the property of “not believing in [any] god”, then you are an atheist. That you don’t like the term is pretty much irrelevent, to that slice of the world - you have been categorized, stamped, labeled, filed, boxed, shipped, battered by the mailhandler and left in the wrong mailbox. The discussion on that front is over.
The only definition here that’s fuzzy is “agnostic” - some people (like you) like the modern fuzzy definition that as best I can tell means “atheist that doesn’t like to take a stand, except for maybe about their stand of not taking a stand.” Wether a person self-identifies as an agnostic or not tells us little about how certain they are that there are no gods - there are too many self-described atheists that are as willing to concede the possibility of irrelevent non-interventionist gods as any agnostic. They just don’t believe that the possibility is an actuality. (And if they did, they’d be theists.)
How can too many people concede a fact? It’s possible that the universe was created last Thursday after lunch and all our memories and history are fake. It’s possible that we’re all brains in jars. It’s possible that gravity will stop working tomorrow and we’ll all be hurled into the void of space. It’s possible that santa claus is real but he’s an alien that uses wormholes and quantum entanglement to operate many android bodies all over the globe and he uses an MIB mind-eraser afterwards to make parents think they gave gifts to their kids themselves.
Of course, none of that is at all realistic, likely, testable, etc… in the realm of proof and refutation (i.e. life) they are pretty much semantic noise. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a possibility. As you allude to, whenever we say something is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ (in a factual not a moral sense), or is true or false (outside a pure-math context), then we’re really talking about true-to-the-highest-percent-of-certainty-we-are-capable-of.
But the concept of significant figures exists in measurement for a reason, and it’s the null hypothesis and not the null theory or the null law.
Now, if these folks spend more time worry about the possibility of God than, say, the Lucky Charms leprechaun, then you might have a point that there are too many of them. But if they simply admit that, yeah, it’s a possibility that there’s a God. And it’s possible that God was created by and uber-God named Steve. And Steve was created by three really hot uber-Goddesses named Jessica, Rebeca and Laura and…
I was an atheist when I just disbelieved, and I was an atheist after I started to believe there were no gods. Saying that a theist believes in some god or another, and then that most theists believe in a western god doesn’t make the western god retroactively part of the definition.
Your description of your beliefs and lack of beliefs matches mine almost exactly. However I have no problem calling myself an atheist. Which part of the definition of atheist do you think doesn’t apply to your beliefs? And yes, agnosticism is orthogonal, so nothing you say will cause you to have to renounce your agnostic status.
There are too many such people for denial of the term “agnostic” to tell us anything about whether a person thinks that noninterventionist gods can be disproven, I meant.
But that doesn’t mean that every atheist must be an atheist because of belief/disbelief/whatever. Imagine we have someone who was lost as an infant on an uninhabited tropical island and was raised by wolves. We find that feral child when he turns 21, teach him language (by magic, naturally) and are able to talk with him.
We ask “Do you have the belief that the United States it the best country on the planet?”
He responds “What’s a country, what’s the united states, what’s the planet?”
We ask “Do you prefer society with a flat tax or one graduated to individuals’ economic means?”
He says “What’s tax?”
You say “Do you believe in the god of the Jews, Muslims and Christians as understood by any of their sects?”
He says…
Well, you get the point. Atheism is the starting point. That we even have a special word for it is odd. We don’t have a special word for “not sky diving” or “not competing in triathlons” but because there are so many religious people and it’s considered the default state (in error), we do have a word for “not religious”. If an entire society had arisen where they never conceived of a God they would be a society of atheists, and they wouldn’t need to have any knowledge, let alone beliefs about the YHVH/Jehovah/Allah.
Though it’s not that odd that we have a term for non-theists; despite being the default position, non-theism wasn’t (and isn’t) percieved as being a property of the “average” person. The condition of being a member of a minority group would tend to get a name, I’d think - though honestly no other examples of the phenomenon spring to mind.
