It can safely be said that since an atheist does not believe that any gods exist, then they will believe that the origin of matter does not need a supernatural or divine entity to explain. I presume that most would consider such an idea on par with the idea that the Winter King needs to be sacrificed so that the Sun will return, or that the May Pole must be danced or else the crops will not sprout.
Probably true in some very large percentage of cases, but it’s critical not to fall into the trap of believing or claiming that atheism includes, or that atheists assume, any other beliefs. The OP’s whole problem is that he assumed that not believing in deities perforce must include specific beliefs about origin etc.
NOT wasting brainpower and life time on religion simply opens the door to considering those other issues with less dogma. It doesn’t require it.
Agree to disagree and get on with the rest of the thread?
I think we’re having an incredibly minor and petty terminology squabble and just talking past each other. Again, I find “lack of belief” and “assumption of nonexistence” to be completely interchangeable statements. To my eyes, “assuming such a man is not walking…” and “lacking believe a man is not walking…” are literally the exact same thing – at the very least functionally equivalent. I fail to see any distinction, whether it be meaningful or meaningless. Maybe it’s a dialectal (or generational etc) thing.
I’ll grant you “believing vs positive.” I think I was getting caught up in the fact that someone with active disbelief should be positive because their burden of proof is as strong as a theist’s. Well, “positive” being used more in the sense of “beyond a reasonable doubt” more than “would stubbornly refuse to accept otherwise even if shown their logic/proof has flaws.”
If that is what the definition is, then I accept it.
So what the fuck is an agnostic then?
I don’t know.
A-gnosis is being without (a claim to) knowledge. You can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, or a gnostic theist.
Somebody who is hedging their bets on Pascal’s Wager.
The most commonly expressed definitions are:
Atheist - do not believe in god/gods or religious explanations.
Agnostic - may believe that religion has some basis or relevance, or not, and does not know if a god or gods exist, are knowable or are relevant to religion.
A lot of people use “agnostic” as a somehow magically less offensive term for “weak atheist”. However, in principle there is weak and strong agnosticism. Weak agnosticism means that you currently don’t know whether or not (a given) god exists (whether you believe in god or not), strong agnosticism means that you think it’s impossible to know whether (a given) god exists (whether you believe in god or not).
I agree, and encounter this all the time elsewhere on the internet (and even encountered it in philosophy courses), but last time I mentioned it here everybody yelled at me and said “you can’t use gnostic like that!” But yes, if you’re willing to accept that usage of “gnostic” that means that you either claim to know for certain (a given) god exists (strong gnosticism) or that in principle (a given) god can exist (weak gnosticism).
Atheism refers to lack of belief, agnosticism refers to lack of knowledge. They refer to different things and are not mutally exclusive.
The definition of “assume” you provided: “to take for granted without proof.”
Consider the following exchange :
Prosecutor: X-ray, is it true that you assume that Czarcasm did not murder Marley23?
Me: No.
Prosecutor: Aha! So you assume that that Czarcasm did not murder Marley23!
Me: That’s not true!
Prosecutor: Yes it is! They mean the same thing!
Me: No, they don’t. I don’t assume that Czarcasm committed murder because of have no knowledge of what he’s done but I don’t assume that he’s innocent of murder either for the same reason.
Yeah, probably can’t post anymore on this topic without repeating myself.
Fair enough. And FWIW, I’m almost certain it’s dialectal or generational (or otherwise) now because that exchange you posted seems about right to me (assuming one statement was supposed to be “assume he did murder” instead of “did not”). Though if a lawyer did play that on me I would be sure to have a chance to clarify because I understand what you’re getting at.
“Theists (of which I am one) believe despite the lack of evidence that would make it as science or in a courtroom. Because it is contrary to our experience, beliefs and convictions”
Certainly I can see that beliefs and convictions could and do support an individual’s belief in a deity. Are you sure “experience” belongs in here? If so, could you state one of your experiences that supports your belief in a god?
What then are the people in foxholes called if they don’t believe in god, since…you know the rest.
Er… weak gnosticism should of course me “in principle (a given) god can be known to exist”
Atheists.
You left out “I don’t know” as an option. At this point even professional physicists don’t know the answer to that, although they have various theories. There’s certainly no reason to think that an Iron Age myth created by ignorant barbarians did it though - or to think such a thing is even possible. Nor is it an answer that even makes sense; saying “goddidit” isn’t an answer as to how something can come from nothing, since a god is a “something”.
And if you think that someone who considers that the very idea of a “god” is blatant nonsense, clearly an egotistical fantasy and one of the dumbest ideas in history isn’t a “real atheist”, then you have a really distorted definition of the word.
That definition is incorrect. Atheism is a lack of beliefs in gods, period.
That’s nonsense. Atheism says nothing about where matter came from, nor is scientific proof necessary. Or even science; some Stone Age guy thousands of years ago would be perfectly capable of qualifying as an atheist without ever having heard of science, so long as he didn’t believe in gods.
True. Someone could think that the universe is the result of a mighty spell cast by ancient Atlantean sorcerers that reached back in time and made the universe retroactively real, and still be an atheist. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, that’s all. It isn’t a mirror image of religion; religion is a collection of belief systems, while atheism is the lack of a single belief.
That’s largely the reason the term even exists. People aren’t “agnostic” about other things; “agnostic” is nothing more than sucking up to religion by giving it a special standard of evidence, and trying to define “atheist” to be as small a group as possible.
That’s right. There are no atheists in foxholes.
They are busy outflanking the enemy.
It’s the religious that cower in their foxhole praying to their god for help while the atheists go out and do something.
An atheist is not ethically neutral. Aethism is ethically neutral. I’m unaware of any human being anywhere ever that has been “ethically neutral”.