Did you dream that up yourself…or did you borrow it from someone who did?
I am an agnostic…and there is absolutely no way I can possibly claim it is impossible to know whether gods exist or not. How would I possibly defend that position?
There might well be a way to know if gods do exist…although I have very, very strong doubts anyone could ever find a way to KNOW that gods do not exist.
In that respect, it can be logically argued that theistic arguments are more rational than the arguments of atheists who assert that no gods exist. Granted, not all atheists do that, but some do…and the ones who do are on less solid logical grounds than theists who assert there is a god.
If there is a god…the god could make itself known to humans, individually or collectively. If there is no god…well…there is no way that I can see to prove that. Asserting “there is no god” is a blind guess! Asserting “there is a god” is most likely a blind guess (which is what I think it is)…but it at least has the possibility of being something more than a guess.
I do not believe in gods…and I am an agnostic, not an atheist. The fact that debating atheists have begun to demand that the only condition for being an atheist is a lack of belief in gods…is of no consequence. That is a definitional pendulum which will most likely swing back at some point in the future. The posts about the etymology of the word “atheist” (from the Greek through the French) are correct. The word means “without gods”…not merely “without a belief in gods.”
That is the actual definition. Educate yourself. Don’t use words if you don’t know what they mean.
That’s the definition of an atheist. You’re an atheist. Sorry.
Those are not mutually exclusive positions. You can be both. If you think it’s possible to know whether gods exist, then you’re not an agnostic.
That is the actual definition. Sorry if that’s inconvenient to you. If you only want to debate strong atheists, you won’t find many of them here. Most atheists are not strong atheists. Hell, even Richard Dawkins is not a strong atheist.
So you admit that not all atheists assert that no gods exist. This means you realize there are atheists that are atheists because they have no belief gods exist, correct?
How are you not one of the atheists you mentioned above if you are without the belief in the existence of gods?
Why?
That makes zero sense. How is asserting that there is a god “most likely” a blind guess but asserting there isn’t a blind guess without the “most likely” part?
Plenty of dictionaries and how the word is used in the vernacular disagree. We don’t assign official word definitions based on etymology; words mean what large enough groups use them to mean. And you haven’t shown that “without gods” means claiming that they don’t exist rather than being without belief that they do (which again, is irrelevant to modern definitions).
Well, you can call yourself an agnostic, and the term could somewhat apply to what you’re describing (since it, like the word atheism, is used in more than one way by different people), but the poster you quoted did not dream it up. Agnosticism does refer to the viewpoint that it’s not possible to know whether there’s a god(s) or not.
Here’s what wiki says, for instance: “Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.”
How do you figure that theists are on more “solid logical ground” just because god could manifest himself? The possibility to prove something in no way makes that something logically more probable.
That’s quite a fascinating leap you’ve made there.
Is asserting that there are no fairies a “blind guess?”
Assuming there aren’t any sky gods is the logical default, and there’s nothing "blind’ about it. X is presumed not to exist unless and until there is evidence that X exists.
Are you asserting that it’s impossible for God not to exist? Are you asserting that it’s more probable that gods exist than that they don’t exist?
You are right. I was indeed using careless language and an overly broad brush. A significant number of our atheists do make this distinction, but not all.
I don’t agree that it’s just a semantical distinction, and I think there’s a major difference between lack of belief and belief in lack. As many atheists point out, for example, infants and agnostics both lack belief in God, but they don’t specifically believe in his absence. Nevertheless, I do agree that it was careless of me to say that “our own atheists” draw this distinction, as that’s an unfair generalization.
Personally, I don’t think there was ever a need to draw a line between hard and soft atheism. “Belief in the absence of God” completely corresponds to the classical definition of atheism. The mere “absence of belief” is more than adequately described as non-theism, and so there was never any need to take this under the atheistic umbrella.
Part of the confusion stems from this misconception about the origin of the word “atheism,” as I covered earlier. The confusion also occurs because of the way some people interpret the statement, “I don’t believe there is a God.” They hold this to mean that there is merely a lack of belief; however, that is not how the phrase is typically used in English.
For example, if someone were to say, “I don’t believe that it will rain today” they wouldn’t mean that they merely have no belief on this matter. Rather, such phrasing is typically understood to mean that the speaker believes it will NOT rain. Similarly, when somebody exclaims, “I don’t believe you,” this doesn’t simply mean that the person lacks belief in your statement, as an infant or unconscious person might lack. Rather, it means that this person specifically rejects what you’re saying.
“Non-theism” doesn’t exclude some other forms of religious belief (Buddhism, for instance). “Atheist” is perfectly adequate, and is literally precise in its etymology, “without theism.”
I don’t see the point in arguing about this anyway. Are you trying to convince all us weak atheists that we’re really strong atheists? I realize that would be an easier to position to argue against, but nobody is taking it.
Arguing about this is the equivalent of an atheist trying to inists that all Christians must be defined as fundamentalists.
No, you’re the one is confused by thinking you’ve proven anything about the modern definition of the word “atheism” by linking to a website about it’s etymology dating back several hundred years.
Yes, it is. I’ve been around enough atheists and participated in enough internet discussions with fellow atheists and can attest that that is exactly how it’s used. “I don’t believe” means “without belief.”
Context is everything.
Right, rejects what you’re saying means the same as “without belief.” “I don’t believe you” frequently means what you say may be true, but I am withholding belief until I have sufficient evidence. Those who are without theism are atheists, like it or not.
There is definitely a difference. I would say that I assume there are no gods, and that I lack any belief that there are, but that doesn’t mean I assert that they can’t possibly exist. I think the probability is too low to merit practical consideration, but you can never say that anything has a probability of absolute zero.
Saying that I’m not persuaded that something is true is not the same thing as saying I can never be persuaded or that something can’t b true.
I find your assertion unconvincing, but I guess we can agree to disagree, unless you can point out how these ultimately make a valid difference in what a person ends up thinking is and is not true.
I’ve already cited the etymology of the word, as well as your own dictionary entries, most of which define atheism as “The doctrine that there is no God or gods” or words to that effect. Not a single one defines it as a mere absence of belief. At best, one could say that by picking a particular definition of “disbelief” (one that Merriam-Webster does not consistently support), one could construe some of those definitions to mean a mere lack of belief. In other words, we have abundant positive evidence for the definition that I cited, and no unambiguous support for the definition that you propose.
This is obviously a bit of a sacred cow to you, so here are a few other citations from scholarly sources. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that “‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.” Not merely the lack of belief, but the specific denial that he exists. Similarly, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which, like many scholarly tomes, is not available in online form) asserts that in its most common definition, atheism is specifically the belief that there is no deity. Similarly, you have the Columbia Encyclopedia (Sixth Edition, 2001), which defines atheism as the “denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence cannot be proved.” Again, it does not present atheism as a mere absence of belief; rather, it asserts that atheism specifically denies that God exists.
You have no evidence to speak of for your stance, and yet you’re demanding an extraordinary level of substantiation for my claim. You’re using threadbare logic to support your cliam, despite what these these reputable references say. You’re wasting your time and mine.
That’s right; it doesn’t, nor is it meant to. You can be a non-theist – even an atheist – and still hold to some religion, so that objection is irrelevant. After all, atheism is about God’s existence, which is not quite the same as religion. (As an aside, I seem to recall you asserting that Buddhism is not truly a religion. Whether you said such a thing or not though, the point remains that this objection is irrelevant.
That is NOT its etymology and you know it. I’ve already cited sources which say that it comes from atheos-ism, not a-theism. If you want to insist on a broader meaning nowadays, I’ll agree that an argument can be made for such usage. However, the etymology that you present is absolutely incorrect, and presenting such claims amounts to spreading ignorance.
I don’t think he was, but I will. The distinction between “soft” and “hard” atheism is one of the biggest and, frankly, stupidist distractions in this debate.
There are two cases where it comes up. One is when atheists make the claim that atheism is the default or natural position, and cite infants, who have no god-beliefs whatsoever, as evidence. Obviously babies are not capable of rejecting belief in God, and their opinions are irrelivant to the truth of any proposition (other than propositions about what babies believe). Theists will attempt to draw this distinction between not having entertained a proposition and having rejected it, and the two positions with respect to god-beliefs get labeled “soft” and “hard” atheism.
The second case is one in which theists accuse atheists of having “faith” in the alegedly unprovable assertion that God does not exist. Atheists will sometimes back down, claiming that they don’t insist God does not exist, they merely don’t believe that he exists. This is obvious foolishness. Unless you are an infant or an excedingly even-minded agnostic (in the strict sense) you must have entertained the proposition the proposition “God exists” and at least tentatively accepted or denied it.
I have entertained the proposition that God exists and have rejected it. I therefore believe the proposition “There is no God.” I don’t hold this proposition as an object of faith, and I don’t hold it with 100% certainty. I don’t hold any proposition with 100% certainty. (One might argue that I must hold tautologies so, but I reserve a tiny but finite possability that I am completely insane and irrational and that even my most basic cognitions are flawed.) This doesn’t make me “soft” with regards to the existence of China (which I affirm), the truth of arithmatic (which I affirm), or the possability of a perpetual motion device (which I deny). Neither does it make me “soft” with regards to my denial of the existance of God, nor to my affirmation of the non-existance of God, whioch is the logical equivalent of that denial.
I am, therefore, a “strong” atheist, albeit one whose atheism is provisional and subject to revision. Richard Dawkins may or may not have used the same terminaology, but he has positively affirmed both that God does not exist and that his belief is, at least in principle, subject to revision. So have you, in this very thread. I have yet to meet a “soft” atheist (defined as someone who does not believe in God but does not affirm God’s non-exitence) who was capable of expressing that - or any - belief.
Dawkins has never positively affirmed that God does not exist. He says that “God almost certainly does not exist.”
Absence of belief really is the default. Not being persuaded to move off the default into a positive God belief does not equate to being moved to a position of positive negative assertion.
I have not been persuaded by any evidence or argument I’ve ever seen that sky gods exist. I think the chances are exceedingly low that I ever will (about the same as the odds I’ll see evidence for elves), that doesn’t mean I’m asserting it’s impossible. Theists want to be able to argue against atheists who assert that gods are impossible because that’s an assertion which can’t be proven, and becuase it allows them to try to shift the burden of proof away from themselves.