I’ve never met any two people who could mutually agree on the definitions and differences between atheists and agnostics.
Simply put, my definition is that an atheist believes there is no god, and an agnostic believes there is no need for a god.
I can see the argument that atheism is a religious belief in that it believes in something that cannot be proven nor falsified, but I think that is stretching the definition of a religion, as a religion is “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods”, and atheism does not fit that definition.
IMHO, to be religious, one has to believe in superhuman controlling powers.
Atheism is postively beleiving there is no God, or lacking a belief in a god.
Some Buddhists, Hindus, and confucionists would fall into this category.
If their beliefs aren’t religious than they would be afforded no protection since they would simply be philosophy.
Agnostic is not believing either way and not claiming to know or claiming there is no way of knowing.
Which is why I’d say that atheism, while not a religion, Is a religious belief.
The wording of some anti descrimimation laws could easily be interpreted to include atheism and indeed have been in some cases.
AFAIK no protection is offered to those who don’t claim beliefs.
Could be wrong there. My guess is it hasn’t come up often enough to be an issue that’s really been addressed.
But the application of protected beliefs are generally things like not providing birth control, not fighting in an army, not having a church taxed. Atheists can certainly have beliefs about those without believing in a god. That’s where the laws get tricky.
In my day, for example, (Viet Nam war era) it was extremely difficult to get conscientious objector status unless you professed it came from a religion.
You correctly say that atheism is the lack of belief in any god. Actively believing there is no god falls under this also, but is not required to be an atheist. Now, if atheism is lack of belief in a god, and theism is belief in a god, how can anything lie between these?
Consider another set of beliefs. Say I ask you if you believe I am not 5 feet tall, then ask you if I am not 5’ 1", 5’ 2" etc. out to 7 feet. A reasonable person would not believe any of these things, since they all are more or less equally likely and I must be some height in this range. However if you say you lack any of these beliefs without evidence of my height, you’d be exactly correct.
Agnosticism, as its name implies, is about knowledge. It is not being wishy washy about the existence of god.
Right, so technically in the way it’s most often used an agnostic would be an agnostic atheist.
IME the perception with many Christian Faith’s is atheists actively believe there is no God, while an agnostic is just waiting for proof and possibly readily converted.
As was said, it’s already illegal. The problem with this sort of thing has always been law enforcement’s reluctance to enforce the law. This is largely due, not to point out the obvious, to the nature of the locale and its law enforcement agency’s tendency to go along to get along. During the Memphis garbage workers’ strike (during which the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated) the strikers wore signs that read “I AM A MAN.” The laws were already on the books, and in the Constitution about “all men are…equal…under the law…” The south enforced segregation by trying to claim black people were not men. In a sense, the Civil Rights Act is redundant, as a result.
Now, that being said, if you look at Portland’s population…
And there also can be agnostic theists, who have faith but who believe knowledge of god is impossible. Probably not as many as agnostic atheists. Personally while I think you can’t know that no gods exist, you can know that a god exists if that all powerful god wants you to know. So I don’t consider myself an agnostic.
Your experience is my experience also, since some of the religious like to say that atheism is a faith also. But we atheist get to define what we believe or don’t believe.
I would take issue with this assertion. One can only believe what is within one’s scope of experience.
My experience specifically is not widely shared. If this experience sharply defines my knowledge of the existence of a divine entity, but I do not participate in a doctrinal structure devised by humans attempting to codify a relationship with what they imagine is a divine entity, my experience has nothing to do with religion though a divine entity is central to said experience.
As an aside: A-theism is anti-theism. Theism is this human attempt to codify a relationship with what they imagine is a divine entity. Atheism as a term does not encompass a lack of belief in the existence of a divine entity.
If you’re referring to a personal revelation, I’ve only talked and read from others about theirs, including religions that put a lot of emphasis on it. Other than a feeling, is there anything useful that it did for you?
Since Nature started doing its polling with leading scientists wouldn’t you say the trend has been going more towards rejecting a personal god by a wider margin than at any other time in history, among NAS (National Academy of Sciences) it is 93%, among Britains leading scientists the numbers are slightly higher (95%).
Not so much, theology, eh? Logic can also be applied quite heavily in the science of mathematics. See Bertrand Russell’s contribution to this.
I can believe that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter. It may be a stupid unfounded belief, but I can certainly believe it. However, those believing there is no god may do so because of lack of experiences with one (in the scope of one’s experience) or history, also in the scope of one’s experience.
This could get into a discussion of the definition of religion, but who wants to do that? And we can accept that you had an experience while rejecting that this experience is in any way indicative of the existence of a divine being, unless there was external evidence.
That’s not the way the rest of the world uses that term. While many, if not most, atheists might be anti-theist in the sense that we find religion harmful, I’ve never heard of any who are atheists because of this. It might trigger a re-examination of the god concept, but not lack of belief.
Atheism can go beyond simple lack of belief however, into proselytizing. I personally believe that our OP here does proselytize, in fact is sorta doing so now. When you believe something so strongly that you are absolutely SURE (not just, well I refuse to believe because there’s no good evidence) and you go around trying to convert others to your belief, than that hinges on being a religion. It’s certainly similar, like some types of Buddhists are religious without believing in a diety.
Buddhism is a religion, despite not always having a god. So a religion that has no belief in a deity is possible.
And I have never seen nor heard of atheists being discriminated against, here. The Op presents with a non-issue. Certainly, that would be prohibited by the 1st Ad in any case.
Nonsense. I believe in Blue whales, despite never having seen them. I believe there really is a Russia, despite never having been there. Many many things can be believed that are outside ones personal scope of experience. In fact there a mental disorder , I think that is due to not believing anything you have not personally experienced?
Being unsure doesn’t disqualify you from being a theist - crisises of faith don’t boot one from their religion. And if being uncertain disqualified one from being an atheist there would be no atheists - there are other gods (and “gods”) out there besides the easily-disproven Christian one, and it’s trivially easy to invent a god that can’t be proven not to exist, which means we can never be truly sure. Russell the Divine Teapot could be quietly orbiting the sun and otherwise minding it’s own business, and we would never know.
Fortunately, atheism/theism isn’t about certainty - it’s about belief. And by all appearances belief is a yes/no thing. You can be unsure, but you still believe - or you don’t.
Strident, loud belief in something doesn’t make it a religion - otherwise political affiliation and fondness for the oxford comma would be religions.
My experience with discrimination against atheism is that it tends to be of the type that laws tend not to protect against. What people do in their homes and personal lives, that sort of thing.
As I mentioned earlier, during the Viet Nam War, it was difficult if not impossible to get Conscientious Objector status without claiming in via religion, and the religion cold not have been recently adopted.
According to Barnes and Noble, in Florida, Missouri, Massachusetts, and Texas Bibles are exempt from sales tax. Philosophy books are not. In some states that had similar laws (e.g. Georgia) the laws have been found to Unconstitutional.
Even rabid theists often say they are unsure, and have doubts. I think it is supposed to mean that their positions are thoughtful. Are they agnostic also?
Yes, because of distrust of atheists some call themselves as agnostics as a cover. But that is just playing on the lack of understanding of the position so common among theists.
Some atheists write songs, paint pictures, write poems. Lots write science fiction. I’ve never been asked for one dollar to go out and convert anyone to atheism. I wonder if any theist can say the same about being asked for money to convert the heathen. Baptists if you are a Catholic, Catholics if you are a Baptist.
But even if someone does proselytize it doesn’t mean that he or she is sure that no gods exist. I’ve been watching the Atheist Experience channel out of Austin and the main guy, who I’m sure you would say is proselytizing, makes it very clear that he only lacks belief due to the lack of convincing evidence for any god.
But they have a set of beliefs - which atheism does not have. So irrelevant.
You are aware of the polls showing how many would never vote for an atheist. As far as I know, the only openly atheist congressman ever was my old one. Whatever number you’ll accept for the number of atheists in the US, there is less representation in Congress for us than that. (As in zero.) Of course we are helped by it being hard to tell the difference between an atheist and a believer who likes to sleep late on Sundays.
And I definitely admit there is no lack of atheists in the National Academy of Science.
Atheism is to Buddhism as theism is to protestantism.
Afaict unless atheism is a recognized religion in general 1A doesn’t currently offer protection.
You could be Buddhist a recgnized atheist religion and be protected but can anyone cite anything supporting atheism as protected?
I did find one reference to it being ruled as protected by EO employment laws even though the wording was not originally clear, otherwise nothing.
Regardless, should it be , is the question.
I think it could be argued that anti descrimimation laws could be clarified to mean they encompass any religious status, or that a lack of religious beliefs itself constitutes religious belief and therefore religion. Thereby including general atheists and agnostics in all the different laws.
Maybe a lazy way to do it … But it would take a supreme Court ruling indicating it.
Btw, not voting for someone for any reason can’t be protected. We are free to descriminate for any reason we like when voting.
