What is Atheism?

Great Debates
21

This atheist/agnostic thing got rehashed several times on eartier threads, notably The Atheist (Non)Religion, Parts I-however many, I think III.

Quick summary:

Hard or Dogmatic Atheist: Is certain there is no god.

Agnostic: Believes there is insufficient evidence to decide whether there is a god (any god).

Soft or Pragmatic Atheist: Believes, like the agnostic, that there is insufficient evidence to conclude there is a god. Determines from this lack of evidence that there is presumably no god. This uses the same logic chain as the absence of any evidence for flying blue hippopotamuses (Hippopotami?) leads to the conclusion that no flying blue hippopotami/-uses exist.

All are fair statements of a reasonable mindset. The majority of those posters who call themselves atheists appear to subscribe to the latter position.

22

Oh yes, that’s what I do allrightie. It’s important in my life to increase the number of times I post. It looks good on my resume. (What the hell are you talking about?)

Look, a couple of us have tried to show you that there is a difference between believing there ARE no gods and NOT believing in a god. Do you get that bit? If not, let me know and I’ll try to rephrase it.

You are welcome to call it anything you want. You will be wrong. Just as I would be wrong if I called you a Christian or an agnostic.

Calling chocolate strawberry does not make it so. Calling an atheist an agnostic does not make him one. Capisce?

23

My post above was directed to VileOrb, of course.

24

by atheist i mean: person that BELIEVES that there is NO God

by agnostic i mean: person that KNOWS that he/she does NOT KNOW whether or not there is a God, and possibly has a demanding standard of evidence.

the dictionaries i’ve seen define agnostic as: person that BELIEVES it is IMPOSSIBLE to know whether or not there is a God.

i think the dictionary definition is absurd because of the IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW business. i don’t see how any one could conclude something was impossible to know, only that noone has figured out a solution yet. there may be no solution but you couldn’t prove an intangible is unknowable.

the definition of atheist as someone who does not believe in God would draft agnostics into the atheist group regardless of which definition of agnostic is used. i’ve been to another website where an atheist started a thread claiming “agnostics are atheists.” i argued with him but got nowhere. he was using christian reasoning saying that atheists and agnostics are both “without God”, but to an atheist saying that there is NO GOD, then christians must be “without God” because to an atheist there is no God to be with. for some reason he didn’t agree.

now to get wierd i’ll tell you what THE ULTIMATE FRONTIER says about God. i’m not saying i agree with this, just relaying “claimed” information.

there are 7 planes to the universe. the matter on each plane has a different “nutational rate” the matter on a given plane CANNOT BE DETECTED in any way from a lower plane. a living human being exists on the 4 lowest planes simultaneously, his body being on the lowest plane. when a person’s body dies the soul and mind continue to live on planes 3 and 4. plane 5 is for angels. plane 6 is for archangels. plane 7 is for GOD. now if this scenario happened to be true a living human might be able to detect non-living human since both have mental abilities on plane 4. a living human without sufficient psychic abilities would be limited by his physical body and be aware of ghostly phenomenon. the 3 & 4 planes would account for SHEOL.

of course atheists consider things like ghosts and posessions and reincarnation a bunch of nonsense.

of course BELIEF IS ANATHEMA, one can only have suspicions based on suspect data.

                                              Dal Timgar
25

I have noticed something: What people here are calling ‘agnostic’ or ‘soft atheist’ is the best possible definition of an atheist. An agnostic is ‘without knowledge’. Agnostics do not think humans can know if a deity exists, or its form. That, in my opinion, is a kind of faith, because it discounts (possible) observational evidence in favor of a prior belief.

26

What Andros said.

Words have meanings. Distinctions are made for reasons.

Language does change, however, so for those of you who find established definitions to be absurd or inconvenient–take heart; history may rearrange them to your liking.

Besides, I have always wanted a chocolate bush in my back yard.

27

Offense? I could hardly be offended by someone saying something so nice, or including me in such company. Thank you Lib. I know that your spiritual beliefs aren’t exactly orthodox, but they are both optimistic and full of kindness, two things I like quite a lot. :slight_smile:

28

Shall we allow the man who coined the term to provide its definition?

And so, agnosticism in and of itself is the intellectual acknowledgement that the question of the existence of god is unanswerable. For those with no faith in the existence of god but a strong affinity for the scientific method, the term agnostic is preferable to atheist.

29

I’m afraid that I part company with agnostics on this in that I concede that, given sufficient subjective evidence of God, as many here say that they have received, I will conclude that he exists. While the question is to me still unknown, I will not concede it to be unknowable, nor will I limit myself to saying that I shall never reach a conclusion I cannot demonstrate to another. I may very well become, given the right subjective evidence, utterly certain of the objective truth of God’s existence, and I shan’t feel myself to be in the wrong merely because I cannot show him to you. To me, the soft atheism postition fits my outlook more precisely than does Huxley’s.

30

I call myself an athiest. I suppose the possibility exists that I may change my mind. (Although I can’t imagine what would be sufficient proof.) If anybody wants to say I’m not really an athiest, but a weak or strong agnostic or something, well, whatever. I will not argue semantics.

31

So, a majority seems to agree that we have three main categories here.

Agnostic: Does not believe in a god. Believes we can never know if there is a god.

Weak atheist: Does not believe in a god. Believes that it is possible they may in the future find sufficient evidence in such an existence. (I’ll send all the evangelists your way.)

Strong atheist: Does not believe in a god. Also believes there is no god.
The weak atheists seem to be in the majority and are also offended by the strong atheists’ desire to call them agnostics. Sorry, I think that weak atheism and agnosticism are awfully similar, much more so than weak atheism and strong atheism. It’s more a chocolate/dark chocolate thing than a chocolate/strawberry thing.

Sorry I didn’t get your point andros but you seem to post lots of very short cryptic lines only some of which are clear on first reading and most of which include the rolling eyes smiley. I find this offensive and I think you intend it that way. I think that particular smiley should be banned to the pit unless the poster is rolling his/her eyes at themselves. I once saw an divorce hearing involving emotional abuse. Every time the wife spoke the husband rolled his eyes. The judge noticed. When the judge annouced a decision in favor of the abused wife the man rolled his eyes at the judge. The judge pointedly made some adjustments to some papers that, I believe, had something to do with how much money the man was going to have to pay the wife. “Are you going to roll your eyes at the law any further Mr. —?”, asked the judge.

Derleth - can you speak more to your point, please. I think that you and I are agreeing on some things here but I want to be sure.

It sounds to me as if several different groups call themselves atheists and they don’t like it when people with different beliefs use their name. Some of them admit they might be wrong about their definitions. Some of them try to make distinctions or to make the term more general to include all those with a reasonable case. Some admit that meaning of words change.

Quixotic, thanks for that quote. I think that is a clear and authoritative definition of agnosticism. Now we probably hear from the crew that think that definition has changed over the years. I hope so. I want to hear what they have to say.

Is there a word for someone who believes there is no god? Do I have to be satisfied with ‘strong athiest’? At least it’s not called ‘weak atheist’ - I’d hate to be stuck with that. I’m surprised that anyone WANTS to be called a ‘weak atheist’.

What about someone who believes there is no spiritual world or reincarnation or anything mystical? I believe the physical universe (just barely possibly multiple physical universes) exists and nothing else. Is there already a word for my beliefs? I’d like to coin something here but I don’t think Orbist would catch on (maybe, it does sound nice). I should take a course in Greek or Latin or both. I’ve always wanted to. It would be useful for coining terms. An aspiritist?

Can we accept argybarg’s definition of god? (i.e. a personalized divine force responsible for the creation and/or governance of the universe.) I like that it’s concise. Any other input on that?

32

Polycarp, I really like the term “Pragmatic Atheist.” I’ve always hated the adjectives “soft, weak, negative,” because they have unpleasant connotations. Tell me, is this your term, or did you pick it up from someone else?

33

I never gave this matter that much thought. I was aware of Thomas Huxley’s definition of an agnostic, but it has been some time since I looked at it. I think it may be a better definition of my feelings than anything else.

After all this debate I declare myself an Apathetic Agnostic - I don’t know and I don’t care. Whether there is a god or not has no effect on the way I live my life. I do not base my ethics on what anyone put down in any holy book. I have only one commandment I endeavor to keep - Do Not Steal. This means property, life, choice, etc. I reserve the right to feel envy, pride, anger, and lust, as long as I do not act upon them in any way that would violate the One Commandment.

Okay, that’s the extent of my personal dogma. I reserve the right make exceptions when necessary (i.e. anyone attacks me or my own with intent to harm and I will kill them if I can) and I state my willingness to be prosecuted by the law of the land if they find my actions illegal.

34

Nope.

Weak athiest: Has concluded, based upon all available evidence, that there is no God. Is confident in this conclusion but understands that available evidence may change.

At least, that’s the 25-word precis that best describes my own posiiton. I had never heard it labeled “weak athiesm” before hitting the SDMB, but the term does not offend me.

Nope.

Many different individuals call themselves atheists. Some of those individuals do not appreciate it when peple who do not understand their position tell them that they are really agnostics (or Christians, or Moslems, or Satanists, etc.)

It suffices to describe personalized monotheism. It does not suffice to describe numerous other theistic ideations.

35

Vile, I’m sorry if you found my posts cryptic. It’s a shame you decided to take offense.

Do you understand why I find it very amusing that a self-professed atheist should be as dogmatic as you seem to be? Or why a self-prefessed atheist should be so hung up on labels? I’m happy to explain if my amusement is not clear.

My SO came up with (IMO) a really good metaphor last night. I think it might help explain the differences in philosophy.

There is a pond. It is murky, covered in algae and plants. No fish are visible.

The believer thinks: “I believe there are fish in this pond.”

The agnostic thinks: “There could be fish in this pond, but we’ll never know unless we investigate it thoroughly. Unless it inpacts my life, there’s no reason to worry about it.”

The “pragmatic atheist” (thanks, Poly) thinks: “Based on the available evidence (the size of the pond, the quantity of algae and plant life, and the fact that no fish are to be seen), I do not believe that there are fish in this pond. I could be wrong, but it’s unlikely in the extreme.”

The “hard atheist” thinks: “I believe there are no fish in this pond.”
Does that work? Additions and corrections are solicited from all.

36

Spiritus is right. He is one of those atheists who does not play Pin the Tail on the Donkey with God. I have seen God pinned as everything from a genie to a gap-filler.

The fact of the matter is that universe creation is a trivial act for God. His Reference Frame is Absolute and consists entirely of His Perfect Will.

Here is what Jesus says of the spritual metaphysic: “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit… God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth… The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”

37

“Pragmatic atheist” was my coinage based on how David B. and Gaudere (in particular) described their positions. It seemed accurate and much more courteous than strong and weak. I personally fail to understand how someone could have certitude that none of the variegated flavors of God that the human imagination has generated do in fact exist. A deistic clockmaker/clockwinder in particular seems disprovable, short of some sort of firsthand evidence of conditions at the Big Bang.

In participating in this thread, I feel somewhat like the story Stephen Jay Gould told of the devout Christian student who came to him. “I had no problems with the idea of evolution,” the kid said, “until my fundamentalist roommate started arguing with me. Is the theory of evolution compatible with God?” Gould remarked that he had a strong sense of irony that he, a Jewish atheist, was in the position of reassuring a Christian that, yes, evolution and the Christian God were compatible concepts.

Andros, I like the fishpond metaphor, but let me top it, to underscore the agnostic/pragmatic atheist dichotomy:

The question for debate is, “is it possible that an extraterrestrial spacecraft left circular marks in an English wheatfield one night?” The agnostic says, based on our lack of knowledge about whether alien civilizations do in fact exist, we don’t know. The pragmatic atheist says, given that there have been confessions of the “corn circles” being hoaxes, and the extreme improbability of a hypothetical alien civilization being able to travel interstellar distances, and even if they did exist and could could, taking a role which neither makes contact nor adequately disguises their presence, while there is a remote outside possibility that one “corn circle” was a genuine alien landing, I wouldn’t bet my 401(k) on it! In effect, unless somebody produces clear evidence of alien vehicles doing this, I reject the idea.

Does that make it clearer?

38

Oh no. Now I’m really confused. Based on Polycarp’s last post, I’m not an apathetic agnostis, I’m a pragmatic atheist. (BTW, I own every book by Stephen Jay Gould and I am working on my Carl Sagan library. My heroes!). This is starting to get as tangled as trying to figure out what someone means when they say they are a Christian. Oh well, label me what you will, whatever it is, I’m sure I’ve been called worse. (Hey, I’ve even had a minister call me fornicator in front of everyone. Hard to top that one.)

39

Lucie, labels are for the insecure, the unthoughtful, and the dogmatitic. They are only limiting.

You are just who you are, with no need to be limited.

40

I do have a problem with that definition. It makes no sense; according to it, if taken literally, Hindus are atheists because they “deny the existence of God” (while claiming the existence of their gods). The definition is quite outdated, in my opinion, as the capitalization of ‘God’ is on purpose. It conforms to a point of view that atheists are people who don’t believe in the Jewish/Christian/Muslim god. Nonsense. And more recent defintions do a better job of defining atheists, including one from American Heritage.

From dictionary.com:

I believe both definitions cover what people have claimed atheism is in this thread, especially with the phrase “disbelieves or denies”. Personally, the “disbelieves” option is the one I like, and it’s what I think makes sense, but that’s just me, and I’ll freely concede others will no doubt think differently.

Also, I disagree with agnoticism for the same reason as Ptahlis: I don’t think the question of wheter a god or gods exist is inherently unanswerable. Sure, it’s impossible to prove that they don’t exist (just as it’s impossible to prove that unicorns don’t exist), but it would potentially be possible to prove that they do exist, given the right evidence. Now, that evidence doesn’t exist as far as I know, and I have no expectation that it ever will, but no matter how improbable it might be that such evidence will come to light, it is still possible.