Ship of Fools: Are we talking atheist, or atheist?

Thread: Are we talking atheist, or atheist? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023924

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Over on the What Does Atheism Have to Offer thead, SusanDoris averred:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The only thing common to all atheists is a lack of belief in the Christian God and all others too so if that applies to a person, then s/he is an atheist.

I had always thought that (1) an atheist thinks there is in fact no god, not that (2) an atheist merely does not think that there is a god. The latter, I thought, was an agnostic.

Am I confused?*

I'd especially like to ask our resident atheists / agnostics / non-god-botherers how they apply the terms to themselves (if at all).

_________
*I mean on this particular issue.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Can you explain the difference between 1 and 2 a bit more?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I had always thought that (1) an atheist thinks there is in fact no god, not that (2) an atheist merely does not think that there is a god. The latter, I thought, was an agnostic.

That is how it used to be when I was growing up. However, I think a group of atheists on the internet about 15-20 years ago decided to get together and promote a tactical redefinition so that 'atheist' took over most of the territory of 'agnostic'.
The redefinition is tactical because it's aimed at evading the 'atheists have faith that there is no God' line that religious apologists sometimes wheel out. I have some sympathy - that particular line of argument is fairly crude. I don't have a lot of sympathy as it evades some less crude lines of argument as well.

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

The line between atheism and agnostic has been blurred. Many atheists I know start from agnosticism.

I do not know there is evidence of a god, and choose not to assume there ever will be, or arbitrarily select one = Atheist.

The distinctions are VERY subtle.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

This is 'strong' and 'weak' atheism, isn't it? I would think that the Gnus got fed up with saying 'I have no belief in God', and decided that 'I strongly believe and aver that there is no God' was much more bullish and sort of butch.

I have seen quite a few angry debates over this on atheists forums, and some atheists want to claim that atheism has no beliefs, but the strong version seems to.

You also begin to sneak up to anti-theism, 'I strongly believe and aver that there is no God, and furthermore, that religion is infantile, idiotic, and needs to be removed from the body politic'. Or something like that.

[ 02. October 2012, 17:07: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Can you explain the difference between 1 and 2 a bit more?

1. is lack of belief in existence of a god.
2. is belief in the non-existence of any god.

(1) is compatible with lack of belief in the non-existence of a god. (2) is not. (2) subsumes (1) but not vice versa.

As an analagous example, pick some controversial scientific or mathematical or historical (or whatever) hypothesis about which I know too little to have an opinion. Or maybe I don't even know that hypothesis is floating around out there. I can honestly say I don't believe that hypothesis. This is NOT, however, the same thing as saying I think it's false.

[ 02. October 2012, 17:18: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I thought the distinction between atheism and agnosticism was the difference between not being as theist (believing in a god or gods) and not having any religious beliefs at all. There are, of course, perfectly good religions which are not theistic.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

I used to call myself 'agnostic but effectively atheist' because it seemed to me an area where knowledge was impossible. Later, I came to feel that to live as we must, we need to believe certain things - eg that we have free will, and personal identity in any sense that could matter to us - that are untenable without some teleological account of our existence. Now I practise Christianity because it's my cultural faith, and as good an allegory as any of the things I must presume to be so, to avoid the schizoid position of those who would say 'There's no free will, the conscious self is probably an illusion, but never mind - get on with your life and don't worry about it'. In truth I'm not at all convinced that they would be wrong in their assessment of the reality of things, so rationally I'm as agnostic as ever - it's simply that, if they are right, there is no sense to 'getting on' with anything at all.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think a lot of atheists today describe themselves as agnostic atheists, in other words, they don't know that there is no God, but they don't have that belief.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The line between atheism and agnostic has been blurred. Many atheists I know start from agnosticism.

I do not know there is evidence of a god, and choose not to assume there ever will be, or arbitrarily select one = Atheist.

The distinctions are VERY subtle.

It might be a good idea to understand the "new" definition of "Agnostic" since "Atheism" has been redefined. Or has the term fallen into disuse?

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

It gets even more complicated when you try to define what constitutes a god. Does it have to be anthropomorphic? Does it have to be supernatural?

For example, Taoism in the original writings of Lao Tzu talks about a Way, or a Flow, of the world, and the object is to be part of that flow rather than battling against it. Do you consider that a belief in a god? Even if not, would you consider it a religion? Could a person who follows that still be an atheist and/or agnostic?

Or the "New Age Spirituality" approach that we are all gods and/or goddesses, with varying interpretations on what that means we can do in such a role. Does that devalue the concept of "god" to where it doesn't count any more?

It seems to me that some religious people who have an experience of thinking about their religion regularly, and acting in accordance with it, project the same level of conscious attention and emotional attachment onto those of different views where it might not apply. Some may be atheist or agnostic simply because they don't bother thinking about such things. They haven't made an explicit mental choice to be atheist or agnostic, instead they are busy enjoying the flowers or wondering if Mary will be at the party on Saturday. It just isn't something that they give any thought to. It doesn't mean they have any specific thought pattern that they hold in place or instead of a specific religion or belief in one god or another.

Thinking about and discussing religion or alternatives thereto is a very cerebral activity, and doesn't appeal to everybody. Some may have mystical experiences without trying to describe or explain or categorize them. Some prefer to experience life rather than thinking about it

I'm always amazed at the posts here on the Ship that claim to know that atheists believe or think, because it always seems like a narrow caricature of a very wide range of views, many of which have little in common. It would be like saying that all Christians wear a zucchetto, or handle poisonous snakes, or live in caves in the desert: it doesn't come close to representing the large majority of people in the group.

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :

@Mark Betts

quote:
It might be a good idea to understand the "new" definition of "Agnostic" since "Atheism" has been redefined. Or has the term fallen into disuse?

I'm not sure it has changed at all since Thomas Henry Huxley coined it out of "ag" - without - and "gnosis" - knowledge - to describe his view that any claim of a spiritual or mystical nature, be it positive or otherwise, is not justified.

@Quetz
That describes my position, although "atheist" in its broadest sense covers it, prefixed by "weak" if needs be.

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

My understanding is that yes, there are two types of atheist as mouse thief says, and that agnosticism may overlap with one of them..including those with a lack of belief in the existence of God, but extending a bit deep into theism to include those who actively allow for the possibility of the existence of god, but are not convinced of it.

As with so many things, it's not a sharp line, but a spectrum. We humans seem to love to draw hard lines and divide the world into clearly defined, distinguishable categories, but reality rarely works that way.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
@Mark Betts

quote:
It might be a good idea to understand the "new" definition of "Agnostic" since "Atheism" has been redefined. Or has the term fallen into disuse?
I'm not sure it has changed at all since Thomas Henry Huxley coined it out of "ag" - without - and "gnosis" - knowledge - to describe his view that any claim of a spiritual or mystical nature, be it positive or otherwise, is not justified.

I've tried to stick to Huxley's version but the meaning of words moves on - and not usually by a campaign to deliberately change them.

My interpretation of Huxley was that he didn't accept gnosis (better than 'knowledge' might be 'direct apprehension of spiritual truths'). I.e. the existence of God might be provable by natural theology, philosophical argument or other evidence based methods. On that basis an atheist would have to be an agnostic since they assumes there are no spiritual truths to be intuited. On the other hand you could have an agnostic theist (e.g. one who committed themselves to theism while believing only indirect evidence was possible).

Huxley's meaning was rapidly lost and the current meaning developed.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

It's complicated. Some would reserve "atheist" for an absolute statement, a Dawkins 7 ("I am sure there is no God"), others would say it's less than that, but still a positive statement of disbelief ("I believe there is no God"), and yet another group would define the word as a simple lack of belief ("I don't believe in God"). In different situations it can mean any of those, but I think the last two are most common. A little confusing, possibly, but it's not as if there are no arguments over what "Christian" means and implies.

There's a good argument for treating agnosticism as a separate axis on the scale, as the strength of a belief doesn't have to be perfectly correlated with the confidence in that belief. For example, it's possible to argue strongly against the existence of God on the basis of existing information while acknowledging that this can only be a provisional conclusion, that we have no ultimate proof, and that new information may alter one's view. Regardless of what you think of such a position, it can't easily be categorised on a single axis.

I wrote a series of 3 posts earlier in the year trying to make sense of the way different labels are used, and how useful or accurate they are. The first post, which ends up suggesting we need at least 3 axes to define belief, is here. Don't know if it makes any more sense, but I might as well link to it rather than trying to recreate my reasoning here.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

What a disappointing thread.

When I saw the heading, I thought there was a schism among atheists, that they were accusing one another of disbelieving in the wrong way, that there was going to be a Great Council of Oxford to define which was the correct form of non-belief and to anathematise those disbelieving in error.

Perhaps those who would say that the whole future of life, the universe and everything was deterministically predestined as part of the Big Bang would excommunicate those who said that the clash of particles at subatomic level meant that there could be a random element or even that this meant people might have an scintilla of free will.

Or perhaps this is really happening. Perhaps Mousethief is on to something. Perhaps they are going to excoriate one another on whether true atheism is lack of belief in existence of a god or belief in the non-existence of any god.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Carex

quote:
Thinking about and discussing religion or alternatives thereto is a very cerebral activity, and doesn't appeal to everybody.

But once involved, it's an endlessly interesting subject!

quote:
Some may have mystical experiences without trying to describe or explain or categorize them

I think I've always been interested in looking for answers, but always with a somewhat detached, disintrested stance, which I am pleased about now.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What a disappointing thread.

When I saw the heading, I thought there was a schism among atheists, that they were accusing one another of disbelieving in the wrong way, that there was going to be a Great Council of Oxford to define which was the correct form of non-belief and to anathematise those disbelieving in error.

Could be fun!!! My screen reader does not differentiate between any spellings of atheist but I cannot think of any event which might change the minds of some atheists into a God/god belief; I'd always look for a natural explanation or a 'we don't know yet'. However, the word agnostic I have found - although not so much recently - is used by believers to mean a 50/50 position, whereas I've already jumped off the fence at the very end. [Smile]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
Thomas Henry Huxley coined it out of "ag" - without - and "gnosis" - knowledge

I don't think there is such a Greek word as 'ag'. Just the prefix 'a'.

Otherwise, we would have 'agtheists'.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
When I saw the heading, I thought there was a schism among atheists, that they were accusing one another of disbelieving in the wrong way, that there was going to be a Great Council of Oxford to define which was the correct form of non-belief and to anathematise those disbelieving in error.

Apparently, there is such a schism. Google atheism + .

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :

@Leo

My bad. But agtheist has a ring to it I rather like. I think I will self identify as agtheist+ from now on which is an atheist who does not make rape jokes and is shit at Greek.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
@Leo

My bad. But agtheist has a ring to it I rather like. I think I will self identify as agtheist+ from now on which is an atheist who does not make rape jokes and is shit at Greek.

Well you can have a holy atheist - ag(ios) theos!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

bump

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0