agnostics = weak atheists

[Willamena]

The point is this, why break atheism down into false dichotomies such as strong and weak? If an atheist makes the statement that gods don't exist it's only a stronger statement than leprechauns don't exist because believers have a great deal invested in their god belief over that of leprechauns. It doesn't change the truth of the matter. Leprechauns don't exist and it really is of no matter that one can't prove it, ditto for gods.

Why is "gods don't exist" "stronger" than "leprechans don't exist" because of the number of believers*? Where's the logic in that?

What alternative(s) to "strong" and "weak" do you suggest to break the dichotomy?


* if not because of the number of believers, what quality distinguishes believers in god(s) from believers in leprechan(s)? What determines that investment?

 

[Willamena]

...or as if the purpose of the dictionary was a serious discussion of any topic.

Context is important.

 

[dogsgod]

Why is "gods don't exist" "stronger" than "leprechans don't exist" because of the number of believers*? Where's the logic in that?

What alternative(s) to "strong" and "weak" do you suggest to break the dichotomy?


* if not because of the number of believers, what quality distinguishes believers in god(s) from believers in leprechan(s)? What determines that investment?

Who said anything about the number of believers, where did you read that?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

It seems to me that there are a whole lot of people out there who are calling themselves "atheist", but who are not quite willing to make the leap of faith that the term (by definition) does require. As such, I think that most of these "atheists" are actually agnostics.
That said......

...snip....
If you and me and atotalstranger and all of the other self-described atheists and agnostics on the planet could somehow plot our individual positions with respect to God on a giant piece of graph paper we would form a cluster. And that cluster would be as tight or tighter than any other category of beliefs.
...snip....
Curse you and your damn word T.H. Huxley!

Jackytar

I'm all for unity Jackytar. And I tire of the dickering back and forth about definitions.
Just as long as reasoning people with long-term thought processes win out.
Shalom. :namaste:

We have some confused people on this thread over what atheism actually is.
...snip....

Agreed, without reservation.

Well, it's also on any atheist who makes the positive statement that no god exists.

:yes:

I agree. Unless god is defined in a way that is logically inconsistent.

An example would be a square circle. I can say with 100% certainty that a square circle doesnt exist.

So you're not agnostic towards square circles. Okay.

Actually, that would make him a fully fledged "asquirclist". Whereas the squircle agnostic would say, "Well....at least from our 3-dimensional viewpoint it is impossible. But who's to say if you were to look at the taks from a 4th, 7th, or even 11th dimensional perspective." :sarcastic

i kid

Who said anything about the number of believers, where did you read that?

There's a matter of punctuation. Willamena's post needed an extra question mark after the words "leprachans don't exist". (but then again, she followed with the whole aterisk footnote jobby that you overlooked. :tsk: ).



That's me. Daemon Sophic. Fighting fire with fire, in a never ending war against the grammer-Nazis. :takeabow::bonk:

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It seems to me that there are a whole lot of people out there who are calling themselves "atheist", but who are not quite willing to make the leap of faith that the term (by definition) does require. As such, I think that most of these "atheists" are actually agnostics.

I think you're definitely misunderstanding atheism if you think it requires faith. Additionally, most atheists I know are actually agnostics also - they tend to go hand-in-hand among rationalists.

If you're going to ignore etymology and just use the dictionary to define what a word means, then you can't arbitrarily ignore definitions the dictionary provides - you have to accept them all. Atheism, according to definitions you provided is a disbelief in god. Disbelief is the inability or refusal to accept something as true. Refusing to accept the existence of god as true requires no leap of faith, nor is it a belief in itself.

 

[Willamena]

Who said anything about the number of believers, where did you read that?

Asking again: then what quality distinguishes believers in god(s) from believers in leprechan(s)? What determines that investment?

 

[Smoke]

That said...... I'm all for unity Jackytar. And I tire of the dickering back and forth about definitions.
Just as long as reasoning people with long-term thought processes win out.

You mean the kind of people who can say with a straight face that the word "atheist" DOES include the phrase "believes that there is no God"? And then affirm it when called on the obvious falsity of it?

Thanks, anyway. The Pope offers me unity provided that I subscribe to his dogmatic pronouncements, too. I don't find the offer an attractive one regardless of the source.

 

[Oberon]

An atheist is one who is godless. If some people use the word to mean one who believes that no religion has any basis, they use it wrongly.

How often does a word have to be used in a particular way before that becomes part of the definition?

I don't know why you think so. Most atheists I've known are antipathetic toward the Abrahamic religions, but they usually take a much milder position toward one or more of the other religions.

There are atheists I have met who are willing to consider the possibility of validity in systems like buddhism. However, I have yet to meet any (and I live in Massachusetts, not the bible belt) who are willing to consider the possibility that "faeries" exist or any number of other mythical creatures which are believed in by many "new agers." Atheism is rarely a simple lack of belief in God. The reason abrahamic religions are a focus is simply because of billions of muslims and christians, and that atheism is most prominent in the west.

That's not correct. The suffix -ism is used in a number of different ways, and there's no reason at all to conclude that it indicates a belief system. I doubt you would claim, for instance, that autism, hirsutism, and vulcanism are belief systems.

If you want to get into a debate on suffix polysemy, fine, but it won't change the fact that here "ism" is used in this way. From the oxford dictionary of english etymology:

3. forming the name of a system of theory or practice

Fits rather well with atheism and theism, woudn't you say? More so than 1: to form a noun of action naming the process, the completed action, or its result, e.g. baptism

Shall we conclude, then, that agnostics do not lack a system of belief in which gods exist, and that they do believe some theos exists?

You based this off a part of what I said. Look at the complete point: "which is a lack of a system in which god(s) exist. They don't believe any theos exists.

Further, they DO believe that NO theos exists. So the point is not simply a lack of belief in a theos, but a belief that in a lack of the existence of a theos. Agnostics possess no such system of belief.

 

[dogsgod]

Theism is a belief in God. Atheism is without a belief in God. The 'a' in atheism simply means without theism. Atheism is not a system of belief, it simply means without theism. End of story.

 

[dogsgod]

Asking again: then what quality distinguishes believers in god(s) from believers in leprechan(s)? What determines that investment?

Obviously people have a lot invested in a belief in God over that of leprechauns. Church attendance, giving money to the church, prayer, worship, holy sites, wars, and so on. God is part of a believers world view, it is used to explain all sorts of things and events. On the other hand, not so much effort is generally wasted on leprechauns.

 

[Oberon]

Theism is a belief in God. Atheism is without a belief in God. The 'a' in atheism simply means without theism. Atheism is not a system of belief, it simply means without theism. End of story.

Again, from dictionary.com:

1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

Atheism is certainly a doctrine. It is not used simply to express a "lack" or "absence" of belief in god(s) but a belief that god does not exist. Hence it is distinct from agnosticism, where there is also a "lack" or "absence" of belief in god(s), but not a belief that god(s) does/do not exist.

Furthermore, your semantic analysis of the prefix "a" is wrong, due to an ignorance of the etymology. The word dates from the ancient greek ἄθεος/atheos, which meant "godless" or "denying the gods." Hence atheism is not simply the prefix "a" + theism but rather "atheos" -> atheisme -> atheism, i.e. a system or doctrine wherein god(s) does/do not exist.

 

[Smoke]

Atheism is rarely a simple lack of belief in God.

That is exactly what atheism is. An atheist may believe in certain things, but whatever particular things a particular atheist believes in are not integral to atheism.

For instance, I'm a Buddhist. One should not generalize from that fact to say that atheism includes a belief in Buddhism. (In fact, one should not assume even that I myself "believe in" Buddhism; I don't relate to my religion as Abrahamic believers usually relate to theirs.)

An atheist may be a materialist or may believe in astrology; he may favor Aristotelian ethics over Kantian ethics; an atheist will certainly have beliefs and opinions beyond his mere nonbelief in God. The fact that an atheist has other thoughts, however, does not mean that those thoughts are specifically "atheist" thoughts.

If you want to get into a debate on suffix polysemy, fine, but it won't change the fact that here "ism" is used in this way. From the oxford dictionary of english etymology:

3. forming the name of a system of theory or practice

Fits rather well with atheism and theism, woudn't you say?

Absolutely not. Atheism is neither a system of theory nor a practice (and neither is theism, as far as that goes). That fact ought to be immediately obvious to anybody who gives it a moment's thought.

You based this off a part of what I said. Look at the complete point: "which is a lack of a system in which god(s) exist. They don't believe any theos exists.

That changes nothing. The agnostic doesn't believe any theos exists, either.

Further, they DO believe that NO theos exists. So the point is not simply a lack of belief in a theos, but a belief that in a lack of the existence of a theos. Agnostics possess no such system of belief.

You have yet to show what the atheist "system of belief" is. If you cannot describe it and show that it applies to atheists in general, a reasonable person will have to conclude that there is in fact no such system.

Further, my belief that there is no god is not a dogmatic belief. It is subject to revision in the light of new evidence. It is open to other possibilities. And it simply describes one type of belief that I do not hold; it tells you nothing about what I actually do believe.

Agnosticism, as defined above by Huxley, comes much closer to a system of belief than atheism. The agnostic believes in the impenetrability of the mystery. The atheist is committed to no such dogmatic belief, and thus has no need, as the agnostic has, to make a leap of faith.

 

[Smoke]

Again, from dictionary.com:

1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

Atheism is certainly a doctrine.

Your own source shows that it may be a simple belief and not a doctrine. Is it necessary now to discuss what or means?

Furthermore, your semantic analysis of the prefix "a" is wrong, due to an ignorance of the etymology. The word dates from the ancient greek ἄθεος/atheos, which meant "godless" or "denying the gods." Hence atheism is not simply the prefix "a" + theism but rather "atheos" -> atheisme -> atheism, i.e. a system or doctrine wherein god(s) does/do not exist.

I am not (and was not) ignorant of the etymology. What I am completely ignorant of, however, is any description of this supposed "system or doctrine." If atheism is a system of thought or belief, describe it for us in detail. Expound on the atheist system of belief more explicitly. What are the implications of the system and practice of atheism? What are the details?

 

[dogsgod]

Again, from dictionary.com:

1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

Atheism is certainly a doctrine. It is not used simply to express a "lack" or "absence" of belief in god(s) but a belief that god does not exist. Hence it is distinct from agnosticism, where there is also a "lack" or "absence" of belief in god(s), but not a belief that god(s) does/do not exist.

Some definitions found in dictionaries are common usages rather than proper definitions, and some definitions are written by ill informed people.

There's no doctrine. Some have never heard of God, that in itself would explain atheism for some, no doctrine of any sort necessary. Some go through life never hearing of leprechauns, no doctrine necessary. There's no doctrine or principle that can be applied in the case of a non belief. It's a misnomer.

Most people aren't aware of their atheism. There are so many gods that have been worshiped throughout the ages that we are unaware of and therefore unaware of what we are atheist about. There are probably no records for some of the gods that have been worshiped, so explain this doctrine to us.

 

[Oberon]

That is exactly what atheism is. An atheist may believe in certain things, but whatever particular things a particular atheist believes in are not integral to atheism.

They are if they become so in standard usage of the term. So far, I am agreeing that technically atheism says something only about belief in god, but in common usage it is construed more broadly.

For instance, I'm a Buddhist. One should not generalize from that fact to say that atheism includes a belief in Buddhism.

One can, however, generalize from common usage of the term, which generally precludes not only belief in "gods" but also other supernatural forces or entities.

An atheist may be a materialist or may believe in astrology

Not in common usage. Atheism is not used to decribe people who don't believe in god but do believe in "faeries" or that our fate is determined by stellar constellations.

Absolutely not. Atheism is neither a system of theory nor a practice

1. I have already quoted from the oxford dictionary of etymology that "ism" is indeed used this way. Until you find a better given meaning of the suffix that fits this usage, you can't defend the above.
2. Plenty of dictionaries, from webster's to dictionary.com refer to atheism as a doctrine, which can and does mean "a body or system of beliefs or teachings."
3. Atheism comes from the greek word meaning godless or denying the gods, and the ism part goes back to french meaing a doctrine or system of belief wherein the gods or god is/are denied.

That changes nothing. The agnostic doesn't believe any theos exists, either.

An agnostic doesn't know. They don't believe a theos exists, but they also don't believe that a theos doesn't exist. They don't know. An atheist holds to a belief system in which NO theos exists. An agnostic doesn't. They don't know, or believe, one way or the other. An atheist does.

You have yet to show what the atheist "system of belief" is.

Technically, it is a system where the possibility of the reality or existence of supreme beings is systematically excluded. Agnostism, on the other hand, does not exclude, but does not include, either.

More commonly, the sytem excludes the possibility of any supernatural concepts, not just god.

Further, my belief that there is no god is not a dogmatic belief.

So what? No religion need be dogmatic or contrary to "revision." That does mean they aren't systems of belief.

Agnosticism, as defined above by Huxley, comes much closer to a system of belief than atheism.

I'm not denying that agnosticism is a system of belief. Simply that in that belief system the supernatural is neither included nor precluded, but an unknown.

The agnostic believes in the impenetrability of the mystery. The atheist is committed to no such dogmatic belief,

Wrong on both counts. Agnostics are not necessarily "dogmatically" or in any other way comitted to the impenetrability of the mystery. They can change their minds. They can be convinced that god does or does not exist. They need be no more or less dogmatic than atheists (who are frequently dogmatic).

 

[Smoke]

To be frank about it, Oberon, I'm disgusted by your disingenuous appeals to the dictionary. Here is what dictionary.com says:

1. the doctrine of belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

And here is what you posted:

Again, from dictionary.com:

1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

Atheism is certainly a doctrine. It is not used simply to express a "lack" or "absence" of belief in god(s) but a belief that god does not exist.

I don't know whether you're simply dishonest, or simply don't understand how a dictionary works, but this is not an argument worthy of any person who is both honest and intelligent.

Edit: While I was posting the above, you did it again.

1. I have already quoted from the oxford dictionary of etymology that "ism" is indeed used this way.

What you have shown is that this is one way the suffix is used, a fact that nobody disputes. Because this particular use of the suffix suits your argument, you exclude all other possible uses of it and insist dogmatically that this is the one, true apostolic use of it. It is a stupid argument and unworthy of response, a fact I'm sure you'd perceive in an instant if you would step back for a moment from your emotional investment in it.

They are if they become so in standard usage of the term. So far, I am agreeing that technically atheism says something only about belief in god, but in common usage it is construed more broadly.

Your appeal to "common usage" as perceived by you is vapid and unconvincing. I agree that your description of atheism corresponds to the description that might be given by a number of ignorant people.

 

[dogsgod]

Thomas Huxley coined the term agnostic and the definition has since been changed beyond recognition.

Originally, agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence of deities, religious claims and that of the metaphysical—is unknown or unknowable by anyone.

 

[Smoke]

Technically, it is a system where the possibility of the reality or existence of supreme beings is systematically excluded.

Well, that's really not much of a "system," is it? Would you describe my disbelief that Robert Kennedy was the first president of the United States as a "system", too?

And your definition is dishonest, as you well know. Many atheists, myself included, do not systematically exclude the possibility of the reality or existence of supreme beings. We simply don't believe in them.

I eagerly await your carefully excerpted selection from dictionary.com showing that the absence of a single kind of belief constitutes a "system" of belief.

 

[Oberon]

To be frank about it, Oberon, I'm disgusted by your disingenuous appeals to the dictionary. Here is what dictionary.com says:

And here is what you posted:

Yes, I ignored the second given definition as it doesn't contradict the first in any way shape or form.

What you have shown is that this is one way the suffix is used, a fact that nobody disputes.

And until you can show that a better definition of "ism" fits "atheism" there is no reason to take seriously any argument you put forth arguing that the definition I gave fits best.

Your appeal to "common usage" as perceived by you is vapid and unconvincing. I agree that your description of atheism corresponds to the description that might be given by a number of ignorant people.

Excatly what linguistic theory, or theory of semantics, do you hold to? I'm guessing you never studied any. Common usage is particularly important when defining an abstract concept like "atheim." And, fortunately, not only do we have my subjective experience of how the term is used, but a vast and diverse arrray of texts of all sorts (from the scholarly to online blogs) wherein the word is used to refer to a greater semantic range than simply "a disbelief in god." The word "atheism" has changed in meaining since it was first used in france years ago, based off of the greek.

Well, that's really not much of a "system," is it? Would you describe my disbelief that Robert Kennedy was the first president of the United States as a "system", too?

Talk about stupid and intellectually dishonest. A system of belief wherein supreme beings are systematically excluded as being possible parts of reality is hardly akin to disbelief in a historical individual.

Many atheists, myself included, do not systematically exclude the possibility of the reality or existence of supreme beings. We simply don't believe in them

If you disbelief in all supreme beings, because you don't believe in supreme beings, this is a systematic exclusion of the possibility for the existence of these beings from your cosmology.

I've met people who call themselves satanic christians, so your self-description is hardly relevant. What matters is how the term is commonly understood. The dictionary is just the beginning. From prominent athiest literature to the history of the introduction of the term, to its greek roots (little of which you are apparently aware of) the word has referred to more than just simple "disbelief." I don't believe that chomskyan linguistic theory is a particularly accurate way to account for language diversity or use. This "disbelief" has little in common with a theological or philosophical approach to the existence of divine beings, which is outside not only the scientific realm but also the realm of sense perception and exists only as either subjective experience (real or imagined) or untestable theory (i.e. belief). Atheism is a philosophical or theological stance, like theism or agnosticism. In fact, only agnosticism allows for an approach backed by empiricism, as it acknolwedges that the existence of god or gods is outside of empirical exploration. Atheism is a belief that goes beyond evidence, as is theism. Therefore, unlike your completely dishonest and intellectually sterile analogy to a disbelief in RFK as the first president of the US, atheism is far more of a system of belief, or doctrine.

 

[dogsgod]

Atheism means without theism. Plain and simple, yet so difficult for some to grasp. There is no doctrine, belief, or principle to be taught or understood, and there certainly is no system of belief involved. Atheism says nothing of what a person does believe, nor does it say how one has come to be without theism. It's very possible not to be aware of ones own atheism because it is a default position.