Neither a Theist nor an Atheist Be?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What then is an agnostic?

If you unpack what "agnostic" means, I think the answer will reveal itself.

Different people define the term "agnostic" differently. In some definitions, an atheist can be either a theist or an atheist, but just a theist or atheist who recognizes that they don't know whether gods exist.

In other definitions - like where an agnostic neither believes in the existence of gods or their non-existence, an agnostic would be an atheist.

... so it depends what you mean by "agnostic."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If I walk up to someone in the street and ask them, and they reply, "I don't know", or "I haven't really thought about it much", or "Sometimes I think there may be a God and and at other times I think there probably isn't ", what category are they in, according to you?

"I don't know" - probably atheist.
"I haven't really thought about it that much" - probably atheist
"Sometimes I think there may be a God and and at other times I think there probably isn't" - theist at the times they think there's a god, atheist the rest of the time.

The concept really isn't that hard, people.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because it's something I can't explain. It's possible either way. I don't know. You might as well ask me to explain the flight controls of an airplane. I'm pretty much about as equally ignorant.

That's the point I'm getting at: if your position really was just "I don't know" or "I have no explanation," then that would be where it ended.

... but when you bring gods into it, that creates a different impression. It would be like someone saying "I can't explain why the plane is behaving this way and I'm ignorant about the flight controls of an airplane, but I think it's possible that the flaps are set incorrectly."

He doesn't reject spiritual experiences (and possible some other things he is rather vague about), but he does reject the label atheist for himself (he is very insistent and adamant that first and foremost he is a scientist and things like atheist or agnostic really aren't that important to him).

Listen to the interview when he has a chance. He explains why he doesn't self-apply the label "atheist"... and none of the reasons have anything to do with his beliefs being incompatible with atheism.

It has to be defined because there are numerous concepts of what and who a god is. And, as I pointed out, this strict atheist/theist dichotomy does not translate to all cultures. It's simply not understood as we understand, and due to different understandings about things such as "god" the terms gets used differently in some cultures.

Each person has their own understanding of "god" - or not - and it's that understanding we consider when deciding whether the person is a theist or not.

... and those definitions will be very different from person to person. I can't think of a single objective criteria that would let, say, Mercury pass but not the Archangel Gabriel/Jibreel, but it doesn't matter: a believer in the Roman pantheon considers Mercury to be a god (along with the rest of the pantheon) and is therefore a polytheist, but a Muslim who believes in Jibreel doesn't consider Jibreel to be a god and is therefore still a monotheist.

If someone understands "god" differently from the understandings that are prevalent in our culture, that's fine; it's their own understanding that matters when trying to figure out how many gods they believe in.

They seem to fit many descriptions of various types and qualities of various gods or other "mystical" forces. As does electricity, which basically makes all things possible.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[exchemist]

They are in the category of people that I will show this table to while saying "SEE! you're an agnostic atheist!!!"

but, actually I think...

No, no, no, no! OMG! I've showed you The Table and you still won't accept it.

I don't actually agree with it though because...

FFS! It's a table. that's on the internet. Someone made it. How can you NOT agree with it? Atheism LITERALLY MEANS without theism.

Well, actually it also literally means...

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Why won't you listen to me you anti-science apologist for Jesus! As an atheist I get to decide what atheism is and you are an atheist. In your face god boy!

Yes I think your last para just about sums it up!

 

[exchemist]

You may want to research railroad hats before u embarrass yourself any further

No I'll leave that eminently worthwhile - and not at all nerdy - pursuit to you.

 

[Ayjaydee]

No I'll leave that eminently worthwhile - and not at all nerdy - pursuit to you.

Ok, remain ignorant. Actually, I now see why the error. Carry on.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For @TagliatelliMonster, @Mestemia, @9-10ths_Penguin, et al who agree with the statement in the OP and hold a hard line that one is either a theist or an atheist.

What would you consider one that does not believe in a god in the traditional sense of deity, but recognizes Nirguna Brahman as the Absolute...the highest principle which has no form or qualities commonly related to a god or gods? No creating. No intervening. Just [a state of] being.

Such a concept requires as much belief or faith for some as one's visage in a mirror.

Which box would you pack such a person in? Atheism or theism?

Depends whether that specific person considers Nirguna Brahman to be a god. If they do, then they're a theist; otherwise, they're an atheist.

I think several people in the thread are trying to overcomplicate it. The only question that matters is how many things they believe in that they consider gods:

• 0: they're an atheist
• 1 or more: they're a theist
  • 1: monotheist
  • 2 or more: some variety of polytheist

The question of whether *I* would consider what they believe in to be a god is irrelevant. The question of whether their beliefs require "faith" is irrelevant. All that matters is the person's own views.

Honestly, I don't see what the issue is. People who have no problem with this approach when we're differentiating between monotheism and polytheism seem to freak out when we apply the exact same thought processes to differentiate between atheism and theism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@SalixIncendium , @Shadow Wolf , and anyone else arguing that a person can be neither a theist nor an atheist: what do you think "atheist" means?

If we define - as I do - "theist" as "someone who believes in at least one god" and "atheist" as "someone who does not believe in any gods," then there's no way that a person could be neither one, or both. I can infer that anyone arguing that a person can be neither an atheist nor a theist has different understandings of those terms.

We've heard one approach from @Heyo , who argues that the term "theist" doesn't apply to everyone who believes in gods. While I disagree with this redefinition, I recognize that it would imply that there could be a region in the figurative Venn diagram that isn't covered by either the "atheist" region or the "theist" region.

I assume that not everyone who's arguing that someone can be neither is basing it on an argument like @Heyo 's. Is anyone basing it on some other understanding of what "atheist" means?

 

[exchemist]

@SalixIncendium , @Shadow Wolf , and anyone else arguing that a person can be neither a theist nor an atheist: what do you think "atheist" means?

If we define - as I do - "theist" as "someone who believes in at least one god" and "atheist" as "someone who does not believe in any gods," then there's no way that a person could be neither one, or both. I can infer that anyone arguing that a person can be neither an atheist nor a theist has different understandings of those terms.

We've heard one approach from @Heyo , who argues that the term "theist" doesn't apply to everyone who believes in gods. While I disagree with this redefinition, I recognize that it would imply that there could be a region in the figurative Venn diagram that isn't covered by either the "atheist" region or the "theist" region.

I assume that not everyone who's arguing that someone can be neither is basing it on an argument like @Heyo 's. Is anyone basing it on some other understanding of what "atheist" means?

My 1979 OED defines atheist as "One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God."

This is the sense in which I have always understood the term and I suggest it is how almost everyone - up to my generation, at any rate - has understood the word.

The examples of people's responses, that I gave in post 102, cannot be categorised as those of people who deny or disbelieve in the existence of a God. So they are not atheists, in the meaning as given by the OED and as understood by me. But they would not assent to being categorised as theists either.

 

[Ouroboros]

Occasionally I see arguments between some atheist and some believer, and suddenly some argument comes up from the atheist that the believer is an 99% atheist as well because he/she doesn't believe in 99% of all the other gods. Now, how can someone be almost atheist if it's a binary? Binary can't be on a scale. 99% of something suggests there's a scale. If the dichotomy have to hold, then no one can be atheist on some gods and theist on some, but have to be fully 100% of all of them or be 100% on none.

What's the solution to this?

 

[Ouroboros]

My 1979 OED defines atheist as "One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God."

This is the sense in which I have always understood the term and I suggest it is how almost everyone - up to my generation, at any rate - has understood the word.

The examples of people's responses, that I gave in post 102, cannot be categorised as those of people who deny or disbelieve in the existence of a God. So they are not atheists, in the meaning as given by the OED and as understood by me. But they would not assent to being categorised as theists either.

Also the MacMillan philosophical encyclopedia said something like that. Not sure in newer editions, but in the older it did.

 

[stvdv]

Uhhh, do you think it's possible for a living human to be "beyond the mind" in this world and not be comatose?

It's possible, not easy though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My 1979 OED defines atheist as "One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God."

This is the sense in which I have always understood the term and I suggest it is how almost everyone - up to my generation, at any rate - has understood the word.

I don't think this is actually true, and I can unpack why.

For starters, the phrasing of that definition is very strange: the capitalization denotes a proper noun, so "a God" would mean "a god with the name or title 'God'." More typical would be "a god" (lowercase) or just "God" with no article.

... so what sense is it intended in? Neither one really works as a definition of "atheist":

- "one who denies or disbelieves in the existence of God." - this includes many theists, since plenty of theists believe in gods not called "God."

- "one who denies or disbelieves in the existence of a god." - this also includes many theists, since plenty of theists reject the gods of competing religions.

The examples of people's responses, that I gave in post 102, cannot be categorised as those of people who deny or disbelieve in the existence of a God. So they are not atheists, in the meaning as given by the OED and as understood by me. But they would not assent to being categorised as theists either.

But who is an atheist by that definition?

Whenever someone proposes a definition of "atheist" to me, I measure it against two premises:

- anyone who believes in any gods is not an atheist.
- atheists exist.

I think these are widely accepted as true and reflect normal usage of the term "atheist"... but if a proposed definition of "atheist" either implies that some group of theists are atheists or that the qualifications to be an atheist are practically impossible for a human being, I take this as a big red flag that the proposed definition doesn't reflect how the word is actually used.

... which is my response to your 1979 OED definition: it implies that various theists are actually atheists, so it doesn't reflect how the word "atheist" is actually used.

If I had to guess, I'd say that it's probably a relic of an age and culture that didn't give much thought to forms of god-belief other than Abrahamic monotheism.

Edit: and in any case, look up "disbelief" in your 1979 OED. I'm sure it's consistent with the more modern versions and includes lack of belief in the definition of "disbelief."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Occasionally I see arguments between some atheist and some believer, and suddenly some argument comes up from the atheist that the believer is an 99% atheist as well because he/she doesn't believe in 99% of all the other gods. Now, how can someone be almost atheist if it's a binary? Binary can't be on a scale. 99% of something suggests there's a scale. If the dichotomy have to hold, then no one can be atheist on some gods and theist on some, but have to be fully 100% of all of them or be 100% on none.

What's the solution to this?

The point of those sorts of arguments is to tell the theist that if they were consistent in their approach to deities and demanded that their own god meet the standard that they demand of all other gods, they'd be an atheist, too.

 

[exchemist]

I don't think this is actually true, and I can unpack why.

For starters, the phrasing of that definition is very strange: the capitalization denotes a proper noun, so "a God" would mean "a god with the name or title 'God'." More typical would be "a god" (lowercase) or just "God" with no article.

... so what sense is it intended in? Neither one really works as a definition of "atheist":

- "one who denies or disbelieves in the existence of God." - this includes many theists, since plenty of theists believe in gods not called "God."

- "one who denies or disbelieves in the existence of a god." - this also includes many theists, since plenty of theists reject the gods of competing religions.



But who is an atheist by that definition?

Whenever someone proposes a definition of "atheist" to me, I measure it against two premises:

- anyone who believes in any gods is not an atheist.
- atheists exist.

I think these are widely accepted as true and reflect normal usage of the term "atheist"... but if a proposed definition of "atheist" either implies that some group of theists are atheists or that the qualifications to be an atheist are practically impossible for a human being, I take this as a big red flag that the proposed definition doesn't reflect how the word is actually used.

... which is my response to your 1979 OED definition: it implies that various theists are actually atheists, so it doesn't reflect how the word "atheist" is actually used.

If I had to guess, I'd say that it's probably a relic of an age and culture that didn't give much thought to forms of god-belief other than Abrahamic monotheism.

Edit: and in any case, look up "disbelief" in your 1979 OED. I'm sure it's consistent with the more modern versions and includes lack of belief in the definition of "disbelief."

This seems to be an elaborate way of saying that the meaning of atheism has in your opinion changed since 1979, and that the OED from that period is out of date.

It is certainly my impression that the way several posters are using "atheism" on this thread is to encompass everyone who is not a fully paid up theist, including all the "don't knows". I'm afraid that strikes me as fairly absurd.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This seems to be an elaborate way of saying that the meaning of atheism has in your opinion changed since 1979, and that the OED from that period is out of date.

No, the wonky construction of "a God" (with the article AND capital G) was wrong in 1979, too.

It is certainly my impression that the way several posters are using "atheism" on this thread is to encompass everyone who is not a fully paid up theist, including all the "don't knows". I'm afraid that strikes me as fairly absurd.

Why's that?

You just told us that you go by a definition of "atheist" that includes anyone who lacks belief in "a God," so at this point, it seems like you're criticizing the definition you claim to use yourself... and I have no idea how you actually decide whether someone is an atheist.

 

[columbus]

I suppose the answer rather depends on how inclusive one is being with god-concepts. I've been around RF long enough that I've had discussions with folks for whom I seemingly don't fit into "theist" or "atheist" because my theology doesn't match with (typically) classical monotheism.

I know this true.
I'm one of them.
Quint rather expanded my definition of theist.
Tom

 

[exchemist]

No, the wonky construction of "a God" (with the article AND capital G) was wrong in 1979, too.


Why's that?

You just told us that you go by a definition of "atheist" that includes anyone who lacks belief in "a God," so at this point, it seems like you're criticizing the definition you claim to use yourself... and I have no idea how you actually decide whether someone is an atheist.

My understanding of an atheist is one who has reached a conclusion that there is/are no god/gods (singular or plural and with or without a capital G). Someone with a settled view on the matter.

 

[crossfire]

For theism/atheism to be binary positions you have to show that they are positions first. You can define atheism on theism as "not theism" but without being circular you have to define theism.
Defining theism as "believes in god or gods" doesn't cut it without defining god. So theism is still not a position.

Yeah, the whole dichotomy isn't very useful at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My understanding of an atheist is one who has reached a conclusion that there is/are no god/gods (singular or plural and with or without a capital G). Someone with a settled view on the matter.

That's not what your OED definition implies (look up how it defines "disbelieve").

Edit: your new definition also seems to be violating my "atheists exist" marker of usage.

Edit 2: and your OED definition is very clear that it's about a god, singular, and that this god is God with a capital G.