The term "Agnostic", is it viable? Problematic?

[Uberpod]

The two senses of the word "agnostic" are not mutually exclusive.

The two senses of atheist are not exclusive either. One is nested in the other. People with an absence of belief whether because of or without deliberation and self-declaration are accurately termed atheist.

I also do not see any strange implications resulting from either sense.

Ditto for atheism.

I think the "lack of" definition is a bad definition for various reasons, hence why I reject it as a good, viable definition.

Also, if "atheism" is defined in a more narrow sense, as I think it should, then that means the "lack of" definition couldn't be accepted as well-- the one precludes the other.

I don't get what you mean.

My logic is consistent, in that, I have reasons for accepting two senses of one word and rejecting various senses of other words.

Just like, I suspect, you accept that there are multiple senses to some words, but not others.

These are not just any two words. They are both describing a relationship to the same phenomenon. The words are constructed similarly with a preposition meaning not.

 

[9Westy9]

What are your thoughts on the term agnostic, is it problematic, does it imply wishy-washiness?

Calling myself an agnostic is a pain as people often misinterpret what I mean by it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think you can have agnostic-theist, but not atheist-theist, that's the difference, probably.

I know you probably didn't mean that, but just as a remark: I don't think there is anything truly wrong on having someone oscillating between theism and atheism just because.

Unless it makes him or her anxious, I suppose.

 

[LuisDantas]

The two senses of the word "agnostic" are not mutually exclusive. I also do not see any strange implications resulting from either sense.

I think the "lack of" definition is a bad definition for various reasons, hence why I reject it as a good, viable definition.

Also, if "atheism" is defined in a more narrow sense, as I think it should, then that means the "lack of" definition couldn't be accepted as well-- the one precludes the other.

My logic is consistent, in that, I have reasons for accepting two senses of one word and rejecting various senses of other words.

Just like, I suspect, you accept that there are multiple senses to some words, but not others.

You are in effect proposing that weak atheism (a well-established term) should not be considered atheism at all.

Leaving aside that I disagree, I wonder if you think a substitute term should be used, or if you would rather not acknowledge the stance at all. Or maybe there is a third choice?

 

[viole]

It is a fair term, and fulfills a necessary role.

It is also greatly abused IMO. I have a distinct feeling that it is used often when "atheist" would be a better, more accurate and more honest choice, solely because there is still such reluctance to accept atheism.

Yes, I agree.

It is just politically correctness. It communicates the following: what theists say is not necessarily nonsensical: I am not dead sure that God does not exist.

It is not different than saying: I am agnostic about fairies. Prima facie, it seems silly. But you might need to do that in a society where almost everybody believes in fairies, if you do not want to considered rude.


Ciao

- viole

 

[Falvlun]

You are in effect proposing that weak atheism (a well-established term) should not be considered atheism at all.

I consider the "weak" and "strong" distinctions not particularly clear.

I prefer "agnostic atheism" and "gnostic atheism" instead: it's the difference between "I believe that gods don't exist" and "I know that gods don't exist", with the former being "weak atheism" and the latter being "strong atheism".

Leaving aside that I disagree, I wonder if you think a substitute term should be used, or if you would rather not acknowledge the stance at all. Or maybe there is a third choice?

I wouldn't consider most people who have the opinion that gods don't exist to merely have a "lack of belief". I think they are the same as me: they disbelieve that gods exist. It's an opinion and a position, not a lack of one.

In your thread I made a list of those that I'd consider merely having a "lack of belief" in gods: babies, people completely ignorant of the topic, and people who haven't cared enough to consider the topic (and therefore, can't have come to a decision on what they believe or don't believe).

I think the stance that you are talking about has been incorrectly defined. Basically, the definition came first-- because of its ease of defense in debates and maybe from some squeamishness about acknowledging that you believe that gods don't exist-- and then people were convinced that their beliefs fit this easy-to-debate definition. In other words, it's a made up stance that doesn't accurately portray people's positions.

As mentioned above, I think "agnostic atheism" and "gnostic atheism" more accurately present the types of atheism. I wouldn't consider those who merely lack a belief, as defined in my list, as atheists. If they need a label, which I don't think they really do, then I think that "non-theist" would be the most appropriate (though non-atheist would be just as accurate).

EDIT:
Forgot a group in my list. "Agnostics" of the popular sense. While they have considered the topic, they don't know which is more likely; the arguments for both sides could be said to be equally convincing; they too have not come to a decision on what they believe yet.

 

[Falvlun]

The two senses of atheist are not exclusive either. One is nested in the other. People with an absence of belief whether because of or without deliberation and self-declaration are accurately termed atheist.

As I said in that post, if you accept a narrower definition of atheism, then it would exclude the broader definition. Obviously, the broad definition would include the narrower definition.

Regardless, the two "agnostic" definitions I gave speak, imo, about different positions. They are essentially two separate concepts in regards to beliefs about the existence of god that happen to have the same word.

Ditto for atheism.

You can't say when I do and do not find strange implications of definitions.

I don't get what you mean.

This is what explained why the definitions couldn't both be accepted, as I explained above.

These are not just any two words. They are both describing a relationship to the same phenomenon. The words are constructed similarly with a preposition meaning not.

I don't know which words you are talking about here: the two senses of agnostic, the two senses of atheism, or agnostic and atheism.

As for the literal construction of the words, that really doesn't tell us how we should be defining them, or what they actually mean.

 

[columbus]

Can someone please explain the difference between weak atheism and agnosticism for me?

From what I understand, weak atheism rejects theist claims because they haven't met their burden of proof. Weak atheism does not claim that no god can exist because there is no way to disprove it. So its not making the opposite claim, it's just not accepting the theistic claim.

It seems to me that Agnostics hold the same position. they say "I don't know one way or the other" So they are not accepting the theistic claim either (I assume due to lack of evidence, otherwise they would accept it, right?), and they aren't positing a claim that no god exists.

This seems like an identical position. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

There is a distinction I make that never seems reflected in the dictionary. I think it is important though.

Theism and atheism are both assertions about god or the supernatural. Agnosticism isn't. It is about human beings. It is the assertion that we humans don't know anything important about the subject because we are just too limited in perception and reason.
I consider myself an agnostic deist because while I prefer to have beliefs about it I don't kid myself enough to believe I have any actual knowledge of the subject. However I am pushing 60, humans I know a bit about.

Unlike Luis I think most atheists are really agnostic, but atheism is simpler.

Tom

 

[Desert Snake]

I know you probably didn't mean that, but just as a remark: I don't think there is anything truly wrong on having someone oscillating between theism and atheism just because.

Unless it makes him or her anxious, I suppose.

Agnostic Waffler?
I find the definitions easier to understand if we realize that when someone says '"I don't believe in deities(deity", it doesn't follow that we associate the terms 'know' or don't know to the situation, the person obviously still doesn't actually know if there are deity(deities.

 

[Willamena]

The two senses of atheist are not exclusive either. One is nested in the other. People with an absence of belief whether because of or without deliberation and self-declaration are accurately termed atheist.

Where one says, "I believe there is no god," and the other says, "I have no capacity to believe," they are saying things that are exclusive of each other.

 

[Uberpod]

As I said in that post, if you accept a narrower definition of atheism, then it would exclude the broader definition. Obviously, the broad definition would include the narrower definition.

And there is not a thing wrong having a word that can be used in multiple senses. Take the word religious, for instance. There is a very broad almost metaphorical sense of the world that I will demonstrate for you: My mom is religious about brushing her teeth. Does that cause strange implications for you? Don't you know exactly what is meant in context? Would you be tempted to list teeth brushing as a religion now?

Regardless, the two "agnostic" definitions I gave speak, imo, about different positions. They are essentially two separate concepts in regards to beliefs about the existence of god that happen to have the same word.

The two senses none-the-less overlap to a degree.

You can't say when I do and do not find strange implications of definitions.

But, I can find strange what you perceive as a strange implication.

This is what explained why the definitions couldn't both be accepted, as I explained above.

This and that did the thing over it at that time.

I don't know which words you are talking about here: the two senses of agnostic, the two senses of atheism, or agnostic and atheism.

As for the literal construction of the words, that really doesn't tell us how we should be defining them, or what they actually mean.

Not completely, but to ignore the construction altogether is a mistake. Don't you think practicality and consistency make our whole communication system better and easier to learn, remember, and comprehend?

 

[Uberpod]

Where one says, "I believe there is no god," and the other says, "I have no capacity to believe," they are saying things that are exclusive of each other.

They share the core fact that god belief is absent. And, they share this core with a third person who has never phathomed the concept of a god and thus has no particular self-label regarding gods whatsoever.

 

[Desert Snake]

a.There is a deity(deities)
b.There isn't a deity(deities
c.I don't know if there are deity (deities)
I don't really see the need for other specifications, this is all related to belief, these are all opinions. The "know" part is irrelevant it would seem, weak atheism is...agnosticism, as far as I can tell.

 

[Falvlun]

And there is not a thing wrong having a word that can be used in multiple senses. Take the word religious, for instance. There is a very broad almost metaphorical sense of the world that I will demonstrate for you: My mom is religious about brushing her teeth. Does that cause strange implications for you? Don't you know exactly what is meant in context? Would you be tempted to list teeth brushing as a religion now?

No. You seem to be under the mistaken idea that I don't understand that many words have more than one sense.

The two senses none-the-less overlap to a degree.

Ok. Not a big deal to me.

But, I can find strange what you perceive as a strange implication.

Sure.

You know what I think the strangest implication of the "lack of" definition?

That someone who has come to a considered position that they don't believe that gods exist can describe that position in the exact same way that they describe a baby's: That both have the same lack of belief. Doesn't that strike you as odd, and ultimately misleading, if not down-right untrue?

Not completely, but to ignore the construction altogether is a mistake. Don't you think practicality and consistency make our whole communication system better and easier to learn, remember, and comprehend?

I don't ignore the construction completely for a narrower sense of the word.

I also support a narrower sense of the word precisely because it makes communication much more comprehensible.

 

[Falvlun]

a.There is a deity(deities)
b.There isn't a deity(deities
c.I don't know if there are deity (deities)
I don't really see the need for other specifications, this is all related to belief, these are all opinions. The "know" part is irrelevant it would seem, weak atheism is...agnosticism, as far as I can tell.

I can get on that boat. :yes:

 

[Willamena]

They share the core fact that god belief is absent. And, they share this core with a third person who has never phathomed the concept of a god and thus has no particular self-label regarding gods whatsoever.

That would be incorrect. The "fact" that god belief is absent describes neither. And for the record, the "third" you describe is the second.

 

[Uberpod]

That would be incorrect. The "fact" that god belief is absent describes neither.

You might have to say more for that to make sense - but I fear that won't even help.

And for the record, the "third" you describe is the second.

The second is a self-acknowledged agnostic atheist; the third doesn't know what they don't believe (nor do they need to) and thus can only be labeled as such by an observer who is aware that god belief is even a thing.

 

[Willamena]

You might have to say more for that to make sense - but I fear that won't even help.

Okay. Won't bother, then.

The second is a self-acknowledged agnostic atheist; the third doesn't know what they don't believe (nor do they need to) and thus can only be labeled as such by an observer who is aware that god belief is even a thing.

The agnostic would say either, "I don't know," or, "I know the way in which God is unknowable."

The second claim above was the person who has never heard of god/gods/God/deity--ignorance is the means of having no capacity to believe. God is effectively a non-entity for this person, so there is no opportunity for the belief about God to be "absent" of this person. To put it another way, god-belief is just as absent as "____"-belief, which of course is nonsense.

In any case, "God-belief is absent of me" was neither's claim.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

What was Gautama?
Theist, Atheist or Agnostic?
Does God Exist? a story from Buddha's life

It is "YOU' who has to decide, today one knows not if God is there or not but when you know that you are part of IT then also you will like Buddha will be repeating the story!

Love & rgds

 

[Uberpod]

Okay. Won't bother, then.

I did not peg you as someone who gives up easily.

The agnostic would say either, "I don't know," or, "I know the way in which God is unknowable."

The second claim above was the person who has never heard of god/gods/God/deity--ignorance is the means of having no capacity to believe. God is effectively a non-entity for this person, so there is no opportunity for the belief about God to be "absent" of this person. To put it another way, god-belief is just as absent as "____"-belief, which of course is nonsense.

In any case, "God-belief is absent of me" was neither's claim.

The third kind makes no claim about god whatsoever. Among his philosophical beliefs, a supreme being is simply not present. He cannot say "I have no capacity to believe in god" because he is unaware of the concept of god. The second kind gets the concept, knows others hold it, but does not believe it is possible to adequately espouse the position given the type of evidence needed etc. Claim of no God belief is not what they all have in common, rather actually having no god belief is. :yes: