If you were an Atheist..

[OGEvilgenius]

Your assumption seems to be that atheist make the claim that god does not exist. That assumption is wrong. All that is required to be atheist is to be a non-theist. I am not able to stand up and prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist, yet at the same time I do not believe he does. No claim needs to be made to be atheist, you only need to doubt the claim of the theist.

I realize atheists have tried to hijack agnostic beliefs to make their own seem more legitimate. I don't buy your definition, as it only came about recently and is not a definition I will ever accept. You're agnostic or you're atheist. Agnostic is what I would call the definition of lack of religion. Atheism is just another religion.

Here's the definition from the dictionary though:
[h=2]a·the·ism[/h] [ey-thee-iz-uh m]

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


2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.





No, I don't think I'm confused at all. I do think atheists have attempted to hijack agnostic beliefs to make their own seem more legitimate though. No doubt about that.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

What are some good reasons for pro-belief?

How about the fact that we, as humans, have created entire worlds where we are indeed Gods?

 

[OGEvilgenius]

I've read a few of them. You want to shift the definition to make your position seem more reasonable. I don't think that's fair play.
Nontheism is a real word (but it's probably exceedingly uncommon for someone to fall into this one). So is atheism.

But you just attached a bunch of other words that have specific definitions to atheism in an attempt to make atheism seem less faith based IMO. So, believe whatever you want, shift definitions and create new ones all you want. That's your play. But it doesn't really make your argument seem more convincing to me or anyone else except possibly those who want to agree with you (but they have some built in bias).

When it comes to academic terms, I don't appreciate definitions being shifted. It reeks of something dishonest when discussing such philosophical subjects. It's one thing to shift a definition in science - usually there's a reason. There is no reason here.

 

[Heisenberg]

I realize atheists have tried to hijack agnostic beliefs to make their own seem more legitimate. I don't buy your definition, as it only came about recently and is not a definition I will ever accept. You're agnostic or you're atheist. Agnostic is what I would call the definition of lack of religion. Atheism is just another religion.

Here's the definition from the dictionary though:
a·the·ism

[ey-thee-iz-uh m]

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


2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.





No, I don't think I'm confused at all. I do think atheists have attempted to hijack agnostic beliefs to make their own seem more legitimate though. No doubt about that.

Agnosticism asks a different question, can we know god. If the answer is yes, you are free to be a theist. If the answer is no, or I don't know, then you are free to be atheist. If you are unsure of the existence of a god, then which god could you possibly believe in? Belief is required to be a theist. As your definition states clearly, atheism is disbelief. Anything that isn't theism is non-theism. I'm not twisting anything, nor is this a new concept. Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term agnostic in 1869 and it has meant the same thing ever since. Walk into any philosophy classroom since then and you'll hear the same. You are free to observe a different definition if you wish, but it is you who are then twisting things to suit your argument. You would be arguing against a strawman. Putting words into our mouths that are easy to counter rather than concentrating on the words we actually say.

An atheist is free to go on to make the claim of no god, but that is done in addition to and beyond atheism. No atheist here is claiming to know that a creator is impossible. We simply observe that the God of Abraham has the same empirical status as Poseidon and that the books attesting to his existence bear every sign of having been cobbled together by ignorant mortals. This is all anyone needs to judge Judaism, Christianity, and Islam to be incorrigible cults peddling ancient mythology, and that judgment is all that is required to be labeled an atheist by those cults.

"In fact, 'atheism' is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a “non-astrologer” or a “non-alchemist.” We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs." -Sam Harris

 

[Zaehet Strife]

Agnosticism asks a different question, can we know god. If the answer is yes, you are free to be a theist. If the answer is no, or I don't know, then you are atheist by default. If you are unsure of the existence of a god, then which god could you possibly believe in? Belief is required to be a theist. As you definition states clearly, atheism is disbelief. Anything that isn't theism is non-theism. I'm not twisting anything, nor is this a new concept. Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term agnostic in 1869 and it has meant the same thing ever since. Walk into any philosophy classroom since then and you'll hear the same. You are free to observe a different definition if you wish, but it is you who are then twisting things to suit your argument. You would be arguing against a strawman. Putting words into our mouths that are easy to counter rather than concentrating on the words we actually say.

An atheist is free to go on to make the claim of no god, but that is done in addition to and beyond atheism. No atheist here is claiming to know that a creator is impossible. We simply observe that the God of Abraham has the same empirical status as Poseidon and that the books attesting to His existence bear every sign of having been cobbled together by ignorant mortals. This is all anyone needs to judge Judaism, Christianity, and Islam to be incorrigible cults peddling ancient mythology, and that judgment is all that is required to be labeled an atheist by those cults.

"In fact, 'atheism' is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a “non-astrologer” or a “non-alchemist.” We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs." -Sam Harris

Well said Heis. Impressive.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

Agnosticism asks a different question, can we know god. If the answer is yes, you are free to be a theist. If the answer is no, or I don't know, then you are atheist by default. If you are unsure of the existence of a god, then which god could you possibly believe in? Belief is required to be a theist. As your definition states clearly, atheism is disbelief. Anything that isn't theism is non-theism. I'm not twisting anything, nor is this a new concept. Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term agnostic in 1869 and it has meant the same thing ever since. Walk into any philosophy classroom since then and you'll hear the same. You are free to observe a different definition if you wish, but it is you who are then twisting things to suit your argument. You would be arguing against a strawman. Putting words into our mouths that are easy to counter rather than concentrating on the words we actually say.

An atheist is free to go on to make the claim of no god, but that is done in addition to and beyond atheism. No atheist here is claiming to know that a creator is impossible. We simply observe that the God of Abraham has the same empirical status as Poseidon and that the books attesting to his existence bear every sign of having been cobbled together by ignorant mortals. This is all anyone needs to judge Judaism, Christianity, and Islam to be incorrigible cults peddling ancient mythology, and that judgment is all that is required to be labeled an atheist by those cults.

"In fact, 'atheism' is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a “non-astrologer” or a “non-alchemist.” We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs." -Sam Harris

Agnostics suggest we can't possibly know either way. They are fence sitters but they are not atheists. This co opting of terms happens constantly.

Atheists suggest there is no higher power. They have a position.

Theists suggest there is a higher power. They have a position.

Nontheists haven't even considered the question so they are also fence sitters.

Again, ag·nos·tic (

g-n

s

t

k)n.1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

So, I use the definitions as intended and I'm not shifting anything. You're just attempting to co opt agnostics (because they actually probably have the most reasonable position) into your personal definition. That's how I see it.



You will notice how there is a definite distinction.

The Sam Harris quote doesn't support anything, but it does illustrate his bias (the very same one you have).

 

[cannabineer]

what if she didnt like seal blubber, or had some weird beliefs about the personhood of caribou?

I'd know on the first=last date ... cn

 

[cannabineer]

Agnostics suggest we can't possibly know either way. They are fence sitters but they are not atheists. This co opting of terms happens constantly.

Atheists suggest there is no higher power. They have a position.

Theists suggest there is a higher power. They have a position.

Nontheists haven't even considered the question so they are also fence sitters.

Again, ag·nos·tic (

g-n

s

t

k)n.1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

So, I use the definitions as intended and I'm not shifting anything. You're just attempting to co opt agnostics (because they actually probably have the most reasonable position) into your personal definition. That's how I see it.



You will notice how there is a definite distinction.

The Sam Harris quote doesn't support anything, but it does illustrate his bias (the very same one you have).

The question I have is: is a dictionary definition a guarantee of intent, or an admission of semantic drift?

I ran headfirst into this during my first days in this forum. I had accepted the common definition of agnostic as "unsure". However I see value in reserving that for those who think the question is unanswerable. I now describe myself as a soft atheist, as I use the term "hard atheist" for the positivists.

Also a Recursive Agnostic, since I don't know if God is knowable or not. cn

 

[Heisenberg]

Agnostics suggest we can't possibly know either way. They are fence sitters but they are not atheists. This co opting of terms happens constantly.

Atheists suggest there is no higher power. They have a position.

Theists suggest there is a higher power. They have a position.

Nontheists haven't even considered the question so they are also fence sitters.

Again, ag·nos·tic (

g-n

s

t

k)n.1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

So, I use the definitions as intended and I'm not shifting anything. You're just attempting to co opt agnostics (because they actually probably have the most reasonable position) into your personal definition. That's how I see it.



You will notice how there is a definite distinction.

The Sam Harris quote doesn't support anything, but it does illustrate his bias (the very same one you have).

True atheism is a strawman. What would false atheism be? Huxley was very clear what he meant by agnosticism, it is a question of knowledge, of comprehension. Can we know God? That's it. Atheism is an answer to a different question, do you believe in God. You apparently have a problem with nuance. Do you understand the difference between judging someone innocent or not guilty?

Just as agnosticism has meant the same thing for a very long time, so has atheism. Charles Bradlaugh wrote in 1876:
"Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God. The atheist does not say that there is no God, but he says 'I know not what you mean by God. I am without the idea of God. The word God to me is a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception, and the conception of which by its affirmer is so imperfect that he is unable to define it for me."

Annie Besant wrote in her 1877 book The Gospel of Atheism:

"The position of the atheist is a clear and reasonable one. I know nothing about God and therefore I do not believe in Him or it. What you tell me about your God is self-contradictory and is therefore incredible. I do not deny 'God,' which is an unknown tongue to me. I do deny your God, who is an impossibility. I am without God."

Even before that, Paul Henri Holbach, and atheist of the late 1700's wrote "All children are atheists, they have no idea of God".

As you can see atheism was defined to mean absence of belief long before the word agnosticism was even invented. So the charge that broadly defined atheism is an attempt by new age atheists to co-opt agnosticism is not only false, it shows a misunderstanding of theism, agnosticism and the nature of belief itself. To define atheism as the claim of no god is to define it in the most limited and narrow frame possible, which makes it easy for people like you to scorn, when in reality only a tiny subset of atheists actually make this claim.

"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy — you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire? The atheism part is easy." - Penn Jillette

 

[Silicity]

seal/whale blubber is the most disgusting shit ive ever eaten and its the only thing ill never eat again and i will eat anything once LITERALLY.

also i wouldnt date anyone who believes in religion because they are most likely simple or closed minded hardcore, or their family is closed minded and somewhere theres a religious nutbag in the family. also seems like these types of people are easily manipulated and tend to be more social towards other religious people and in turn its just going to cause problems with friends,family, and the significant other.

 

[mindphuk]

Agnostics suggest we can't possibly know either way. They are fence sitters but they are not atheists. This co opting of terms happens constantly.

Atheists suggest there is no higher power. They have a position.

Theists suggest there is a higher power. They have a position.

You are wrong. You really should listen to Heis and others when they explain this. Just look at the roots of the words. A-theism= without theism. Someone is either a theist, i.e. they believe that one or more deities actually exist, or they don't, and therefore are not theists. What other word do you have for someone that is not a theist, that doesn't have a positive belief?

Agnosticism is a completely different ontological question, one of knowledge, not existence. The root of the word, gnosis, means knowledge. The gnostics were given that moniker because they supposedly had hidden knowledge about god.

It has only been in modern times that people have used the term agnosticism to imply a fence sitter with regard to belief in the existence of gods. Agnosticism is only about one question, whether or not one can know something and only applies to the god question in context.

 

[Zaehet Strife]

I wonder what dude has against people who don't believe in god and/or are unsure of it's existence?

I don't care whatever anyone believes, the problem arises when you claim your beliefs are certainly true when anyone with a basic understanding of reality knows that is a lie. It would be nice to see people treat their supernatural beliefs for what they are, ideas we would like to think are true, but can understand that we don't know for certain if they are.

I don't see that happening any time soon.

It's funny too though, when you think about it. It's the exact opposite for those of us who don't believe. Many theists will say "I don't care what you believe, just as long as you don't tell me my beliefs may not be true"

It's like man, everyone on the planet would all get along so much better if we could overcome our fear of ignorance and accept the fact that there are some things in life that we don't know... and it's ok to not know.

 

[dashcues]

^ Good point Z^
Buddhistic Atheist? or..Atheistic Buddhist?

 

[OGEvilgenius]

The problem with lumping in agnostics with atheists is that you presume all agnostics are atheists.

They are not. Hence, you are wrong.

Anyway, I don't like arguing definitions. Especially well established ones.

You can cease and desist with your attempt to hijack a term that doesn't belong to atheists or theists exclusively now.

 

[Heisenberg]

The problem with lumping in agnostics with atheists is that you presume all agnostics are atheists.

Who is lumping the groups? Were actually being careful with the terms and using them as they were intended, and in a way that is consistent with how they have been taught in philosophy classes. Again, you seem to have a problem with nuance.

We have shown the root meaning of the words.

Theism - Belief in a deity(s) (the·ism n. Belief in the existence of a god or gods)

Atheism - Without belief in a deity

Gnostic - with knowledge (Gnos·tic adj. Of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge.)

Agnostic -without knowledge

a-, (Greek: prefix; no, absence of, without, lack of; not)

We have also shown that atheism was defined to mean without belief long before the term agnosticism was invented, making it impossible for atheism to hijack the meaning.

In response to this you choose to double down on ignorance and support it with this line:

They are not. Hence, you are wrong.

Because agnosticism pertains to knowledge, while atheism pertains to belief, they are not mutually exclusive. Beliefs are a spectrum. There is nothing stopping someone from saying "I have absolutely no way to prove God, yet I have no doubt in my heart that he exists". This is an agnostic theist. You can be without knowledge and still be with belief, thanks to faith. If you think you can know god and in fact do because of the bible or because of miracles, you are a gnostic theist. You have knowledge and belief. Likewise you can be with knowledge and not with belief, a gnostic atheist, which is a position I have never seen anyone take, but is possible according to the mechanics of the terms. An atheist who claims to know that there is no god is making a leap of faith as well. The most common type of atheist is an agnostic atheist, one who says 'I have no knowledge of God, therefore I have no belief of God'.

Anyway, I don't like arguing definitions. Especially well established ones.

There is no arguing definitions of precise terms, which is why you have been unable to provide any support for your use of atheism as exclusively meaning a positive claim. Indeed, you seem quite happy to perpetuate your misunderstanding, perhaps because it puts you in the position to make comments such as:

You can cease and desist with your attempt to hijack a term that doesn't belong to atheists or theists exclusively now.

Which incorporates yet another strawman. None one here has said agnosticism 'belongs' to any group. You are free to go argue against those immature and bitter people who claim to be able to prove God isn't real, but you'll have to do it somewhere else, no one has made that claim here in the 3 years i've been part of the community.

 

[mindphuk]

The problem with lumping in agnostics with atheists is that you presume all agnostics are atheists.

They are not. Hence, you are wrong.

Anyway, I don't like arguing definitions. Especially well established ones.

You can cease and desist with your attempt to hijack a term that doesn't belong to atheists or theists exclusively now.

Even your own definition you provided says that you are wrong.
" One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God."
This is something that can be attributed to either a theist or an atheist. Even on this subforum, theists have admitted that there is no way to prove the existence of god, i.e. no way to KNOW for sure, yet they rely on faith, not knowledge.
Huxley said, “Agnosticism simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that for which he has no grounds for professing to believe”
Huxley himself was what we today would call an atheist wrt belief. He coined agnosticism as a methodology to examine whether a belief was rational or not.
"Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively, the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can take you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend that matters are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

Continuing to pretend that the term has been hijacked and that our explanations are wrong seem only to serve the purpose to allow you to point fingers and claim atheism is a religion unto itself. If the source material of the person that coined the term doesn't convince you, then I'm not surprised you don't like arguing definitions, because you want to apply your personal bias to them rather than do the proper thing and find common ground by first agreeing on a definition before proceeding with any debate or argument.

Since we are on definitions, what is your definition of god? There is no way to say whether a god exists or not if we don't have a definition of it. Many people and cultures define god differently, so I would be interested in knowing what yours is.

 

[olylifter420]

Carl sagan has or had issues. He seems so bitter and rot on the inside like he was molested by a priest or something. Jus sayin.

mp, how you been man? Hopefully you doing alright man now that the semester is over.

i got a quick question, do yo profess your beliefs as well where you work?

 

[OGEvilgenius]

I feel like we're talking past each other.

My issue here is the complete disrespect shown by those who choose to have one belief that goes against the belief of another. It seems a common theme.

Atheist, Theist and Agnostic are all completely separate terms, on that we seem to agree.

"Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively, the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can take you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend that matters are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable."


This quote is useful for his purposes, but not really true. Even things you can demonstrate - that doesn't mean you understand or can consistently repeat. So you take everything on some degree of faith. The world is based on faith. If we had no faith we wouldn't get very far. Where we choose to place that faith is entirely personal preference. Most people can't honestly prove most of the things they choose to believe in. But they believe anyway. Whether it's in God or a complete disbelief in God, it's a belief. And beliefs I classify as religious.

I guess my larger point is that we are all quite deeply religious in our own ways. It's easy to listen to one's ego and think they are above someone else or even significantly different, lord knows we're all guilty.

I find it interesting that people who identify themselves as atheist often fear this piece of reality.

 

[tyler.durden]

The question I have is: is a dictionary definition a guarantee of intent, or an admission of semantic drift?

I ran headfirst into this during my first days in this forum. I had accepted the common definition of agnostic as "unsure". However I see value in reserving that for those who think the question is unanswerable. I now describe myself as a soft atheist, as I use the term "hard atheist" for the positivists.

Also a Recursive Agnostic, since I don't know if God is knowable or not. cn

Nowadays the transformation from soft to hard atheist is as easy as dropping a little blue pill

 

[mindphuk]

I feel like we're talking past each other.

My issue here is the complete disrespect shown by those who choose to have one belief that goes against the belief of another. It seems a common theme.

Atheist, Theist and Agnostic are all completely separate terms, on that we seem to agree.

"Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively, the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can take you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend that matters are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable."


This quote is useful for his purposes, but not really true. Even things you can demonstrate - that doesn't mean you understand or can consistently repeat. So you take everything on some degree of faith. The world is based on faith. If we had no faith we wouldn't get very far. Where we choose to place that faith is entirely personal preference. Most people can't honestly prove most of the things they choose to believe in. But they believe anyway. Whether it's in God or a complete disbelief in God, it's a belief. And beliefs I classify as religious.

I guess my larger point is that we are all quite deeply religious in our own ways. It's easy to listen to one's ego and think they are above someone else or even significantly different, lord knows we're all guilty.

I find it interesting that people who identify themselves as atheist often fear this piece of reality.

So now the person that actually coined the term agnosticism is wrong...

Now you are equivocating on the word 'faith.' If you stick to one definition of faith, belief in something for which there is no evidence, then I don't have faith and the world is NOT run on faith. So now disbelief is a belief? Care to butcher the English language some more in order to support your position? If I told you there was a planet that was entirely made of diamond, would you automatically believe me? If not what do you call your position of not believing until you gained more information? Is your lack of belief in something weird a belief in and of itself, or is it merely that you hold a position you won't accept something as true, i.e. believe it, until you have sufficient reason to? If you can understand that, then you can understand the atheist position. It's the reason a defendant is judged either guilty or not guilty. Not guilty verdict does not mean that the person is innocent, it only means that the jury was not sufficiently convinced by the argument presented by the prosecution.


BTW, here's the information on 55 Cancri e, the diamond planet. http://www.space.com/18011-super-earth-planet-diamond-world.html