Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Whateverist]

Why is us calling ourselves agnostics rather than atheists more important to you than the positions we actually hold?

That question doesn't make sense to me.

There are at least two possible reasons for this. Keep trying.

[Esquilax]

What he is asking is why are you so hung on the label, instead of addressing the actual position.

This exactly: okay, under the definitions you want to use, I'm an agnostic. Have we gotten even a single step further toward confirming the existence of a god? No. We've just wasted time talking about language, where it doesn't make sense to.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

That question doesn't make sense to me.

Isn't the position you actually hold in line with agnosticism rather than atheism?

"Do you believe in God?"

I don't know - Agnostic

No - Atheist

I believe he doesn't exist - 'hard' atheist

I'm just throwing this out there, not necessarily saying whether it's accurate or not. Also should note that even a 'hard' atheist can be agnostic about it. Maybe negative atheism is for those who are roughly between 5.5 and 6.5 on the Dawkin's scale. Again, just speculation here.

This is a terrible criteria of definition because "believe in" can be so vague and has been interpreted in so many different ways.

The question ought to be "Does God exist?"
Theist: Yes
Agnostic: I don't know
Atheist: No

"Do you 'believe in' God?"
Practicing theists: Yes
Non practicing theists: Depends
Agnostics, atheists, otherwise irreligious: No

Here I'm taking that "believe in" means something different from "believe in the existence of."

[Ben Davis]

This is a terrible criteria of definition because "believe in" can be so vague and has been interpreted in so many different ways.

The question ought to be "Does God exist?"
Theist: Yes
Agnostic: I don't know
Atheist: No

Yet again, you're conflating knowledge & belief! This question is clearly about knowledge. Answers should be framed thus:

Gnostic: Yes
Agnostic: I don't know
Gnostic: No

"Do you 'believe in' God?"
Practicing theists: Yes
Non practicing theists: Depends
Agnostics, atheists, otherwise irreligious: No

Here I'm taking that "believe in" means something different from "believe in the existence of."

'Practice' is irrelevant. I can believe in something without having any forms of demonstration. And this still conflates knowledge & belief! Stop it! Answers should be framed thus:

Theists: Yes
Atheists: Any other response

It's very simple. Your willful lack of acceptance is indicative of dishonesty.

[Esquilax]

Here's what I find amazing: in his pursuit of getting rid of terms he finds "vague," Vinny is opting to ignore the definitions we use, which lead to greater specificity. It's gotten to a point where his need to be winning the argument has led to him fighting against his own position.

[houseofcantor]

Here I'm taking that "believe in" means something different from "believe in the existence of."

That's overthinking it. What you allude to reads like deism to me. Personally, my atheism depends on your theism; a theist can call me any kind of atheist.

But the people in the boxes should know the boxes better than those outside. Know what's outside my box?

Agnosticism. There is no instance where the statements "god is unknowable and/or my knowledge is incomplete" are not true; making agnosticism trivial. Yet if some Aggie wanna start shit, I'll listen to it.

[Darkstar]

The question ought to be "Does God exist?"
Theist: Yes
Agnostic: I don't know
Atheist: No

"Do you 'believe in' God?"
Practicing theists: Yes
Non practicing theists: Depends
Agnostics, atheists, otherwise irreligious: No

Here I'm taking that "believe in" means something different from "believe in the existence of."

This looks reasonable, but it only includes absolute positions. What if for "Does God exist" you say "I don't think so" or "I think so". Does this mean that if you are only 99% sure god exists, you are not really a theist? For either answer, you are still agnostic (because you say 'think' instead of 'know'), but you are also either defending or attacking the position that god exists. If you say "I have no clue", then I would say you're pure agnostic, even if you were technically atheistic.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

This is a terrible criteria of definition because "believe in" can be so vague and has been interpreted in so many different ways.

The question ought to be "Does God exist?"
Theist: Yes
Agnostic: I don't know
Atheist: No

Yet again, you're conflating knowledge & belief! This question is clearly about knowledge. Answers should be framed thus:

Gnostic: Yes
Agnostic: I don't know
Gnostic: No

"Do you 'believe in' God?"
Practicing theists: Yes
Non practicing theists: Depends
Agnostics, atheists, otherwise irreligious: No

Here I'm taking that "believe in" means something different from "believe in the existence of."

'Practice' is irrelevant. I can believe in something without having any forms of demonstration. And this still conflates knowledge & belief! Stop it! Answers should be framed thus:

Theists: Yes
Atheists: Any other response

It's very simple. Your willful lack of acceptance is indicative of dishonesty.

Where's the facepalm smilie?

Read this carefully: I'm not confusing knowledge and belief.

In line with the most widely held views in epistemology, I take knowledge to be merely a subcategory of belief, namely, knowledge is "justified, true belief". If a belief is thus both true and rationally warranted, it counts as knowledge.

Thus when you are asked "Does God exist?" It doesn't matter whether you say "I know God exists" or "I believe God exists". The difference is merely a question of epistemology. On the question of metaphysics, which is what the existence of God is actually about, either answer takes the same metaphysical view.

You seem to think atheism is about epistemology. But epistemology is just one component.

The way you guys are so keen to make stuff up I wouldn't be surprised if atheism develops a deity of it's own soon.

---

The question ought to be "Does God exist?"
Theist: Yes
Agnostic: I don't know
Atheist: No

"Do you 'believe in' God?"
Practicing theists: Yes
Non practicing theists: Depends
Agnostics, atheists, otherwise irreligious: No

Here I'm taking that "believe in" means something different from "believe in the existence of."

This looks reasonable, but it only includes absolute positions. What if for "Does God exist" you say "I don't think so" or "I think so". Does this mean that if you are only 99% sure god exists, you are not really a theist? For either answer, you are still agnostic (because you say 'think' instead of 'know'), but you are also either defending or attacking the position that god exists. If you say "I have no clue", then I would say you're pure agnostic, even if you were technically atheistic.

About 30 minutes ago someone on skype was grilling me about my views on the supernatural. She asked me "Do you believe in fortunetellers and psychics?" I remembered this thread and laughed.

I told her "I believe they exist, but not that their supernatural claims represent reality."

In the real world, belief in vs belief in the existence of are so different.

But as far as your question, I alluded to the issue in my response to Ben Davis, who seems just more interested in throwing a tantrum rather than thinking clearly.

From my epistemological perspective, knowledge = justified true belief. So whether you know something or merely believe it (what you call "think so"), I think it puts you in the same boat.

This is where the question of strong atheism vs weak atheism fits into the puzzle perfectly. Is your belief that God doesn't exist a justified true belief? Or is it merely a justified belief, but the question of truth or falsehood isn't sufficiently established?

Justification, btw, refers to whether you have rational reasons that support your belief. Wikipedia has a fairly in-depth article on it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justification ).

I realize you might think philosophy, theories of knowledge, etc are all bunk. A lot of atheists think science is the only valid field of study in the universe.

But on the off chance you see the value in epistemology, you'll see that from an epistemological perspective, my view has something going for it, even if it may not be perfect.

[Darkstar]

About 30 minutes ago someone on skype was grilling me about my views on the supernatural. She asked me "Do you believe in fortunetellers and psychics?" I remembered this thread and laughed.

I told her "I believe they exist, but not that their supernatural claims represent reality."

In the real world, belief in vs belief in the existence of are so different.

But, one could argue that fortuneteller and psychics do not exist, only people falsely claiming to be such.

From my epistemological perspective, knowledge = justified true belief. So whether you know something or merely believe it (what you call "think so"), I think it puts you in the same boat.

This is where the question of strong atheism vs weak atheism fits into the puzzle perfectly. Is your belief that God doesn't exist a justified true belief? Or is it merely a justified belief, but the question of truth or falsehood isn't sufficiently established?

For the question of god, I don't think that falsehood can ever be established, even in theory. As science advances, god is pushed farther and farther back. Unless humanity becomes omniscient, there will always be gaps for theists to hide him in.

I realize you might think philosophy, theories of knowledge, etc are all bunk. A lot of atheists think science is the only valid field of study in the universe.

I don't think philosophy is bunk, but I don't understand why some people think god is philosophical. God is an entity, not a mere philosophical concept; even if he is non-physical, his effects on the world are physical (supposing there are any) and they can (in theory, if he exists) be measured in some way.

But on the off chance you see the value in epistemology, you'll see that from an epistemological perspective, my view has something going for it, even if it may not be perfect.

To what view do you refer? (Also, I find epistemology extremely annoying. This may have less to do with epistemology itself than the fact that Jstrodel dropped this word frequently into fallacious arguments. If I'm lucky, he just happened to not know the second thing about it, and his usage doesn't reflect badly on the field itself.)

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

About 30 minutes ago someone on skype was grilling me about my views on the supernatural. She asked me "Do you believe in fortunetellers and psychics?" I remembered this thread and laughed.

I told her "I believe they exist, but not that their supernatural claims represent reality."

In the real world, belief in vs belief in the existence of are so different.

But, one could argue that fortuneteller and psychics do not exist, only people falsely claiming to be such.

From my epistemological perspective, knowledge = justified true belief. So whether you know something or merely believe it (what you call "think so"), I think it puts you in the same boat.

This is where the question of strong atheism vs weak atheism fits into the puzzle perfectly. Is your belief that God doesn't exist a justified true belief? Or is it merely a justified belief, but the question of truth or falsehood isn't sufficiently established?

For the question of god, I don't think that falsehood can ever be established, even in theory. As science advances, god is pushed farther and farther back. Unless humanity becomes omniscient, there will always be gaps for theists to hide him in.

I realize you might think philosophy, theories of knowledge, etc are all bunk. A lot of atheists think science is the only valid field of study in the universe.

I don't think philosophy is bunk, but I don't understand why some people think god is philosophical. God is an entity, not a mere philosophical concept; even if he is non-physical, his effects on the world are physical (supposing there are any) and they can (in theory, if he exists) be measured in some way.

But on the off chance you see the value in epistemology, you'll see that from an epistemological perspective, my view has something going for it, even if it may not be perfect.

To what view do you refer? (Also, I find epistemology extremely annoying. This may have less to do with epistemology itself than the fact that Jstrodel dropped this word frequently into fallacious arguments. If I'm lucky, he just happened to not know the second thing about it, and his usage doesn't reflect badly on the field itself.)

I have no idea who Jstrodel is. But I know that the question of beliefs, knowledge and their truth and falsehood is relevant to the definition of atheism.

Do you have a link to an important argument of his or something? I'm curious.