Atheist vs. agnostic vs. agnostic atheist

[Colanth]

I think this is the case.

A theist is someone that has an active belief (hold the propositions to be true) that a god or gods exist.

If someone does not have the belief that a god or gods exist, whether they phrase it as "I don't know", "I'm still processing", they are still in the psychological state of not having having the belief that a god exists.

I don't think that description is really an adequate one, because many things meet the criteria of lacking a belief. For example, by your literal description, my beagle is an atheist. So is his blankie.

Yes, and? The usual phrase is "a chair is a trivial atheist" - because "atheism" is "lacking any belief in any god or gods". It doesn't require the ability to believe.

So is a lifelong confirmed Christian who is currently asleep or in a coma.

Only in BennyWorld.

There's an unspoken assumption: that one has a mechanism which COULD form positive ideas about the existence of God.

If you're human, yes. If you're a chair, no. But that's not a requirement of lacking belief.

But now you're up against philosophical issues with free will, determinism, etc.

Not as far as whether any particular entity has or lacks a belief in any god.

To avoid calling beagles atheists

But they are - they have no belief in any gods as far as we can ascertain.

, I think it's more sensible to consider questions in both forms: "Do you believe God exists? Do you believe God does not exist?"

A positive belief that the Christian god (that's the one you named) doesn't exist isn't a requirement of atheism. Neither is the ability to believe in gods.

If you lack BOTH of those beliefs, or if you accept BOTH as plausible candidates for reality, agnostic is a better term.

Agnosticism has nothing at all to do with beliefs - it's not making positive statements for which you have no evidence. (And I'm not agnostic about that, I have actual evidence that that's what agnosticism is.)

You have a model in your mind of a human being as a singular entity, capable of having only one answer to a yes/no question.

Atheism is concerned with only a 'yes' question - "do you believe in any god?" If the answer is 'no', you lack belief. You are "without belief in gods" - a-theistic.

Baby diapers are ALSO atheists, by your criteria.

And by the definition of the word.

Therefore, I do not think those criteria are adequate, because talking about the lack of religious belief of diapers isn't a very useful conversation.

Neither is talking about the inability of computers to think. Yet both are completely true.

I do agree, however, that there was nothing useful about your posing the original question. Both here and on atheistforums.com, back when you were told the same things you've been told here.

[bennyboy]

So is a lifelong confirmed Christian who is currently asleep or in a coma.

Only in BennyWorld.

If by BennyWorld, which you seem to intend as derogatory, you mean "a world in which people in a coma cannot formulate or be known to hold beliefs" then yes. But there's no reason to relabel the actual world by saying it's mine.

Agnosticism has nothing at all to do with beliefs - it's not making positive statements for which you have no evidence. (And I'm not agnostic about that, I have actual evidence that that's what agnosticism is.)

Agnosticism is a position of not-knowing. The other things you're saying are individuals' refinements of the idea, but are not required. For example, I believe there are things which human beings can never, ever, know, because of our limitations. Obviously, I cannot prove this, and yet I'm pretty comfortable asserting it.

Atheism is concerned with only a 'yes' question - "do you believe in any god?" If the answer is 'no', you lack belief. You are "without belief in gods" - a-theistic.

Sorry, but your etymology is incomplete. As you know, there are two ways the word parts are compounded, known as soft and hard atheism: (a) + (theos + ism) and (a + theos) + ism. Tyson is addressing this, and saying talking about the lack of beliefs is pointless. I happen to know that you are aware there are two viable definitions-- you just choose to campaign against one of them.

By the way, in what central atheist doctrine is it outlined that atheism is "only about" what you want it to be about? There are many people who believe God/gods do not and cannot exist, and are not interested in comparing themselves to beagles and baby diapers or all the other things in the universe which are unable to formulate beliefs about things. I think what you want to say is that "lacking a belief in God/gods is SUFFICIENT to say that something is atheist." And with this, I'll agree. However, since I don't think that kind of atheism really means anything, I still prefer the term "agnostic."

Therefore, I do not think those criteria are adequate, because talking about the lack of religious belief of diapers isn't a very useful conversation.

Neither is talking about the inability of computers to think. Yet both are completely true.

It's true also that diapers and computers are a-unicornist. However, it's not worth mentioning. There aren't websites and forums about it. People don't rally around the word, or use derogatory language about it. They don't spend page after page of text discussing it. Maybe part of the problem is that I don't come from a background where religious groups are particularly intrusive or annoying. So I understand the motivation to look at the issue in a certain way-- however, I don't think imposing that view on others to whom it doesn't appeal is good. To me, a refusal to accept my assertion that I'm not atheist, but agnostic, represents a level of intellectual oppression-- I'm clearly stating my beliefs and reasons for them, but am being drawn into a group with which I don't fully identify.

[whatever76]

I think that agnosticism is "soft atheism", meaning the person doubts the existence of God, whereas "hard atheism" is the claim that there is no God. There are people who go to church every Sunday who are agnostic. If we were all being honest, I think that most people in modern society are agnostics. It is increasingly difficult to be a true believer and live in a secular culture. What defines someone as atheist, I think, is someone who argues that all religion is detrimental to individuals and society because of its irrational basis. Whatever benefits we get from belief can be obtained without the nasty side-effects.

[meak]

whatever76 that's a good point. I also think it's almost impossible not to have a single doubt about religion in this day and age. People with doubt do not have faith and therefore must be agnostic right?

[Simon Moon]

I think that agnosticism is "soft atheism", meaning the person doubts the existence of God, whereas "hard atheism" is the claim that there is no God.

Agnosticism is the position that the existence of a god us unknown, and most likely unknowable.

Agnosticism only concerns what can be known or knowable. It does not concern what ones beliefs are.

Atheism and agnosticism are answers to different questions.

There are people who go to church every Sunday who are agnostic. If we were all being honest, I think that most people in modern society are agnostics. It is increasingly difficult to be a true believer and live in a secular culture.

It is true that agnostic atheism is a legitimate position to hold, but I don't think it is as prevalent as you believe.

What defines someone as atheist, I think, is someone who argues that all religion is detrimental to individuals and society because of its irrational basis. Whatever benefits we get from belief can be obtained without the nasty side-effects.

What defines someone as an atheist is whether or not they hold the proposition that a god or gods exists to be true. Full stop.

I have several friends that are atheists that don't debate at all.

What you are describing is an anti-theist.

[Terr]

What defines someone as an atheist is whether or not they hold the proposition that a god or gods exists to be true. Full stop.

I have several friends that are atheists that don't debate at all.

What you are describing is an anti-theist.

Well said. This view of atheists always rubs me up the wrong way. My dogs are atheists btw.

[whatever76]

Agnosticism is the position that the existence of a god us unknown, and most likely unknowable.

Agnosticism only concerns what can be known or knowable. It does not concern what ones beliefs are.

Atheism and agnosticism are answers to different questions.

So what you are saying is that agnosticism is answering the question of whether the existence of God can be known, whereas atheism is answering the question of whether one believes that God exists, with or without knowledge?

I appreciate your clarification, but I think they are answering the same question: Does God exist?


Atheist: No.
Theist: Yes.
Agnostic: I don't know.

We could get into degrees of atheism/agnosticism/theism, in which case everyone is an agnostic and the stance one takes is a response to a lack of knowing.

There are people who go to church every Sunday who are agnostic. If we were all being honest, I think that most people in modern society are agnostics. It is increasingly difficult to be a true believer and live in a secular culture.

It is true that agnostic atheism is a legitimate position to hold, but I don't think it is as prevalent as you believe.

It is purely a matter of opinion, but I think that most people doubt the existence of God. I draw that speculation because faith is something that has to be maintained and since justification is necessary, it means the person doesn't know if it is true. They are doubtful by default.

What defines someone as atheist, I think, is someone who argues that all religion is detrimental to individuals and society because of its irrational basis. Whatever benefits we get from belief can be obtained without the nasty side-effects.

What defines someone as an atheist is whether or not they hold the proposition that a god or gods exists to be true. Full stop.

I have several friends that are atheists that don't debate at all.

What you are describing is an anti-theist.
[/quote]

I agree with you. With your friends who do not engage in debates, in what context would they have to define themselves as atheists? My point would be that the label only matters when one is considering God's existence in the first place. Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, et al. would all be anti-theist by your definition, but in normal parlance they are just atheists.

[whatever76]

whatever76 that's a good point. I also think it's almost impossible not to have a single doubt about religion in this day and age. People with doubt do not have faith and therefore must be agnostic right?

I think so. When you get down to it, none of us knows whether there is a god or an afterlife. An atheist is someone who is just being honest, who begins with the premise of not-knowing.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I think muddying the water by saying inanimate objects hold a position (eg atheism) is rather odd.

I mean, a rock could be a theist, whose to say?

I think it's quite easy to bracket out inanimate objects when it comes to defining an atheist as some who lacks a belief in deities, as I describe myself.

[downbeatplumb]

Computers have no ability to believe, not do they think at all.

You are forgetting the electric monk.

“The Electric Monk was a labour-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder... Electric Monks believed things for you, thus saving you what was becoming an increasingly onerous task, that of believing all the things the world expected you to believe.”

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/150267-t...dishwasher