Agnostics

[Whateverist]

I don't really care what "god" means but I am interested in what it is which led people to believe in what are now referred to as "gods" nearly everywhere and for as long as we've been recognizably human. I'm also interested in what if any formative effect such belief may have played in our development.

Gods as ethereal subjects with thoughts and feelings who bring substantial things into existence seem absurd. In fact, that description of gods strikes me as a primitive attempt by humans to conceptualize what they don't recognize to be an aspect of their own experience. It is the capacity of people to experience themselves as being in a dynamic relationship to a deity which interests me, not how they conceptualize the experience after the fact when they are in their 'right mind'.

Modern religious experience seems to be almost solely involved with the conceptualization of gods, not the direct experience of interacting with them. Even the xtians who participate in speaking in tongues are interacting with what are conceptually held and doctrinally prescribed ways. It isn't what our neolithic forebears experienced, though maybe it taps into that. Don't know.

[Excited Penguin]

I would like nothing more than for a God to exist, in one sense, because that would mean anything could be possible...

[Angrboda]

We know enough about the definition of the word god to intuitively know that such definitions are playing fast and loose.  We have to know what something is to know what it is not.  It's this kernel of belief about the 'real' meaning of the word which seems to give the lie to benny's ignosticism/agnosticism.

The definition of God depends on the purpose for holding it.  If you care about cosmogony, God will be whatever created the Universe.  if you care about family, God may be Sky Daddy.  If you care about what it means to be human, God might be a kind of archetypal Man.  If you're a bad parent, God may be the the threat of hell or an excuse for the rod.  If you're me, and you are most interested in mind and the nature of experience, God might be the sum total of a pan-psychic universe.  A jealous God idea, like the Christian one, will try to be all these things, with great hilarity to ensue.

But can we find the common element among these?

Congratulations. You found a common thread linking all these ancillary descriptions together. And I'll bet you didn't have to do any research; you just spun them out of the general meaning of the word 'god' as delivered up by your subconscious. Your very protest simply underscores my point. You didn't have to do any work linking these together because they were already linked in your mind. You may not be able to clearly elucidate the common elements that brought this list together, but that's not the same thing as not having a meaning in mind.

 How would we here define God, you and me?

I'm not a fan of private languages. Instead, why don't you go to a university philosophy department and try to persuade the professors that because there are differing definitions for philosophy that you don't know whether you believe philosophy does or doesn't exist. You see, pointing out divergent ancillary usages of a word does nothing to undermine the point that there is a common, often unspoken, core to the meaning of a word. We can argue about how cat, or chair, or milk, might be defined by an obstructionist, but these words have a common usage which underscores their usefulness as words. Just as philosophy and god may not have exacting definitions, they both have a common core which is, albeit sometimes vaguely, understood by your average English speaker. Your arguing that the word can have different subsidiary meanings does not eliminate the point that they have common meanings as well.

[bennyboy]

Congratulations.  You found a common thread linking all these ancillary descriptions together.  And I'll bet you didn't have to do any research; you just spun them out of the general meaning of the word 'god' as delivered up by your subconscious.  Your very protest simply underscores my point.  You didn't have to do any work linking these together because they were already linked in your mind.  You may not be able to clearly elucidate the common elements that brought this list together, but that's not the same thing as not having a meaning in mind.

Yep. A bag of puppies is not God. Fair enough.

 How would we here define God, you and me?

I'm not a fan of private languages.  Instead, why don't you go to a university philosophy department and try to persuade the professors that because there are differing definitions for philosophy that you don't know whether you believe philosophy does or doesn't exist.  You see, pointing out divergent ancillary usages of a word does nothing to undermine the point that there is a common, often unspoken, core to the meaning of a word.  We can argue about how cat, or chair, or milk, might be defined by an obstructionist, but these words have a common usage which underscores their usefulness as words.  Just as philosophy and god may not have exacting definitions, they both have a common core which is, albeit sometimes vaguely, understood by your average English speaker.  Your arguing that the word can have different subsidiary meanings does not eliminate the point that they have common meanings as well.

Again, fair enough. So why don't we verbalize them on our own? I'm not a big fan of linking wiki pages and quoting profs, when those people don't have any better view on it than I do.

[bennyboy]

How would we here define God, you and me?

Wikis got it handled.

noun

1. 1.
   (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
   synonyms:
   the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
   [/url][url=https://www.google.com/search?espv=2&biw=1768&bih=852&q=define+Yahweh&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMv4-u-6rOAhXM7oMKHXIbBHYQ_SoIIDAA]
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. 2.
   (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
   "a moon god"
   synonyms:
   deity, goddess, divine being, celestial being, divinity, immortal, avatar
   "sacrifices to appease the gods"
   

The above is -all- that;s being asked about when someone asks whether or not you are an atheist, a deist, or a theist (gnostic or agnostic).  We can wiggle, but we can't leave the field...or else our descriptor no longer refers to it's subject.  Do I think that there is a creative force?  Plenty, you'll need to be more specific.  None of them are gods.

As I said before, if you present to me a series of specific God ideas, I'm likely atheist on all of them.

But you are missing a couple important ones, at least important to me: 1) a pure universe-creating deity, divorced from humanity; 2) a panpsychic super-mind; 3) a normal mortal being so vastly great and intelligent than us that we cannot distinguish it from something like a Biblical god.

As for linking dictionaries. . . come on, dude.  Does one or two lines in a dictionary really capture the essence of that word?  Nah. . . It lets children and ESL student understand what the word means when it pops up in their beginning-level conversations.

[wiploc]

Theists believe gods exist.  
Strong atheists believe gods do not exist.
Weak atheists don't believe either way.

Gee I don't like that way of putting it.

It is put clearly.  Maybe we just don't agree.   

"Don't believe one way or the other" sounds more like a garden variety agnostic to me.

If we use what I call the old system (oldsys), then we have these definitions:

• Theists believe that gods do exist.
  
• Atheists believe that gods do not exist.
  
• Agnostics don't believe either way.
  

The problem with oldsys is that it also uses these definitions:

• Gnostics know (or think they know) whether gods exist.
  
• Agnostics don't know whether gods exist.  
  

So "agnostic" defines two different situations, which causes endless confusion.  

Newsys doesn't have that problem, so newsys is more clean and clear.  

Oldsys can probably claim more users.  Newsys is overwhelmingly more popular among people who identify as atheists.  

Both oldsys and newsys are normalized databases:  Everybody fits in a category; nobody fits in more than one category.  

There are other systems, of course, but these are the two main ones.  Both are supported by dictionaries and common usage.  That is, both are "right" or "true" insofar as any definition can be.  

Other systems can be disregarded as personal or eccentric.  Whatever is in third place behind the two main systems is way out of sight back there. 

If you're going to have your own system, it would be good of you to use new terms.  If you use "agnostic" to refer to weak atheists, people will assume that you are using oldsys.  If you use "weak atheist" (or its equivalent, "soft atheist) at all, people will assume you are using newsys.  


[/quote]

[Excited Penguin]

Gee I don't like that way of putting it.

It is put clearly.  Maybe we just don't agree.   

"Don't believe one way or the other" sounds more like a garden variety agnostic to me.

If we use what I call the old system (oldsys), then we have these definitions:

• Theists believe that gods do exist.
  
• Atheists believe that gods do not exist.
  
• Agnostics don't believe either way.
  

The problem with oldsys is that it also uses these definitions:

• Gnostics know (or think they know) whether gods exist.
  
• Agnostics don't know whether gods exist.  
  

So "agnostic" defines two different situations, which causes endless confusion.  

Newsys doesn't have that problem, so newsys is more clean and clear.  

Oldsys can probably claim more users.  Newsys is overwhelmingly more popular among people who identify as atheists.  

Both oldsys and newsys are normalized databases:  Everybody fits in a category; nobody fits in more than one category.  

There are other systems, of course, but these are the two main ones.  Both are supported by dictionaries and common usage.  That is, both are "right" or "true" insofar as any definition can be.  

Other systems can be disregarded as personal or eccentric.  Whatever is in third place behind the two main systems is way out of sight back there. 

If you're going to have your own system, it would be good of you to use new terms.  If you use "agnostic" to refer to weak atheists, people will assume that you are using oldsys.  If you use "weak atheist" (or its equivalent, "soft atheist) at all, people will assume you are using newsys.  

[/quote]

I don't know how accurate all that is, but you said a bunch of smart stuff and I agree with it so yay.

[wiploc]

@All:

Personally, I define the position "I don't know what to believe" as weak atheism.

A lot of weak atheists would be offended at the notion that they don't know what to believe.  Some of them are emphatic; they'll try to put theists and strong atheists in their place.  Weak atheism, according to these people, is the only reasonable position. 
So, yes, you can personally define weak atheism that way if you want to, but you won't be communicating with other people in terms understood by both. 
If you want to invent a new category--though I don't see the usefulness of that particular category--then it would be nice of you to give the new category a new name, so as to avoid sowing confusion.

[Excited Penguin]

Can I just say, wiploc is pretty much saying everything I said, only better.

[robvalue]

You're right wiploc, I wasn't clear enough. Weak atheism covers people who don't know what to believe; that's what I should have said. But it's defined as people who answer "no" to both the questions, "Do you believe in gods" and "Do you believe there are no gods".

I've always used this as my definition, on my website and in my videos. I should have said that "don't know what to believe" falls under the definition of weak atheism. Apologies for any upset or confusion. I should have been clearer.

[Edited this a bunch of times.]