A defintion of Atheism.

[televator]

I see the distinction from this angle:

Question: Does God exist?
Answer: Yes = theist
Answer: No = atheist
Answer: I don't know = agnostic

This keeps it simple and avoids a lot of semantic gymnastics. I also think that atheists who define their belief as a lack of a belief in God, rather than a belief in the non-existence of God, are mislabeling themselves, since agnostics, by definition, also lack a belief in God. Therefore I think the term "agnostic atheist" is unnecessary, and confuses the actual definition of atheist. As shown above, either you "know" that God exists, or you don't, and if you don't, then you are agnostic by definition.

Belief =/= knowledge or vice versa. Your scale for positions on theistic claims is oversimplifying the playing field and lacks nuance in that [for example] it doesn't account for agnostic theists. It also just confuses things -- contrary to your claim -- because it fails to accurately describe how or why people come to believe what they will about theistic claims. Agnosticism/gnosticism is not exclusive to theistic claims. Nor does it say anything about people's beliefs on anything, because it's wholly possible to admit to a belief that is independent of knowledge.

 

[unkerpaulie]

Belief =/= knowledge or vice versa. Your scale for positions on theistic claims is oversimplifying the playing field and lacks nuance in that [for example] it doesn't account for agnostic theists. It also just confuses things -- contrary to your claim -- because it fails to accurately describe how or why people come to believe what they will about theistic claims. Agnosticism/gnosticism is not exclusive to theistic claims. Nor does it say anything about people's beliefs on anything, because it's wholly possible to admit to a belief that is independent of knowledge.

How would an agnostic theist answer the question? If you don't know whether God exists or not, then that's agnosticism. Interestingly enough, the answers "Yes" and "No" are both based on beliefs, but a strong enough belief to decissively make an assertion. The answer "I don't know" is the only one that is certain to be in the realm of the known, since it describes what you know for a fact about the state of your own thoughts. To answer the question doesn't require knowledge, just the assertion.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

You can be an agnostic atheist . Agnostic basically means lack of knowledge. So you can be an agnostic atheist because you don't seen enough evidence for a god but are willing to change your mind if you find evidence for a god.

 

[unkerpaulie]

You can be an agnostic atheist . Agnostic basically means lack of knowledge. So you can be an agnostic atheist because you don't seen enough evidence for a god but are willing to change your mind if you find evidence for a god.

But that's also the position of a "regular agnostic". You admit that you don't have enough evidence to believe god exists, yet don't rule out the possibility. Why the need for the "atheist" part of the label if its an agnostic position?

 

[WarK]

You can be an agnostic atheist . Agnostic basically means lack of knowledge. So you can be an agnostic atheist because you don't seen enough evidence for a god but are willing to change your mind if you find evidence for a god.

But that's also the position of a "regular agnostic". You admit that you don't have enough evidence to believe god exists, yet don't rule out the possibility. Why the need for the "atheist" part of the label if its an agnostic position?

(a)gnosticism is about knowledge
(a)theism is about faith

those are different scales, you can be an agnostic atheist i.e. you don't believe because of insufficient evidence. You can be an agnostic theist, you believe even thought there's no evidence.

The word agnostic as used colloquially describes someone who hasn't decided but it's not what the actual word means.

 

[televator]

But that's also the position of a "regular agnostic". You admit that you don't have enough evidence to believe god exists, yet don't rule out the possibility. Why the need for the "atheist" part of the label if its an agnostic position?

(a)gnosticism is about knowledge
(a)theism is about faith

those are different scales, you can be an agnostic atheist i.e. you don't believe because of insufficient evidence. You can be an agnostic theist, you believe even thought there's no evidence.

The word agnostic as used colloquially describes someone who hasn't decided but it's not what the actual word means.

Right, and under unkerpaulie's system of labeling you'd have great confusion as both theists and atheists who both answer "I don't know if there is a god" qualify as "agnostic".

 

[unkerpaulie]

(a)gnosticism is about knowledge
(a)theism is about faith

those are different scales, you can be an agnostic atheist i.e. you don't believe because of insufficient evidence. You can be an agnostic theist, you believe even thought there's no evidence.

The word agnostic as used colloquially describes someone who hasn't decided but it's not what the actual word means.

Faith (by biblical definition, and in my interpretation) is the "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". In other words it is no different from knowledge except the evidence to support said assertion is missing. One can believe, for example that steel is denser than cork, with or without evidence. That belief becomes knowledge when evidence shows the belief to be true. The effect that evidence has on a belief is it "solidifies" it into knowledge in the mind of the person. Faith creates the same result, ie knowledge that the belief is true, except the evidence is insufficient, lacking, or sometimes even contradictory. Faith therefore "solidifies" a belief into knowledge in the mind of the person in the same manner.

Because of this, faith "creates knowledge", and in the mind of the person discussing matters of faith, there is no distinction

 

[WarK]

Faith (by biblical definition, and in my interpretation) is the "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". In other words it is no different from knowledge except the evidence to support said assertion is missing. One can believe, for example that steel is denser than cork, with or without evidence. That belief becomes knowledge when evidence shows the belief to be true. The effect that evidence has on a belief is it "solidifies" it into knowledge in the mind of the person. Faith creates the same result, ie knowledge that the belief is true, except the evidence is insufficient, lacking, or sometimes even contradictory. Faith therefore "solidifies" a belief into knowledge in the mind of the person in the same manner.

Because of this, faith "creates knowledge", and in the mind of the person discussing matters of faith, there is no distinction

I only told you what the words meant, why do you need to redefine them?

Why use biblical definition for anything? According to the bible Pi equals 3 and bats are birds

 

[bluejatheist]

I only told you what the words meant, why do you need to redefine them?

Why use biblical definition for anything? According to the bible Pi equals 3 and bats are birds

I presume unkerpaulie is attempting to explain why Christians are so convinced that faith is good/logical, rather than arguing that we should use that perspective in discussions

 

[Deleted member 619]

I see the distinction from this angle:

Question: Does God exist?
Answer: Yes = theist
Answer: No = atheist
Answer: I don't know = agnostic

This keeps it simple and avoids a lot of semantic gymnastics. I also think that atheists who define their belief as a lack of a belief in God, rather than a belief in the non-existence of God, are mislabeling themselves, since agnostics, by definition, also lack a belief in God. Therefore I think the term "agnostic atheist" is unnecessary, and confuses the actual definition of atheist. As shown above, either you "know" that God exists, or you don't, and if you don't, then you are agnostic by definition.

That doesn't work, and I've explained why above. 'Agnostic' isn't a noun, it's an adjective, and it describes the position that knowledge is not thought possible. Agnostic isn't a position on belief in a deity, it pertains to knowledge. In fact, if the word were defined as 'I don't know', it would be a redundant, useless term, because nobody possesses knowledge concerning the existence of a deity.

What you think has little to do with it. Of course, if you can actually address the rigorous argument given above and show any flaws in it, that's a different story. You wil;lbe the first to do so, though. Good luck.

 

[unkerpaulie]

I only told you what the words meant, why do you need to redefine them?

Why use biblical definition for anything? According to the bible Pi equals 3 and bats are birds

You said (a)theism pertains to faith and (a)gnosticism pertains to knowledge. Those aren't definitions, and I'm not redefining anything. I merely pointed out that the distinction between knowledge and faith blurs, and in some cases disappears completely, when in the context of theism. Faith "substantiates" a belief, just as evidence does, and transforms it into knowledge.

As far as the original topic is concerned, if atheism is defined as a lack of belief about God, then I'm not an atheist, since I don't have a lack of belief about God. I have a definite belief about God, and that is the belief that God does not exist. So where does that leave me?

Also, if agnostic is an adjective and not a noun, then people that label themselves agnostic are all erroneous, since nobody can be an agnostic

 

[bluejatheist]

 

[unkerpaulie]

Ok, from this thread several things come to light:
1. The label "agnostic" by itself is a misrepresentation. It must be accompanied by a theist or atheist modifier
2. The label "gnostic" is always based on the individual's claim, whether the actual knowledge exists or not
3. One can hold a belief about the existence of god, then admit to be ignorant on the matter, without having to adjust their belief
4. Even though "knowledge" is discussed in the definitions, the entire issue consists of only assertions and beliefs

I probably sound a bit tongue in cheek with some of my responses, but I'm actually getting a lot from this thread. What I once thought to be the definitions of these belief positions seem to be different from others on this board

 

[australopithecus]

This is how I would describe it.

Saying "I'm agnostic" is the same as saying "I'm a blue". You're still left with half the answer unanswered, you haven't stated what you're agnostic about. If you don't have faith in a god or gods, regardless of what knowledge you think you have of them, then you're an atheist by definition. You lack theistic faith, be you agnostic or gnostic. The reverse is true true for Theism.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

If I may further clarify - or confuse!? - the issue, I think it depends on how you use the term "agnostic".

Purists insist that the term be used in its proper context: as a adjective before the noun "a(theist)".- "I'm an agnostic (a)theist".

Colloquially, however, the term is used as a noun in its own right: "I'm an Agnostic". [I use it in this context to describe myself.]

The problem is caused when someone uses the latter form incorrectly: "I'm agnostic", leaving the noun - "(a)theist" - to be inferred.

It is to this that purists object.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Gnug215]

Just a minor comment...

People dictate the dictionary, not the other way around.

So is "agnostic" doesn't officially mean someone who doesn't go either way with the god question, then it most certainly will soon.

And for those of you who may not accept the word as a noun, you should check dictionary.com and look it up.

 

[australopithecus]

If they don't go either way then they are an atheist by definition as they hold no faith in gods. To say "I'm agnostic" doesn't answer the question.

 

[televator]

I've really come to appreciate the functionality and clarity gained by keeping the concept of belief and knowledge firmly divided in vocabulary and I'm fairly new to being consciously aware of the concept. I think it would be quite a terrible thing to allow the discussion to become muddied by willy-nilly definitions.

 

[Laurens]

It doesn't bother me too much that people wish to adopt 'agnosticism' as a position in its own right.

If it comes down to nitpicking then I'd say that they aren't really addressing the question of belief by holding to this, but I can accept whatever people wish to call themselves...

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

I think the adoption of agnostic as a position in its own right came about for reasons illustrated in the quote above. People often don't want to be associated with atheists because they are seen as too critical or antagonistic towards religious believers, therefore they adopt a position that (to them at least) indicates a middle ground between two extremes that they do not accept fully. That is not to say it is semantically correct, but I can accept the wishes of those who wish to neither identify with the theist or the atheist camp.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

If they don't go either way then they are an atheist by definition as they hold no faith in gods. To say "I'm agnostic" doesn't answer the question.

This is where I, and other Agnostics, object to being categorized as "atheist", as the default.

Our position is one based on knowledge rather than belief, since belief - or lack thereof - does not make something true or false.

Such categorizing - theist or atheist - is a false dichotomy.

At one time in my life, I believed in God - now, I don't know if there is a God or not; that is not to say that I don't believe there is a God.

I simply don't know.

@Laurens

Thank you!

As an aside, I've come across a book - whilst looking for something else...! - called Natural Atheism, by David Eller, which - from the reviews - looks particularly interesting.

He's an anthropologist, and appears to take a non-evangelical approach, compared with the "shrill" and "strident" approach of the "New Atheists".

I'm ordering it through The Book Depository, as usual.

Kindest regards,

James