Knowledge about religions

[Engelbert]

Consider the position you suggest here if atheism is a positive belief, as it has traditionally been defined.

Atheism - there is no God(s)
Theism - there is a God(s)


These are both positive assertions. If I lack both, then what am I? This position has been traditionally called agnostic.
If I lack a positive disbelief in God(s) and also lack a positive belief in God(s), then by these traditional definitions, I am neither.

This is why Antony Flew attempted to redefine the language and why there is confusion today.


If we accept Antony Flew's redefinitions, where atheism is the lack of theism, then your argument stands up. My point is that this was not the traditional definition of atheism.

 

[australopithecus]

Fair enough. I think most atheists these days do use Flew's definition, I certainly do. Whether its widely accepted is another issue.

 

[malicious_bloke]

I generally consider agnosticism to be an attribute or qualifier rather than an actual position in its own right. With the agnostic atheist ("there may or may not be a god(s) but I see no evidence and see no reason to believe") being the mirror image of a deist (or "agnostic theist" if that makes any sense) on the belief spectrum.

That position requires no positive or negative assertion on the existence or nature of the supernatural, rather than the "strong" atheist position.

 

[Inferno]

I generally consider agnosticism to be an attribute or qualifier rather than an actual position in its own right. With the agnostic atheist ("there may or may not be a god(s) but I see no evidence and see no reason to believe") being the mirror image of a deist (or "agnostic theist" if that makes any sense) on the belief spectrum.

That position requires no positive or negative assertion on the existence or nature of the supernatural, rather than the "strong" atheist position.

To be absolutely pedantic, a deist is not an agnostic theist. A deist believes that God created and then fucked off (plus heaven and hell and that jazz) while a theist believes that God still intervenes right now.

 

[Frenger]

Consider the position you suggest here if atheism is a positive belief, as it has traditionally been defined.

Atheism - there is no God(s)
Theism - there is a God(s)


These are both positive assertions. If I lack both, then what am I?

You're nothing (Sorry, that sounds ruder than it's meant to ). Atheism only exists because of the claims of theism, if they disappear, so does the word atheism. If enough people started believing in Unicorns I dare say Aunicornists would exist, but they only exist in response to positive claims with which they don't agree.

This position has been traditionally called agnostic.

Only since Huxley, and it's a semantic shift which I think rather ruins everything else. Gnosticism concerns knowledge, not belief, it isn't some middle ground between whether a god does or doesn't exist. The reason being is there isn't a middle ground, you can't kind of believe in a god, or not really but a bit believe in a god (and this goes for all theistic claims, but I'm generalising), you either believe the claims, or you don't believe them, but not believing them isn't a positive claim because you can't disprove a negative.

If I lack a positive disbelief in God(s) and also lack a positive belief in God(s), then by these traditional definitions, I am neither.

For all intense purposes, this would make you an atheist.

If we accept Antony Flew's redefinitions, where atheism is the lack of theism, then your argument stands up. My point is that this was not the traditional definition of atheism.

As far as I understand it, the definition of agnostic is the one where the definition has attempted to be changed, agnostic and atheist still hold from their Greek roots.

 

[Frenger]

I generally consider agnosticism to be an attribute or qualifier rather than an actual position in its own right. With the agnostic atheist ("there may or may not be a god(s) but I see no evidence and see no reason to believe") being the mirror image of a deist (or "agnostic theist" if that makes any sense) on the belief spectrum.

That position requires no positive or negative assertion on the existence or nature of the supernatural, rather than the "strong" atheist position.

I completely agree with agnosticism being a qualifier and it's worded perfectly for the example of atheism.

I agree also with Inferno's correction on the second point.

 

[Engelbert]

You're nothing (Sorry, that sounds ruder than it's meant to ). Atheism only exists because of the claims of theism, if they disappear, so does the word atheism. If enough people started believing in Unicorns I dare say Aunicornists would exist, but they only exist in response to positive claims with which they don't agree.

It's not rude. Atheism could exist independently of theism. It might not have much cause to exist, but anyway.... Given the usage of the word atheism prior to the attempted amendment made by Flew, you might argue that you were nothing, if you were neither a theist nor an atheist. This is why agnostic became the common description for this position. Atheism made a positive statement as did theism. Antony Flew attempted to expand the circle that atheism covered and introduced his extra category which was "negative or weak" atheism, by defining atheism as a, "lack of theism" rather than a slightly more exclusive and positive assertion that it made in which it said, "that God does not exist".

Only since Huxley, and it's a semantic shift which I think rather ruins everything else. Gnosticism concerns knowledge, not belief, it isn't some middle ground between whether a god does or doesn't exist. The reason being is there isn't a middle ground, you can't kind of believe in a god, or not really but a bit believe in a god (and this goes for all theistic claims, but I'm generalising), you either believe the claims, or you don't believe them, but not believing them isn't a positive claim because you can't disprove a negative.

Given Flew's definition of atheism, there is no middle ground. Given the pre-existing definition then there is a middle ground between atheism and theism. This became known as negative atheism under Flew's new addendum, but previously was commonly known as agnostic. Agnostic is also defined slightly differently by Huxley in addition to this (as a methodology) and can be used in a non theological sense as well.

I said, "If I lack a positive disbelief in God(s) and also lack a positive belief in God(s), then by these traditional definitions, I am neither."

For all intense purposes, this would make you an atheist.

...by Flew's redefinition yes... by the standard pre-existing definition, no.

I said, "If we accept Antony Flew's redefinitions, where atheism is the lack of theism, then your argument stands up. My point is that this was not the traditional definition of atheism."

As far as I understand it, the definition of agnostic is the one where the definition has attempted to be changed, agnostic and atheist still hold from their Greek roots.

I accept the logic here with regards to atheist and its prefix, but this was not the use of the word atheism over the last centuries in philosophical and theological discussions.

The definition you are going by is the redefinition suggested by Flew in the 70's. I left a link on the previous page to one of Flew's articles on this matter.

Here is a link to a topic on this website on this exact matter. Apparently the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy was emailed and responded.

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=9122&p=129373&hilit=flew+antony+flew+atheism#p129373

I accept that Flew's redefinitions have found some traction, but they are not universally accepted as yet.

 

[Frenger]

Hi, sorry for my late reply.

It's not rude. Atheism could exist independently of theism.

I suspect you're referring Deism? If not, could you please clarify?

Given the usage of the word atheism prior to the attempted amendment made by Flew, you might argue that you were nothing, if you were neither a theist nor an atheist. This is why agnostic became the common description for this position. Atheism made a positive statement as did theism. Antony Flew attempted to expand the circle that atheism covered and introduced his extra category which was "negative or weak" atheism, by defining atheism as a, "lack of theism" rather than a slightly more exclusive and positive assertion that it made in which it said, "that God does not exist".

I have to disagree with this, Anthony Flew may have defined certain parts or coined new phrases, but at it's core, atheism has always meant "without god" or "god-less" which to me, don't appear to be positive claims.

Sauce

Given Flew's definition of atheism, there is no middle ground. Given the pre-existing definition then there is a middle ground between atheism and theism. This became known as negative atheism under Flew's new addendum, but previously was commonly known as agnostic. Agnostic is also defined slightly differently by Huxley in addition to this (as a methodology) and can be used in a non theological sense as well.

Given the link I provided above, I would suggest the only other option is a claim that god does not exist.

Here is a link to a topic on this website on this exact matter. Apparently the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy was emailed and responded.

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=9122&p=129373&hilit=flew+antony+flew+atheism#p129373

I accept that Flew's redefinitions have found some traction, but they are not universally accepted as yet.

That is interesting but I don't agree, but that doesn't of course, make me right

I would say that no one can make a positive claim about the non-existence of something, so to have a word that's defined as that, seems bogus to me. That's why I like the definition of "lack of belief". Of course, my likes and fancies have nothing to do with whether something is right or not, but like I say, I can't see the point in defining a word by an impossible proposition.

I would say that although there is a philosophical difference between those who lack belief and those that assert non-existent, the outcome, practically, will always be the same. As theistic claims are made, both parties will be sat disagreeing with them.

 

[Engelbert]

Hi, sorry for my late reply.

Heya. No need to apologise.

It's not rude. Atheism could exist independently of theism.

I suspect you're referring Deism? If not, could you please clarify?

This is a slightly moot point, that I'm not sure is hugely consequential. You said that atheism would not or could not exist without theism. What I meant here was that atheism could exist if people wanted it to, but that it might not necessarily have much cause to. The proposition that a snail created the universe is not very widespread in Britain, thus (as in your argument) nobody really calls themselves an "asnailist". Fair enough. My only point was that this doesn't mean that "asnailism" as a label/belief is precluded from existence, because of such a lack of obvious or vocal "snailists". If people want to call themselves "asnailists", surely they could.

With regards to the Deism issue, I would actually share the view that you and Inferno have both agreed upon. Broadly, that would be the definition of Deism that I would use, although I have read on Deist websites that some Deists may hold the view that intervention can sometimes happen, or simply that they are open to it as a possibility. When it comes to belief, I tend to think that issues are not always as clear cut as we'd like them to be and lines can sometimes be blurred.

I have to disagree with this, Anthony Flew may have defined certain parts or coined new phrases, but at it's core, atheism has always meant "without god" or "god-less" which to me, don't appear to be positive claims.

Sauce

Among the list of definitions in your source is the phrase, "denying the Gods". This is the stronger version of atheism. I accept the logic with regards to the Greek prefix a. It means without or lacking. When you define the word by its etymology, the argument that you make seems persuasive. Indeed, this is the same argument that Flew presented and this logic is probably one of the reasons why it has found success in recent years.

However, you are wrong to believe that atheism has always been defined in the negative sense. There is a problem with using or appealing to etymology in language as a failsafe or conclusive means of definition. Language is mutable. It evolves. In philosophy in recent centuries, it has been used in a positive sense, ie. there is no God, and the growth in the use of atheism as a term, has been largely since the 18th Century. Some philosophers define atheism as an almost gnostic position with regards to the existence of God. Here is an excerpt from an article by Bertrand Russell in 1953. link

Are agnostics atheists?

No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.

Bertrand Russell

Given Flew's definition of atheism, there is no middle ground. Given the pre-existing definition then there is a middle ground between atheism and theism. This became known as negative atheism under Flew's new addendum, but previously was commonly known as agnostic. Agnostic is also defined slightly differently by Huxley in addition to this (as a methodology) and can be used in a non theological sense as well.

Given the link I provided above, I would suggest the only other option is a claim that god does not exist.

The existence of God seems a binary situation to me. He either exists or he does not. Perhaps there are other alternatives, but essentially, it seems like a binary situation. However, the positions of belief that we can hold with regards to this God or others are numerous, rather than binary. There are at least 5 different common positions that I can think of here, with more potentially available. On the side of lacking belief in God are at least 2 positions. Even by the definition propounded by Flew and supported by yourself, there are two positions. There is "negative or weak" atheism and there is "positive or strong" atheism. If you check out the definitions to these positions on google, you will see that there is a difference, however subtle you may perceive it to be. The point that probably causes the confusion, is that negative atheism is essentially agnosticism. Prior to and since Flew's redefinitions people have referred and refer to this position as the position of an agnostic. However, since Flew's redefinitions, people now argue about this position with some asserting that it is the position of an atheist as well, whilst others maintain that it is the position of the agnostic.

Here is a link to a topic on this website on this exact matter. Apparently the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy was emailed and responded.

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=9122&p=129373&hilit=flew+antony+flew+atheism#p129373

I accept that Flew's redefinitions have found some traction, but they are not universally accepted as yet.

That is interesting but I don't agree, but that doesn't of course, make me right

I would say that no one can make a positive claim about the non-existence of something, so to have a word that's defined as that, seems bogus to me. That's why I like the definition of "lack of belief". Of course, my likes and fancies have nothing to do with whether something is right or not, but like I say, I can't see the point in defining a word by an impossible proposition.

I think you are confusing the idea of making a positive statement about the non-existence of something with the proposal that such a statement can be proven. It is very difficult to prove the non-existence of something, even when such a thing's existence seems ridiculous. However, one can have a belief that something does not exist, or assert that a thing does not exist with some conviction. Positive atheism makes the claim that God or Gods do not exist.

I would say that although there is a philosophical difference between those who lack belief and those that assert non-existent, the outcome, practically, will always be the same. As theistic claims are made, both parties will be sat disagreeing with them.

Bertrand Russell draws a similar conclusion in the article referenced earlier in this post. I would say that the responses would be slightly different from each position, but yes they would probably hold similar views on a variety of things.

 

[Laurens]

Knowledge of a particular sacred text is not a prerequisite for being an atheist.

However I would put forth the statement that knowledge of a particular sacred text is a prerequisite for debating someone about that text without looking foolish.

 

[Prolescum]

One of the following is an unverifiable position, one is a statement on another position:

I do not believe in gods

I believe there are no gods

Those of the second variety are daft, ergo I eschew them. They have their own term (simpleton) they can use.

As I'm sure we all know, at one time even Christians have been defined as atheists; the difference between then and now is that the term (post-Flew) now makes some sense.

 

[Frenger]

Heya. No need to apologise.

Then, I take it back!

With regards to the Deism issue, I would actually share the view that you and Inferno have both agreed upon. Broadly, that would be the definition of Deism that I would use, although I have read on Deist websites that some Deists may hold the view that intervention can sometimes happen, or simply that they are open to it as a possibility. When it comes to belief, I tend to think that issues are not always as clear cut as we'd like them to be and lines can sometimes be blurred.

Yes, I must admit the lines are becoming more and more blurry as this conversation continues

However, you are wrong to believe that atheism has always been defined in the negative sense. There is a problem with using or appealing to etymology in language as a failsafe or conclusive means of definition. Language is mutable. It evolves. In philosophy in recent centuries, it has been used in a positive sense, ie. there is no God, and the growth in the use of atheism as a term, has been largely since the 18th Century. Some philosophers define atheism as an almost gnostic position with regards to the existence of God. Here is an excerpt from an article by Bertrand Russell in 1953. link

I can agree with the fluidity of language, I guess my point has been that those who have used the term atheist to mean "belief there is no god" has been using it wrong, however, I appreciate that language doesn't belong to the dictionaries, it belongs to us, and however the term is commonly used should be it's definition.

The existence of God seems a binary situation to me. He either exists or he does not. Perhaps there are other alternatives, but essentially, it seems like a binary situation.

I really like QualiaSoup on this in which he asks us to imagine a jury at a court hearing. After hearing all the evidence some of the jury say guilty, some say innocent, however there are some who cannot come to a conclusion. While a god either exists or doesn't, we neither have the understanding of what a god is nor the necessary tools with which to test that claim.

I think you are confusing the idea of making a positive statement about the non-existence of something with the proposal that such a statement can be proven. It is very difficult to prove the non-existence of something, even when such a thing's existence seems ridiculous. However, one can have a belief that something does not exist, or assert that a thing does not exist with some conviction. Positive atheism makes the claim that God or Gods do not exist.

I see, yes I think you are right, I did appear to confuse that.

I think I see your point, and thank you for sticking with me

 

[Engelbert]

One of the following is an unverifiable position, one is a statement on another position:

I do not believe in gods

I believe there are no gods

Those of the second variety are daft, ergo I eschew them. They have their own term (simpleton) they can use.

As I'm sure we all know, at one time even Christians have been defined as atheists; the difference between then and now is that the term (post-Flew) now makes some sense.

Perhaps the latter is unverifiable, but I think you might be being a little harsh. Many atheists will take the stronger (latter) stance. There is a difference between stating it as a belief and stating it as a certainty or as knowledge that you believe you hold. Positive atheism can be broken down into two further categories (and perhaps more), with some people claiming certainty, whilst others assert it as a belief or a probability, but are aware of its fallibility as a position. Perhaps you would reject any form of positive atheism, but I don't think it's too unreasonable to hold positive atheism as a position if it is not asserted as a fact or a certainty. One way you might distinguish the two forms of positive atheism is as, gnostic positive atheism and agnostic positive atheism. (I believe that negative atheism is only coherent with being agnostic.)

 

[Engelbert]

Hi Frenger No probs. I think that that may have been the most cordial exchange I have ever had on the internet (if your tone is as I have interpreted it - and I think it is). Cheers.

 

[Estheria Quintessimo]

Bla Bla.

Definitions.

On pure definition... an Atheist does not exclude a belief in something supernatural. There are Atheists (not believing in a god or gods) that believe in beyond.

...

I just wanted to throw that in.

Ofcourse I myself do not believe in anything supernatural,... as anything supernatural would mean beyond the laws of this universe.

 

[Frenger]

Hi Frenger No probs. I think that that may have been the most cordial exchange I have ever had on the internet (if your tone is as I have interpreted it - and I think it is). Cheers.

My tone is exactly how you interpreted it. Also, yes, a pleasure

 

[Frenger]

Bla Bla.

You'll find forums contain a lot of "Bla-ing".

Definitions.

Yes.

On pure definition... an *Atheist

*atheist

does not exclude a belief in something supernatural.

Correct.

There are *Atheists

*atheists

(not believing in a god or gods) that believe in beyond.

True.

I just wanted to throw that in.

Good

Ofcourse I myself do not believe in anything supernatural,... as anything supernatural would mean beyond the laws of this universe

Of course you don't, because you're a hard rocking, no nonsense kind of atheist, you know, one that uses a capital "a".

 

[Estheria Quintessimo]

I wonder how many people actually know and realise...


By definition.... Atheism does not exclude the believe in the supernatural.

 

[Prolescum]

How many? Any and all that are literate.

 

[Frenger]

I wonder how many people actually know and realise...


By definition.... Atheism does not exclude the believe in the supernatural.

Probably about the same amount of people who understand that atheist isn't a proper noun.