Atheism vs. Religion Dead Horse Beating Round 473!

Remove all ads!

I would totally do Beatrix Kiddo.

 

Did not.
Did so.
Did not.
Did so.
Did not!
Did so!
I know you are but what am I?
I know you are but what am I?
I know you are but what am I to infinity!

Yay! I win!

 

As far as I am concerned that assessment is absolutely correct.

 

It has become rather hard to follow coherently, I must concede. It had been an interesting read.

 

Well, I'm glad we entertained someone at least. Thanks, BTA.

 

I'm not sure that BTA meant "entertaining" in a way that was complimentary to either you or the doc.

 

*raises hand*

I actually quite enjoy such an extended battle of wits. The sheer brutality of it and especially the endurance in being thorough with every single point is nothing short of admirable. I also certainly understand the extent of agony such creates for the TL;DR crowd. (Too long; didn't read)

So that I don't totally end up in a meta-discussion level: WTF you guys are smokin' and can I get some too? (re: Definitions) So far I've gathered that there's three main qualifiers: Either you're a theist or an atheist, weak or strong in either and further divided into either gnostics or agnostics. Every combination thereof either makes or does not make sense, but what, EXACTLY, makes it so hard to just put those qualifiers on a three-dimensional graph and pinpoint the positions therein?

Unless, of course, you can hold several different combinations at once, on a given issue. (Can you, and if so, example?) Placing differently in the graph in various *different* issues, such as NOG being a theist when discussing The Christian God while dismissing Greek, Roman, Norse and other (supposed) deities doesn't cause any conflicting definitions either, methinks?

However, name-calling and refutation of long, complex arguments with nothing but a blunt "false" or labeling them as fallacies WITHOUT ARGUMENTS FOR DOING SO isn't really helping on the clarity side of things. Yes, I'm aware that the combatants involved have muddied the waters long enough to stand waist-deep in the mud already..

Other than that: There's been more food for thought in this thread alone than on a handfull other discussions I've had the luxury of being a part of, combined.

 

For labeling, I see a few problems. First off is that the midpoint between theism and atheism collects a lot of people. This is neither weak theism nor what most would consider weak atheism, but rather a completely neutral 'I don't know either way'. Secondly, I'm still wondering what exactly people see the distinction between 'weak/strong' and 'agnostic/gnostic' as. To me, both are a distinction between uncertainty and certainty. Lastly, the whole idea of applying them to individual beliefs is a bit shaky. Generally, if someone believes in any deity*, they are concidered theistic (or possibly deistic). Which gods you believe in would be a point for later discussion. Atheism, then, would be the dismissal of all gods*, which renders my term 'ultimate atheist' somewhat useless, as all strong atheists would be such. I admit that was an attempt to meet Dr. Scepticus at his arguement, and it didn't really work.

All in all, I can see an arguement for atheism being all non-theistic beliefs, but then the term becomes so nebulous as to be useless in such a discussion. Are deists atheists? And how do you specifically refer to the group that dismisses all gods* as false? The common division of theist/agnostic/atheist is clear and functional. The sub-division of each to weak and strong may blur the lines a little, but I think the net profit to discussion is worth it.

*Gods in this discussion refer to supernatural beings, not any object of worship.

 

Well yes, in THIS discussion there's a world of difference between believing in one, many or none of the gods (atheism - theism scale) and how convinced one is of his/her position (strong - weak scale, or is THIS part the agnostic - gnostic division?). Usually you'd just ask if the person you're talking with believes in ANY god whatsoever and that'd be enough of a divisor between atheists and theists.

You're right in that (a)gnostic and strong/weak qualifiers aren't really totally independent variables, or at least their definitions (so far) remain nebulous enough that one can mix up the two rather easily. I do, at least. Plus what do we do about the special cases of pantheism and the categorical denial of ANYTHING supernatural, be it gods, genies or the tooth fairy? Or do these fall satisfactorily under the strong/weak division?

About the middle position between atheism and theism: There can't really be such. Either you believe or not. Pleading ignorance doesn't change the fact, just makes your position into an unknown. But I'd hazard a guess that the "don't know, don't care" position does NOT qualify as a belief, thus at least theism seems unlikely - you don't even have a specific THING to believe in. Definitely weak and supposedly agnostic as well, as you only know that you *don't* know which side of the various fences you stand at. So... could that be used as the default position for, say, infants and other less than fully sentient beings?

 

Pantheism is a form of theism. The complete denial of all supernatural is a form of atheism.

I have to disagree with this whole line of reasoning, though I think I know why it arose. Whether you call uncertainty a 'middle ground' or not, it is certainly possible. Whether you call that 'atheism' (i.e. not theism) or agnosticism is a matter of confusion, but like I've said many times before, I only see one system that makes sense. If not knowing is atheism, then so is all non-theistic belief, including deism and a great many other -isms that most atheists don't want to be associated with, nor do most such -isms want to be associated with atheism. Such a large and nebulous definition of 'atheism' renders the term useless. Unless you develop a new term for the denial of all gods, you can't really defend such a definition of 'atheism' as practical.

Therefore, IMO, the position of doubt should be called 'agnosticism' and should be differentiated from 'atheism' which is the position of denial of gods, of active disbelief. There are a great many agnostics out there, and I'd bet most people who don't really think about the issue much are probably agnostics. There is also a whole school of belief founded on it called Strong Agnosticism which says, not only don't they know, but no one can know whether or not gods are real.

This is neither weak atheism nor weak theism, because those two terms suggest an uncertain but persistent leaning toward one or the other (i.e. 'I'm not sure, but I'm leaning toward...', or 'I've never really thought about it, but I've always believed something like...'), whereas strong agnosticism denies either conclusion as even reasonably possible.

 

Not going to go back and get into the various multi-post replies here but I think it bears repeating:

There is NO "middle ground' between atheism and theism. A proper graph to illustrate what each of these relevant terms means would go something like:


Theism (belief in one or more gods. See below)

Gnosticism (direct knowledge of God)---------------------Agnosticism (lack of direct knowledge of God)

Atheism (lack of belief in God or gods. See below)

Gnosticism is not belief and agnosticism is not lack of belief. One either HAS a belief that a supernatural "God" exists or one lacks such a belief. There is no way to be 'in between' such. Even an "it is possible" position is atheistic. "I believe God exists...though I cannot prove such." is a theistic position.

"I do have direct knowledge of God" is a Gnostic position, meant to imply or directly state that God exists in the same way that one's own parents or friends exist and the Gnostic claims to have a 'relationship' with said God. This is the reason why it is difficult to find anyone who could fit a 'Gnostic atheist' label.

"I have no direct knowledge of God" is the 'weak agnostic' position.

"I have no direct knowledge of God and am quite certain that such a thing is impossible to have." is the Huxlian 'Strong agnostic' position.

"I believe in the existence of a supernatural God" and/or "I worship a natural/existent thing as a god." are the theistic positions.

"I lack belief in the existence of a supernatural God or gods" as well as "I do not deify or worship natural/existent things" as the (weak)atheistic positions.

"I conclude that certain gods are logically impossible by their definitions." is a strong atheist position.

I am a strong agnostic and strong atheist. Most atheists are weak atheists. Most agnostics are weak agnostics. Theistic agnostics are possible and do exist. Theistic agnostics are common. Atheistic Gnostics...I have never met one and I am unsure how such would be possible.

 

I figured this thread was long dead.

Anyway.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Definition of ATHEISM

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
See atheism defined for kids

Origin of ATHEISM

Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
First Known Use: 1546


Now someone can believe there is no God or gods. Most of us live in a nation with that freedom and even if we didn't then we would still have that thought process internally. And we can come to the best answer we do.

But I one thing I think it is fair to take issue with is when a belief system decides to rewrite the English language because not doing so may challenge their beliefs.

A bit like how some Evangelicals have opted to say the Earth is only 6000 years old because (I suspect) to do otherwise may challenge at least some part of their beliefs.

Dogma is Dogma, it may not be the same dogma but is still is a kind of dogma.

Not all Atheists nor Evangelicals take these respective stands. But seems very dogmatic for those that do.

And let me point out that some of the better people I know are Atheists so I see the reference to Atheism as "wickedness" as wrong and coming with the proper label-"archaic".