# What's atheism?



## Loki (Aug 22, 2005)

A question to members of all religions (or lack thereof):

 How do you define atheism and agnosticism?

 For those who aren't clear on the differences, here are the definitions:

 The meaning of atheism is often confused or misunderstood. It's usually seen as one of two things, both based on the greek origin of the word (a - without, theos - god): 1) The lack of belief in a god; or 2) The belief that no god exists. Both of these usually refer to a personal God, characteristic of the monotheistic faiths, but there is a blunt difference between them.

 The first definition makes no claim at all, meaning "I have no reason to believe in God's existence, much like I have no reason to believe the US government is controlled by a squirrel overlord". The second definition is like the theist position, making a claim, but a negative rather than a positive one. It says "God does not exist".

 You might ask "If definition 1 is atheism, what's agnosticism?". This also has two definitions: 1) Same as first definition of atheism; or 2) The belief that it is impossible to know God due to human cognitive limitations.


----------



## mrhnau (Aug 22, 2005)

I think agnostic can be divided into two groups, similar to what you stated. Personally, I would think that with atheism point 1, they actually state that you don't believe in God. When transfering this statement to agnostics, I think agnostics would be more of a mind to not care or have the desire to form a belief regarding the existence of God. Perhaps a better statement would be that they are not informed enough yet to form a valid opinion on the existence of God. Subtle difference, but still...

I look at the two groups quite differently. Most agnostics I know seem willing to discuss the concept of God's existence, at least if they are in your second group. The pure atheist seems to hold more vigorously to their beliefs. Willing to discuss, but not willing to be persuaded.

Its an interesting perspective. The theist believe God exists by faith. The atheist believes God does not exist by faith, though prefering not to use that term. Would either really change if concrete proof were provided? Can concrete proof ever be provided? Enter the agnostic.Theist, atheist... both requiring faith. Agnostic requiring none, except for perhaps curiosity.
Just my thoughts though :ultracool


----------



## Loki (Aug 22, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> I think agnostic can be divided into two groups, similar to what you stated. Personally, I would think that with atheism point 1, they actually state that you don't believe in God. When transfering this statement to agnostics, I think agnostics would be more of a mind to not care or have the desire to form a belief regarding the existence of God. Perhaps a better statement would be that they are not informed enough yet to form a valid opinion on the existence of God. Subtle difference, but still...
> 
> I look at the two groups quite differently. Most agnostics I know seem willing to discuss the concept of God's existence, at least if they are in your second group. The pure atheist seems to hold more vigorously to their beliefs. Willing to discuss, but not willing to be persuaded.
> 
> ...


 That's what's funny: I see an atheist the way you see an agnostic.


----------



## tsdclaflin (Aug 22, 2005)

Traditionally, an atheist believes there is no god and an agnostic is not convinced whether there is a god or not.

In my personal experience and the personal experiences of those close to me, an atheist is someone who blames God for some tragedy or is angry with God for some reason so they claim forcefully that God does not exist. For them to believe that God exists is too painful. Just an opinion.


----------



## ginshun (Aug 22, 2005)

I have always thought of an athiests as a person who doesn't believe in God/Gods, and an agnostic as someone who is not convinced either way.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 22, 2005)

There are a couple of flavors of agnosticism.  Theistic agnosticism states that there probably is a god, but one is not positive.  Non-Theistic agnosticism states that there probably isn't a god, but one is not positive.  

Also, may athiests base their belief on the fact that there is no evidence to support the existence of god.  Anger is not part of the decision.  Reason is.


----------



## Loki (Aug 22, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There are a couple of flavors of agnosticism. Theistic agnosticism states that there probably is a god, but one is not positive. Non-Theistic agnosticism states that there probably isn't a god, but one is not positive.
> 
> Also, may athiests base their belief on the fact that there is no evidence to support the existence of god. Anger is not part of the decision. Reason is.


 I'll second that, thought I myself would say "...[many] atheists base their *lack of belief* on the fact that there is no evidence to support the existence of god."
 It may be more useful to switch between "a" and "non". "Nontheist" gives me the distinct feeling of the belief-lacking kind. The "a" in atheist is more ambiguous, and this is IMO the reason it's been confused.



			
				tsdclaflin said:
			
		

> Traditionally, an atheist believes there is no god and an agnostic is not convinced whether there is a god or not.
> 
> In my personal experience and the personal experiences of those close to me, an atheist is someone who blames God for some tragedy or is angry with God for some reason so they claim forcefully that God does not exist. For them to believe that God exists is too painful. Just an opinion.


 Personally, I don't think there _is_ traditional way to see it. I use terminology to include all four views: Theistic agnostic (God exists but can't be known), atheistic agnostic (God's existence can't be known at all), neutral atheist (there's no good reason to believe in God) and negating atheist (God doesn't exist).

 My guess would be that "intellectual atheists", people who think through their beliefs, are usually of the belief-lacking kind while "rebel-atheists", those who adopt atheism as a form of rebellion, are those who deny. PLEASE note that this last paragraph is purely whimsical speculation and shouldn't be taken as anything else (but feel free to correct me).


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 22, 2005)

I think it is more black and white, but most of you all know by now I think that way a lot.

You either believe there is a God, or Not.

Once again, we just give titles to the multiple combinations.

a) You believe in God (Thiest) - A person of great spiritual faith.

b) You do not believe in God, you do not believe in no God - the "I don't know group" (Agnostic) - A person of little/no spiritual faith. Still falls into the Not crowd.


c) You believe in no God (Athiest) - A person of no spiritual faith. Then again, an Athiest may believe we all have "spirit" and could still be called spiritual. :idunno: He/she believes in the "human spirit."  Maybe we all go to some other place after death in some other form. There's just too many individual interpretations down that road, but they fall into the "God does Not exist" crowd.

People can have whatever reasons they want for believing/not believing but they still either "Do" or "Do not" believe in God. It's like trying to say "I'm a little bit pregnant." You just can't.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 22, 2005)

"In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners." 
-Jonathon Miller


----------



## OUMoose (Aug 22, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> People can have whatever reasons they want for believing/not believing but they still either "Do" or "Do not" believe in God. It's like trying to say "I'm a little bit pregnant." You just can't.



According to Dictionary.com:
Atheist:  One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

This person denies the existance of God as fervently as a theist accepts it.  Neither one of them needs proof to back up their claims, as it's a matter of faith on both parties.  They are 2 sides to the same coin, yin and yang, black and white, insert-your-favorite-extremist-cliche-here.

Also according to Dictionary.com
Agnostic:  
   1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
   2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

I don't really care for the second definition, however the first is sufficient.  They don't really know what to believe, as blind faith isn't enough for them.  These are the people who, until God or whoever else comes down from his throne and slaps em in the face, will be questioning anyone and anything that lays claim to the true "way".  

My personal thought is that religion is the last thing in the world that should be thought of with an extremist mentality.  Everyone has their own opinions, and their own subtle colorations, and it's no one's right to try to convince them otherwise.  

:asian:


----------



## Loki (Aug 22, 2005)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> According to Dictionary.com:
> Atheist:  One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
> 
> This person denies the existance of God as fervently as a theist accepts it. Neither one of them needs proof to back up their claims, as it's a matter of faith on both parties. They are 2 sides to the same coin, yin and yang, black and white, insert-your-favorite-extremist-cliche-here.
> ...


 See how these dictionary definitions nicely echo my own:

 Atheist: These are actually two definitions, since disbelieve can mean either deny or lack belief, and deny is deny.

 Agnostic: Both definitions I mentioned, can't be known or is currently unknown.

 This is the point of my thread: What you call an agnostic, I call an atheist.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Aug 22, 2005)

atheism is the absence of God, or the belief that there is no supernatural being, in other words this is it plain and simple. 

agnosticism: can be one who is skeptical of God, but I d like to think of it as one who believes in a higher power, just not the way traditionalists do.

You are right, both concepts are often misunderstood. Charles Darwin for example is sometimes characterized as an atheist when he in fact was an agnostic.

So have many other brilliant scientists.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 22, 2005)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> Also according to Dictionary.com
> Agnostic:
> 1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
> 2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
> ...


I'm rather surprised to see the first definition. It implies that Theists believe that they "know" whether there is a God.

That word will have the "Scientists" all in a fury. How do you "know"? To some, there may be events in their lives which are so prominent that it can be the work of none other than God. If I say I "know" there is a God, I'll have an inbox of hate mail. 

And if we're looking for people who force one issue over the other, let's start in the public schools where creationism is outright banned.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 22, 2005)

I think atheists are just Christians fooled by the devil into believing they are not.


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 22, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I think atheists are just Christians fooled by the devil into believing they are not.


 :roflmao:


----------



## Simon Curran (Aug 23, 2005)

I suppose I could be classed as an atheist, since I do not believe in any god, nor do I entertain any religion.

That being said, I find the classification unneccessary, I am who I am, and do not need to be judged by a religious measure.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 23, 2005)

Simon Curran said:
			
		

> I suppose I could be classed as an atheist, since I do not believe in any god, nor do I entertain any religion.
> 
> That being said, I find the classification unneccessary, I am who I am, and do not need to be judged by a religious measure.




The term "agnostic" is sometimes adopted by people who desire a euphemism, for it hasn't the ugly connotation of atheism in American culture.  The latter is often a slur.

Note that much of Christianity is agnostic.  Claiming "the mystery of God," or saying that "God's intent can not be known" is undeniably agnostic...and is used as a refuge for those struggling with the some of the stickier issues confronting theists.

Agnosticism, then, is a refuge for those who can not accept the label that goes with the unbeliever, and those who can not accept theological difficulties.  Both sides throw their hands up in the air and declare God "unknowable," both refuse to accept the stark nature of the hypothesis and prefer to dance around it.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Simon Curran (Aug 23, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The term "agnostic" is sometimes adopted by people who desire a euphemism, for it hasn't the ugly connotation of atheism in American culture. The latter is often a slur.
> 
> Note that much of Christianity is agnostic. Claiming "the mystery of God," or saying that "God's intent can not be known" is undeniably agnostic...and is used as a refuge for those struggling with the some of the stickier issues confronting theists.
> 
> ...


Interesting point, but the honest truth is I just don't care.
Like I stated earlier, I am who I am, and I don't need people to classify me by my religious beliefs (or lack thereof)

BTW, very nicely put.
Best wishes
Simon


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 23, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The term "agnostic" is sometimes adopted by people who desire a euphemism, for it hasn't the ugly connotation of atheism in American culture. The latter is often a slur.
> 
> Note that much of Christianity is agnostic. Claiming "the mystery of God," or saying that "God's intent can not be known" is undeniably agnostic...and is used as a refuge for those struggling with the some of the stickier issues confronting theists.
> 
> ...


Much of _insert religion name here_ is agnostic???? I'm not getting that one.

(Of course, let's pick on Christianity)

Not knowing Why things happen is different than being an unbeliever.


----------



## OUMoose (Aug 23, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I'm rather surprised to see the first definition. It implies that Theists believe that they "know" whether there is a God.
> 
> That word will have the "Scientists" all in a fury. How do you "know"? To some, there may be events in their lives which are so prominent that it can be the work of none other than God. If I say I "know" there is a God, I'll have an inbox of hate mail.
> 
> And if we're looking for people who force one issue over the other, let's start in the public schools where creationism is outright banned.


Isn't the mindset of a theist just that?  That they "know" God is up/down there watching and lending a guiding, unseen hand?  That's called Faith.

"Know" is a big word to a scientist.  All it takes is one piece of contradictory evidence and it blows a hole in the theory they're trying to prove (unless they're proving by contradiction, then you just need an affirmation, but I digress).  Without some sort of measureable proof, most scientists would look upon someone who "knows" with a skeptical eye.  Can you blame them?  If I walked up to you and told you there's a 2' tall invisible gnome named Ted that walks next to me and guides my life, you'd have me locked up.  

Creationism/"Intelligent Design"?  That's a topic for another thread, which I believe has been debated here already.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 23, 2005)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> Isn't the mindset of a theist just that? That they "know" God is up/down there watching and lending a guiding, unseen hand? That's called Faith.
> 
> "Know" is a big word to a scientist. All it takes is one piece of contradictory evidence and it blows a hole in the theory they're trying to prove (unless they're proving by contradiction, then you just need an affirmation, but I digress). Without some sort of measureable proof, most scientists would look upon someone who "knows" with a skeptical eye. Can you blame them? If I walked up to you and told you there's a 2' tall invisible gnome named Ted that walks next to me and guides my life, you'd have me locked up.
> 
> Creationism/"Intelligent Design"? That's a topic for another thread, which I believe has been debated here already.


I'm pretty much with you - I'm just saying the word "know" is going to send the scientific folks through the roof.

Some can believe based on whatever evidence they want. I think believeing is knowing without scientific proof.

Scientists beleive in theory. They belive in the big bang, but there is no proof. But know is a strong word, and I guess I feel that way from my introduction to Zen studies.

How to you "know" anything?

If someone here has reached the absolute Truth about anything, please PM me - I wanna meet ya


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 23, 2005)

Well, 

 Athieism is actually a religion unto itself, according to Wisconson.

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/232005e.asp


----------



## Loki (Aug 23, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Well,
> 
> Athieism is actually a religion unto itself, according to Wisconson.
> 
> http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/232005e.asp


 kenpojujitsu3 has this flag...

 (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=424644&postcount=30)


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 23, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> (Of course, let's pick on Christianity)
> 
> Not knowing Why things happen is different than being an unbeliever.



Not really.  Atheists will be the first to acknowledge there are things they don't know, and recognize that one can't prove a negative.

As for picking on Christianity, its one of the foundations of western culture.  What would you have me comment on?  Islam?  I have read the Bible cover to cover and have yet to read the Koran.  In any case the Christians are the ones I hear expounding on the "mystery of God."  Its a proper frame for what I wrote, Mike.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Some can believe based on whatever evidence they want. I think believeing is knowing without scientific proof.
> 
> Scientists beleive in theory. They belive in the big bang, but there is no proof.




So there is "no proof" to any theory?  

So WITH scientific proof one ought NOT believe?  What ought one do in the face of evidence, disbelieve?  Seriously...look what you wrote here.  

Belief can be characterized as having a number of properties.  One is veridicality.  This is the degree to which the belief reflects reality.  Scientists develop and adopt theories (their beliefs) that are based on what they perceive to be accurate representations of reality.  To do this they apply rules of evidence.

The scientific method is a rigorous process by which ideas about the natural world are put to a test.  Theories are not mere guesses or hunches based on conjecture.  They are always, by nature, tentative.

A fact, defined, is something for which we have a great deal of evidence and for which we can place a great deal of confidence in its truth.  Notice the inherent tentativeness of this.  Facts can be disproven, just as theories can.

If a person makes an extraordinary claim then we expect them to provide extraordinary proof of the claim.  We ask for data, we ask for facts.  We apply rules of evidence for determining the validity of anything submitted to support the claim.  We test it again if new evidence comes to light suggesting that the old information is now incorrect.

If you were to say, for instance, that there is an invisible elf named Fritzie sitting on your head...we'd ask for proof (or have you committed).  I am not going to believe in your elf until you make it very apparent to me that it exists.  

I for one will not say "we can not truly know if there is an elf or not," thus waffling with agnosticism in an effort to be indulgent and polite.  I'm going to demand you prove the elf's existence or I'm going to insist you take your Depacote and Thorazine.

As for there being no proof insofar as the "Big Bang," well...yes.  There is a tad of veridicality there.  A bit of data and fact.  And a smidgin of understatement in the last three sentences here.

Nice word, veridicality.  Latin words roll off the tongue so nicely.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Loki (Aug 24, 2005)

I'll back what Steve is saying by adding that "theory" and "hypothesis", while roughly interchangable as synonyms, apply to different things.

 Dictionary.com defines as follows:

*Theory*: "a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena".

 [While admittedly it lists another five definitions, this is the one a scientist means when he uses the word.]

*Hypothesis*: "a tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation".

 The way I see it, it's more reasonable to have "hypothesis" interchangeable with "wild guess". Theories conform to facts. They've been tested to some extent.

 The Big Bang has no proof, but it has lots of supporting evidence, making it the commonly accepted explanation theory. Likewise, evolution is not only a theory. It's also fact: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 The supplied link leads to a great explanation of the difference between theory and fact. It uses evolution as it's example, but please nobody start a teleological argument over it. It's used to illustrate a principle.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 24, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I think atheists are just Christians fooled by the devil into believing they are not.



My, my, my, Technopunk. How very Marxist of you.  :boing1:


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 24, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I think it is more black and white, but most of you all know by now I think that way a lot.



Personally, I learned a long, long time ago to avoid simplistic dualisms. Developmentally speaking, it isn't a sign of particularly mature thinking.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> You believe in God (Thiest) - A person of great spiritual faith.



My definition and understanding of "spirituality" does not connote that simply holding a particular intellectual position makes one more "spiritual" than another.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> People can have whatever reasons they want for believing/not believing but they still either "Do" or "Do not" believe in God. It's like trying to say "I'm a little bit pregnant." You just can't.



Unless, of course, what one means by "God" is not well understood or well-defined. I might be an "atheist" to Pat Roberston, but I'd probably be considered a "theist" to Paul Tillich and Thomas Merton.

In all honesty, though, I think this quibbling over definitions is nothing short than a matter of semantics. Different people use words in different ways. They don't have objective, independent, pre-existing meanings.

Laterz.


----------

