Define atheism?

[AndyD]

Until recently, I'd always considered myself to be agnostic because I held no firm view on the existence, or not, of (a) god. I labelled myself agnostic because I'd always understood an "atheist" was someone who believed there is no god, rather than someone who simply doesn't believe there is a god.

It appears atheist actually has at least three meanings though:


I believe there's no such thing as gods
I neither believe nor disbelieve in gods
I believe there could be gods but they are essentially inert.


1 & 2 are presumably the more common types of atheist but is there a word that more accurately describes each of them since they are very different positions? I'd argue 1 & 2 are as different as an #2 and a theist.

I'd always considered position #2 to be agnostic but it's become clear that it could actually be the most common type of atheist.

Thoughts?

[Darat]

For someone who claims not be an atheist I think a good question to ask is "Which god or gods do you believe in?". This gets at the heart of the difference between what it means to not believe in something and what it means to believe in something.

Not believing in something is not simply the opposite of believing in it.

[Dancing David]

Those positions are a little weird

Belief that there are no gods is atheism.

Being neutral on the subject is agnosticism.

Number 3 is also agnosticism.

[Bikewer]

Odd definitions you came up with there. #2 appears to be some sort of agnostic position, and as for # 3.... Can't say I've ever heard of such a thing as "inert" gods...

We've had long and involved threads on the definitions of these terms; we toss around things like "hard" and "soft" atheists, what "agnostic" actually implies, and so forth.

I think that on average, forum members would go with something like this:

"We see no evidence of any supernatural beings, nor any necessity for them to exist. Therefore, it's silly to invest belief in same. At the same time, it's not possible to prove that there is no god whatever, so some degree of agnosticism must remain."

[Elizabeth I]

Why is this not in the "Religion and Philosophy" subforum?

[Ron_Tomkins]

Define atheism?

Atheism is non-theism.


... And everything that unfolds from that basic principle.

[AndyD]

Why is this not in the "Religion and Philosophy" subforum?

Excellent question. Wish I had an excellent answer :o Mods should probably move it.

The reason for the question was essentially because I'd always considered #2 to be an agnostic position but it appears it is considered weak atheism by many.

I guess my problem is/was that I've always thought of atheism as the belief there is no god as opposed to no belief there is a god. It's only recently, mainly after reading comments on Ray Comfort's blog (not Ray's comments but those of atheists and non-fundies) that I've realised the term is applied more widely than I'd thought.

[Egg]

Excellent question. Wish I had an excellent answer :o Mods should probably move it.

The reason for the question was essentially because I'd always considered #2 to be an agnostic position but it appears it is considered weak atheism by many.

I guess my problem is/was that I've always thought of atheism as the belief there is no god as opposed to no belief there is a god. It's only recently, mainly after reading comments on Ray Comfort's blog (not Ray's comments but those of atheists and non-fundies) that I've realised the term is applied more widely than I'd thought.

The belief there is no God is not an uncommon definition and you will find that in some dictionaries, so it's not really surprising that would have been your understanding of the word. Unfortunately, I think that differing understanding of the word can lead to a different understanding of the actual position a person holds and certain assumptions about someone that may not be the case.

Agnosticism was originally coined to refer to a position of not being able to know either way, although as you point out, common understanding would be your position #2.

Personally, I have my reservations about defining the word "atheist" in such a way as to include babies, badgers and pebbles. I think it's a more useful word if it's describing a reaction to theism by a being in a position to have considered such things rather than a neutral or undecided state, but it's not up to me to decide such things.

[Bikewer]

There are also a number of different definitions in use for "agnostic". In common parlance, it indicates a person who is simply undecided or can't make up their mind.

However, there's the more classic use that means we cannot know. That our intellectual/perceptive apparatus simply can't come to a definite answer.

The more common position among atheists is that since we can't positively disprove some sort of god, we'd have to leave open the possibility; provided compelling evidence were presented.

[paximperium]

You are using and mixing up two common concepts. To keep to the strictest meaning, atheism and agnosticism are answering different things and are not mutually exclusive.

Atheism and Theism: applies only to the acceptance of a claim of a god. It is a yes or no answer. If you say "yes, I believe", you are a theist while if you say anything but yes including I don't know, you are an atheist. Atheist means a lack of belief in a deity.

Agnosticism and Gnosticism: Applies to knowledge more especially special knowledge. Someone who claims to KNOW for sure that god exist of does not exist are Gnostics while those that do not know or will never know are Agnostics.

Here are some examples:
Agnostic Atheists: "I do not know there is no god, but all the evidence points towards there not being one therefore I do not believe in the existence of a god."
-This applies to the vast majority of "atheist", agnostics, buddhists, realeans, UFO believers etc. Dawkins, Harris, Hitches, Dennett etc. fall into this category.

Gnostic Atheist: "I know there is no god."
-Not many atheist would claim this but some do. I actually lean towards this category but am still mostly an Agnostic Atheists.

Agnostic Theist: "I believe there is a god but do not know about his will or purpose etc."
-Most Christians from moderate churches, New Agers etc. fall into this category.

Gnostic Theist: "I know god exist. He answers my prayers, I know his plan and the bible is the word if god."
-Your friendly neighborhood Pentecostals, evangelicals etc.


Atheism is used as a label. I choose to call myself an atheist. There is a very strong baggage and bias that comes with using this label. I do not like the use of other silly words like "brights" etc. because these words have no meaning. I prefer to call myself an atheist because I don't like the prejudice and distrust directed towards people who are godless.

[fuelair]

Until recently, I'd always considered myself to be agnostic because I held no firm view on the existence, or not, of (a) god. I labelled myself agnostic because I'd always understood an "atheist" was someone who believed there is no god, rather than someone who simply doesn't believe there is a god.

It appears atheist actually has at least three meanings though:


I believe there's no such thing as gods
I neither believe nor disbelieve in gods
I believe there could be gods but they are essentially inert.


1 & 2 are presumably the more common types of atheist but is there a word that more accurately describes each of them since they are very different positions? I'd argue 1 & 2 are as different as an #2 and a theist.

I'd always considered position #2 to be agnostic but it's become clear that it could actually be the most common type of atheist.

Thoughts? a- not,no theist- god studier/believer. Not God Believer

[LibraryLady]

I am moving this thread to Religion and Philosophy, where I think it will get better attention.

[MattusMaximus]

I call myself both an atheist and an agnostic. Here's why...

I'm atheist because I don't believe any god(s) exist.

I'm agnostic because I also don't believe it is possible to definitely prove or disprove the existence of any god(s).

Thus, my atheism is more like a default position taken due to the lack of any compelling evidence.

[Silentknight]

A slight nitpick. The original etymology of the word is atheos-ism, not a-theism, so going by that, atheism would be more along the lines of a godless stance or position. However, this does not mean I have an objection to allowing individuals to define themselves as they see fit.

Stupid little diagram I've posted before:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2190347b5ef5e6c753.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10827)
Yes, I know that not everyone is going to agree with this, but it's just the way I see it, since I usually think of them as gradual scales rather than terms of black and white.

[AndyD]

Thanks all for "clearing that up" :)

The "baggage" that goes with atheism was the basis for the question. When you tell someone you're an atheist, I suspect many people assume you mean you absolutely believe there is no god when it seems the position could, in reality, be far more central than that. This is why I've always used "agnostic" but I never really felt it was correct and definitions here suggest it's more an adjective than a noun so it really doesn't answer the question.

I guess it is similar to the way in which "skeptic" is widely equated with "cynic" when it is often far from it.

Thanks.

[gentlehorse]

I am agnostic because I am without knowledge of god(s). I am atheist as a direct result of my agnosticism. I am without belief.

Some disagree with my use of the words, but that's cool.

[Hokulele]

From wollery's agnosticism thread, I learned that my position is best described as ignostic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism).

[Egg]

Atheism and Theism: applies only to the acceptance of a claim of a god. It is a yes or no answer. If you say "yes, I believe", you are a theist while if you say anything but yes including I don't know, you are an atheist. Atheist means a lack of belief in a deity.


If we go with this essentially binary definition, where do the following positions fit?

1) Someone who's experiences have led them to a strong suspicion that there is a God.

2) Someone brought up believing in God, but is now having some serious doubts and is exploring the possibility that what they've been taught is untrue.

3) Someone who believes there must be something "out there" and that something could well be a god of some definition, but the person is unwilling to assign any definite attributes to that "god".

4) Someone who is prepared to suspend their disbelief in order to try out a religion with an open mind.

[Bluefire]

If we go with this essentially binary definition, where do the following positions fit?


I would say that atheism/theism does not cover the entire spectra. Eg. the question "Do you believe there is a god" would be for yes Theist, and for no Atheist, while anyone who could not answer yes or no to that question would fit neither label.

That's ok though, I don't know of a specific -ist/-ism label for people who could not answer yes to any political ideology either ...


1) Someone who's experiences have led them to a strong suspicion that there is a God.

"Strong suspicion"..., is that used as "belief light version"? Would probably be theist to me.


2) Someone brought up believing in God, but is now having some serious doubts and is exploring the possibility that what they've been taught is untrue.

Are the doubts strong enough that she would anser no to "do you believe there is a god"? Would she answer yes ?

3) Someone who believes there must be something "out there" and that something could well be a god of some definition, but the person is unwilling to assign any definite attributes to that "god".

Again, what would this person answer to the question?


4) Someone who is prepared to suspend their disbelief in order to try out a religion with an open mind.

Err... what does that even mean? "I really don't believe, but for a while I will answer yes anyway"?

What you've noted in these examples is that there are corner cases between the choices. While that is all fine adding a third middle concept does not remove that problem (then you will have the corner cases at a different spot maybe).

My take on it is simply that a person that cannot answer "yes" or "no", cannot describe themselves with the atheist/theist labels. Agnostic is what is used in common parlance for these but it is problematic in that it clashes with the more technical meaning of Agnostic and that the "common meaning" of Agnostic is not that definite either (eg. some take it to mean atheist light, or nonconfrontative atheist, as well as "unsure").

[Darat]

If we go with this essentially binary definition, where do the following positions fit?

1) Someone who's experiences have led them to a strong suspicion that there is a God.

...snip...

Which god do they believe in? If it is none then they are an atheist.


2) Someone brought up believing in God, but is now having some serious doubts and is exploring the possibility that what they've been taught is untrue.
...snip...

If they believe in a god then they are a theist.


3) Someone who believes there must be something "out there" and that something could well be a god of some definition, but the person is unwilling to assign any definite attributes to that "god".

...snip...

Again the answer is in the question "Which god do you believe in?" If it's none they are an atheist, if one or more a theist.


4) Someone who is prepared to suspend their disbelief in order to try out a religion with an open mind.

A god ;) one to through in and shows why we have to be careful with words as the phrase "suspend disbelief" does not mean to "believe in" something therefore if they started as an atheist and still do not believe in a god they are still an atheist.

[paximperium]

If we go with this essentially binary definition, where do the following positions fit?

1) Someone who's experiences have led them to a strong suspicion that there is a God.

2) Someone brought up believing in God, but is now having some serious doubts and is exploring the possibility that what they've been taught is untrue.

3) Someone who believes there must be something "out there" and that something could well be a god of some definition, but the person is unwilling to assign any definite attributes to that "god".

4) Someone who is prepared to suspend their disbelief in order to try out a religion with an open mind.
1)Since this person believes there is a god, he/she is an Agnostic Theist.
2)This person still believes in a god. He/She is an Agnostic Theist.
3)Agnostic Atheist
4)A moron but otherwise Agnostic Atheist.

[Tricky]

4) Someone who is prepared to suspend their disbelief in order to try out a religion with an open mind.
How the heck does one "suspend disbelief". Could one really, without lying, simply decide to believe in Leprechauns by suspending disbelief in them? I would worry about one whose real (as opposed to stated) beliefs were so easy to manipulate.

[Mercutio]

Which god do they believe in? If it is none then they are an atheist.
"None of the above" = atheist. Agreed.

If they believe in a god then they are a theist.
Well, yeah, but the term "theist" is rather annoying. These people are not "theists"; they are Catholics, Baptists, Pentecostals, Jews, Shiites, Sunnis, Mormons, Hellenic Pantheists, Hare Krishnas, Eastern Orthodox, and some thousands more. "Theist" does not begin to describe what any one of them believes--and like as not, they may actively disbelieve in some other person's god, not merely lack a belief in him/her/it/them. Just as "Atheist" tells one absolutely nothing about what beliefs a person does hold, "Theist" tells next to nothing about a person's beliefs.

Again the answer is in the question "Which god do you believe in?" If it's none they are an atheist, if one or more a theist.
... same as above. Note, in my experience, people rarely label themselves "theists". Rather, the most general they will get is "Christian" (or perhaps "believer", which they take as a synonym).

A god ;) one to throw in and shows why we have to be careful with words as the phrase "suspend disbelief" does not mean to "believe in" something therefore if they started as an atheist and still do not believe in a god they are still an atheist.Agreed.

Don't we already have a dozen threads on the concept of privatives?

[fls]

Until recently, I'd always considered myself to be agnostic because I held no firm view on the existence, or not, of (a) god. I labelled myself agnostic because I'd always understood an "atheist" was someone who believed there is no god, rather than someone who simply doesn't believe there is a god.

It appears atheist actually has at least three meanings though:


I believe there's no such thing as gods
I neither believe nor disbelieve in gods
I believe there could be gods but they are essentially inert.


1 & 2 are presumably the more common types of atheist but is there a word that more accurately describes each of them since they are very different positions? I'd argue 1 & 2 are as different as an #2 and a theist.

I'd always considered position #2 to be agnostic but it's become clear that it could actually be the most common type of atheist.

Thoughts?

Atheist: someone who finds her/himself in a situation that allows them to feel comfortable about admitting that they don't believe in your god; someone who wants to be a bit confrontational

Agnostic: someone who finds her/himself in a situation that makes them uncomfortable about admitting that they don't believe in your god; someone who doesn't want to be confrontational

Linda

[Gurdur]

How the heck does one "suspend disbelief". Could one really, without lying, simply decide to believe in Leprechauns by suspending disbelief in them? I would worry about one whose real (as opposed to stated) beliefs were so easy to manipulate.


Well, one suspends disbelief every time one really gets into an exceptionally good novel or watches a really good film. Most people seem to be quite capable of believing six contradictory things all at the same time before breakfast; one of the common religions stated as given by respondants in the Australian official national censuses is "Jedi Knight"; and the number of LOTR fans is big.

People are capable of surprising feats of mental accomodation; mostly they work out what they can afford, and want to afford, in the way of simultaneously-held contradictory beliefs, and they go on that basis.

Usually, they're not being manipulated from outside.

[Brian-M]

It appears atheist actually has at least three meanings though:


I believe there's no such thing as gods
I neither believe nor disbelieve in gods
I believe there could be gods but they are essentially inert.


In #3 you are referring to deism, not atheism. (The belief that God created the universe, but does not interfere or intervene.)

[Jackalgirl]

3) Someone who believes there must be something "out there" and that something could well be a god of some definition, but the person is unwilling to assign any definite attributes to that "god".

Surely this would be ignostic, as per Hok's excellent link? (That is, if that person were unwilling to assign any definite attributes lacking a solid definition of what a "god" is or might be.)

[balrog666]

4. There might be any number of so-called gods but they have no known correlation with any human religion.

[Beerina]

5. Gods, as religion defines them, cannot logically exist. Moreover, any transfinite being that happened to exist would not have any special claim to deserve being worshipped, regardless of their ethics.