Support NeoGAF

[KHarvey16]

I'll admit it isn't worded eloquently, but the definition of belief is a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.

In this sense it is placed in a nothing that cannot be proven to the same extent that the something in other religions cannot currently be as well.

Just my opinion.

That doesn't make much sense. You're confusing not believing and believing it is not. Lacking a belief carries no burden of proof because it literally is not an affirmitive position with regard to anything.

Also this definition would require everyone have an infinite number of beliefs, since there are an infinite number of things to not believe.

 

[Izick]

It would be safer to put it under a 'movement' umbrella rather than religion.

Yeah.

 

[LevelNth]

That doesn't make much sense. You're confusing not believing and believing it is not. Lacking a belief carries no burden of proof because it literally is not an affirmitive position with regard to anything.

Also this definition would require everyone have an infinite number of beliefs, since there are an infinite number of things to not believe.

Oh ok I see what you're saying here. I guess then that I will say that I personally view atheism as it commonly held in today's society to be a belief of the not, rather than non-belief.

I do so because I think true non-belief is simply the result of having no stance on the matter, and if so one would be open to any new information or insight on that position. This I view to be more an agnostic viewpoint.

Again, this is just my interpretation of what I see has become of atheism today.

 

[UrbanRats]

I certainly didn't mean to imply that the process should be arbitrary. And I realise science is very complex. And very useful and at times even beautiful and awe-inspiring. It's provided mankind with a lot. I just believe it has certain limitations due to the nature of its method of inquiry. You can not objectively observe the self, only the someone else, and many would say that the secret to consciousness lies within those seemingly impenetrable walls. You can study the brain till you're blue in the face but I don't think you're going to find the answers within that dead matter.

I might be wrong, though, but I'm leaning more towards this side of things these days.

But like someone else said, everyone processess reality in their own way, based on where they are in their own personal development. If the findings of science are all you're willing to entertain at this point, I reckon that's just fine. Perhaps atheists should accept that others process things differently at this point of their lives too?

What brought you to this conclusion? That is the central question, i think.

As for the rest, i'm definitely not an obnoxious atheist, i rarely bother anyone with it (aside from maybe VERY close relatives) so i'm not going to tell anyone what they should do with their lives, but i also think it's totally fine to be more militant about it, because there is A LOT of misconception regarding atheism AND science or the scientific method.

 

[rdrr gnr]

I certainly didn't mean to imply that the process should be arbitrary. And I realise science is very complex. And very useful and at times even beautiful and awe-inspiring. It's provided mankind with a lot. I just believe it has certain limitations due to the nature of its method of inquiry. You can not objectively observe the self, only the someone else, and many would say that the secret to consciousness lies within those seemingly impenetrable walls. You can study the brain till you're blue in the face but I don't think you're going to find the answers within that dead matter.

I might be wrong, though, but I'm leaning more towards this side of things these days.

But like someone else said, everyone processess reality in their own way, based on where they are in their own personal development. If the findings of science are all you're willing to entertain at this point, I reckon that's just fine. Perhaps atheists should accept that others process things differently at this point of their lives too?

This is wrong. We have. And we will continue to.

 

[sangreal]

Oh ok I see what you're saying here. I guess then that I will say that I personally view atheism as it commonly held in today's society to be a belief of the not, rather than non-belief.

I do so because I think true non-belief is simply the result of having no stance on the matter, and if so one would be open to any new information or insight on that position. This I view to be more an agnostic viewpoint.

Again, this is just my interpretation of what I see has become of atheism today.

It's not just you, we already had a discussion about it a few pages back. I'll just requote Dawkin's scale:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

And the definition of belief, which is to accept that something is true, or as Dawkins puts it, to operate under the assumption that something is true. You do not need any degree of certainty or evidence to hold a belief, which is why we do not call religious people atheists. If you know something is true, that is not a belief, it is knowledge. Or as Wikipedia puts it:

In a notion derived from Plato's dialogue Theaetetus, philosophy has traditionally defined knowledge as "justified true belief". The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true.

Under Dawkin's scale, and commonly accepted (but not universal) usage of the term, all atheists believe there is no god.

 

[theBishop]

It's interesting how so many of the mainstream public faces of science must profess to lack any ideology. As if you can't be a monogamist, pugilist or communist and do good science.

Beware of anyone claiming to lack ideology. Typically this means they accept the unquestioned ideology of the ruling class. You can't properly examine anything without first identifying it. And that requires 'ist's.

As for "agnostic", I would ask Tyson one question: Would you say the theist hypothesis is equally likely as the nontheist position?

 

[HK-47]

...Everyone?

When you're holding rallies for anything the idea is to be seen and heard. Unless you mean someone getting up in your face yelling at you. I have no video of that, sorry.

Not confrontational at all.

What a militant atheist. Truly scary times.

 

[KHarvey16]

Oh ok I see what you're saying here. I guess then that I will say that I personally view atheism as it commonly held in today's society to be a belief of the not, rather than non-belief.

I do so because I think true non-belief is simply the result of having no stance on the matter, and if so one would be open to any new information or insight on that position. This I view to be more an agnostic viewpoint.

Again, this is just my interpretation of what I see has become of atheism today.

The term atheist says nothing about one's openness or ability or willingness to accept new information. For that matter, neither does agnostic. An atheist is merely a person who has not committed to believing in god. They might be convinced he does not exist in addition to that, but that's not required of an atheist. An atheist can also be an agnostic, however those who believe there is no god are not agnostics(since they believe they know god doesn't exist). Most atheists are agnostic, which means they lack belief in god(a- theist) and believe we do not or cannot know for certain god exists or does not exist(a-gnostic). Again the two words describe different things.

Even if we want to make the term atheist into a word that means belief in the non existence of god, we need to then redefine agnosticism to take the place atheism used to hold. I don't know why this is a preferable course of action. Why fix what isn't broken?

 

[captainnapalm]

What brought you to this conclusion? That is the central question, i think.

I guess the shortest answer is that consciousness is fundamentally immaterial and that consciousness is also the superstructure on which all matter is reliant. Not the other way around.

Interestingly, some scientists agree and posit that all matter is really just information. In other words, in the beginning there was the word.

The farthest reaches of scientific theory and exploration is becoming increasingly esoteric -dark matter and string theory and quantum mechanics. Maybe the two sides aren't as diametrically opposed as people think. It certainly would be cool if we could unite them one day.

 

[LevelNth]

The term atheist says nothing about one's openness or ability or willingness to accept new information. For that matter, neither does agnostic. An atheist is merely a person who has not committed to believing in god. They might be convinced he does not exist in addition to that, but that's not required of an atheist. An atheist can also be an agnostic, however those who believe there is no god are not agnostics(since they believe they know god doesn't exist). Most atheists are agnostic, which means they lack belief in god(a- theist) and believe we do not or cannot know for certain god exists or does not exist(a-gnostic). Again the two words describe different things.

Even if we want to make the term atheist into a word that means belief in the non existence of god, we need to then redefine agnosticism to take the place atheism used to hold. I don't know why this is a preferable course of action. Why fix what isn't broken?

I see it more a result of society and the current (and in many ways, warranted) aggression towards organized religion and what some of those belief structures impose against current, modern day society. I think the term atheist has risen up as the antithesis of that, and taken perhaps a new life from it's original meaning.

Of course this breaks down part of the argument to semantics, which is so inane, boring and pointless it then moves beyond the level of caring I have on the subject. But no so for many others.

Like Catholicism or other organized religions, atheism has begun to stray from it's original perception to become a whole different beast altogether. This is my original point.

 

[Ocaso]

I'll admit it isn't worded eloquently, but the definition of belief is a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.

In this sense it is placed in a nothing that cannot be proven to the same extent that the something in other religions cannot currently be as well.

Just my opinion.


The difference being those are scientific examples, which IMO don't equate on the same level as discussing a belief.

You are treating "nothing" as if it were actually something, and thereby commiting a mental fallacy leading you on this erroneous path. The examples were simply meant to illustrate this absurdity. The absence of something cannot imply the presence of anything.

 

[Xdrive05]

I agree with most of the things he says, and I think the video was quite good at explaining the idea of scientific rationalism. At the same time, I don't think his goal in the video was to not get too technical, because he is an excellent speaker when it comes to explaining concepts and he is quite explicit in distancing himself from being called "atheist" because he doesn't like what that entails. I disagree with him, but I won't hold it against him.

I think not explaining the difference despite being so talented at explaining things is doing a disservice and further spreading confusion instead of keeping it simple. But the bottom line is he doesn't give a shit about the religion debate, he wants to spread science.

See, this is why it sticks like a thorn in my heel. I agree with everything you said, and yet when I consider the accurate TWO axis approach, even coming from NDT, I can't imagine its force being compelling to the vast majority of any audience outside of philosophers, or, being generous, maybe college students to most.

So it seems like the pivot point of the discussion has more to do with the baggage of the term "Atheist". Which shouldn't have ANY baggage at all, because lacking a belief in X is not a bill of goods for what you do believe. And it seems like NDT doesn't get that.

The two axis approach, while being accurate and correct, is pretty redundant. Nobody is ever referring to agnostic theists when they use the word "agnostic," and few are ever talking about agnostic atheists when they choose to identify as "atheist." And "gnostic" and "theist" are almost never used independently in general anyway.

You can easily collapse down to one axis and still be perfectly accurate for the vast majority of circumstances and have everybody understand what you're talking about. Ideas are communicated most easily when they are simplified to their most fundamental parts.

At the gut level I find this very sound, maybe a truism or a truthiness-ism. But if we return to what I think the real pivot point is (atheism being a misunderstood "dirty" word), then maybe in addition to collapsing it down to ONE axis for practical reasons, we should focus on clarifying the real meaning of the word itself so people don't sling extra baggage on top of it. So then NDT's mistake here is indeed accepting that baggage.

 

[Malvolio]

It's amazing that by expressing his desire to not be labeled, so much time can be spent on deciding how we should label that line of thinking.

 

[Xdrive05]

It's amazing that by expressing his desire to not be labeled, so much time can be spent on deciding how we should label that line of thinking.

If ideas matter, as I think they do, then it's useful to have labels for them so we can have a real discussion.

But you're right about about labeling individuals. It's a little creepy the tribalism that comes up in these topics. NDT is a popular, charismatic guy. So of course he's on MY team. What? He's NOT on my team? Yes he is!

Okay, in fairness to that group (which I may be in), he's an atheist in the same exact way that every atheist I know is one, no matter what he labels himself.

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

If ideas matter, as I think they do, then it's useful to have labels for them so we can have a real discussion.

But you're right about about labeling individuals. It's a little creepy the tribalism that comes up in these topics. NDT is a popular, charismatic guy. So of course he's on MY team. What? He's NOT on my team? Yes he is!

Okay, in fairness to that group (which I may be in), he's an atheist in the same exact way that every atheist I know is one, no matter what he labels himself.

Only because you as an atheist refuse to acknowledge the existence of true agnosticism. Also, it's a little bizarre how many atheists in this thread seem to be experiencing a classic persecution complex. Not that atheists are never ever exposed to derision or ridicule, but in this particular context they are perceiving every difference of opinion as a slight to their own cherished (non) belief system. Generally I don't make the theist/atheist equivalency, but some of the more hard nosed atheist responses in this thread are among the better arguments I've seen for making that comparison.

 

[Maxim726X]

What a militant atheist. Truly scary times.

Oh- I understand. It's only confrontational when someone threatens with physical violence.

Appreciate the clarification.

 

[GrizzNKev]

Only because you as an atheist refuse to acknowledge the existence of true agnosticism. Also, it's a little bizarre how many atheists in this thread seem to be experiencing a classic persecution complex. Not that atheists are never ever exposed to derision or ridicule, but in this particular context they are perceiving every difference of opinion as a slight to their own cherished (non) belief system. Generally i don't make the theist/atheist equivalency, but some of the more hard nosed atheist responses in this thread are one of the better arguments I've seen for making that comparison.

At what point are you going to realize that there is no such thing as "true agnosticism" and you are just as much an atheist as anyone else who doesn't actively believe in a god? You cannot invent a "maybe" answer for a yes or no question, holy shit this is frustrating. Do you understand what binary means? Two total possible positions. 0 or 1. On or off. Yes or no. One or the other. You are not a 0.5, you are not a "partially kinda sorta on," you are not "agnostic" in the middle like you so desperately try to be. Agnostic can be used to describe atheism or theism, it is not its own group or party. We're upset because you make up your own fucking definitions for words and claim them as absolute truth. You are intentionally defying the function of the language you're using, then turning the reaction into an excuse to push your perceived superiority as the man who is above the debate or discussion because he didn't choose a side.

This has nothing to do with how people feel about your opinions on atheists and theists and everything to do with the fact that you're using the words incorrectly and ignoring every other poster in the thread when they try to explain the actual definitions to you.

 

[Mumei]

Oh- I understand. It's only confrontational when someone threatens with physical violence.

Appreciate the clarification.

There's no threat there.

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

At what point are you going to realize that there is no such thing as "true agnosticism" and you are just as much an atheist as anyone else who doesn't actively believe in a god? You cannot invent a "maybe" answer for a yes or no question, holy shit this is frustrating. Do you understand what binary means? 0 or 1. On or off. Yes or no. One or the other. You are not a 0.5, you are not a "partially kinda sorta on," you are not "agnostic" in the middle like you so desperately try to be. Agnostic can be used to describe atheism or theism, it is not its own group or party.

I didn't invent anything. Agnosticism exists with or without my personal opinion on the matter. The real question is when will you understand that one doesn't have to weigh in on matters beyond their purview. It's possible to abstain from judgment. In fact, sometimes it's the most reasonable course of action. I sincerely don't believe I have a metric by which I can approach the question of a higher power adequately. I neither believe nor disbelieve. Period. Your tact of telling people what they can't believe is exactly what turns people off about militant atheism. How can an atheist who is so worried about how others perceive their view be so quick to label agnosticism as some sort of slippery ruse, rather than a philosophical difference.

Spoiler

Now let's see how long it takes for someone to make a stupid reductive comparison to Santa Claus or Odin or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and belittle agnostics as cowardly fence sitters.

 

[GrizzNKev]

I didn't invent anything. Agnosticism exists with or without my personal opinion on the matter. The real question is when will you understand that one doesn't have to weigh in on matters beyond their purview. It's possible to abstain from judgment. In fact, sometimes it's the most reasonable course of action. I sincerely don't believe I have a metric by which I can approach the question of a higher power adequately. I neither believe nor disbelieve. Period. Your tact of telling people what they can't believe is exactly what turns people off about militant atheism. How can an atheist who is so worried about how others perceive their view be so quick to label agnosticism as some sort of slippery ruse, rather than a philosophical difference.

Spoiler

Now let's see how long it takes for someone to make a stupid reductive comparison to Santa Claus or Odin or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and belittle agnostics as cowardly fence sitters.

Did you even read my post? Or are you too thick to be corrected when you misunderstand the definition of the word?

I, as well as nearly everyone else in this thread, informed you that what you believe is an atheist is actually a narrow view and doesn't encompass all of what atheism can be. Atheists can be agnostic too. I am. Theism or atheism, one or the other. That's how the word works. Once you decide whether or not you believe, you can then approach the subject of knowledge. Believing in a god is theism. Not believing in a god is atheism. Believing that you can know with certainty whether a god exists is gnosticism on the subject of the existence of a god. Believing that you can't know with certainty whether a god exists is agnosticism on the subject of the existence of a god.

THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE POSITIONS. They don't even interact at all.

For some reason, you keep telling us that atheists or theists can't be agnostic, when the reality is when you mention agnosticism, you're getting into a subject that has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in a god. We've corrected you dozens of times, and each time you ignore it and shoot back something like "I used to be atheist" or "They think I'm prosecuting them" instead of realizing that your definition is wrong and that you need to adapt your view to fit new information. You have effectively trapped yourself in a mindset where all atheists hold a gnostic view on the subject of whether a god exists. This is simply not true. You're the only person here still trying to defend that position. Almost every single atheist on the planet is going to tell you your view of atheism is incorrect. Are you the only one that's right, or the only one that's wrong?

 

[The Technomancer]

That's fair enough. I really have no problems with atheists who choose to oppose simplistic definitions of God like the ones you find in monotheism. It seems perfectly fair and reasonable to require some evidence before you believe anything of that nature.

But atheists often also have what I consider to be a farely narrow and limited view of reality that doesn't really allow for any opposing views or even debate. They demand scientific evidence before they'll consider anything, but to me it seems reasonable to accept that, due to the ultimately subjective nature of existence, objective scientific evidence for all aspects of reality and being is not a realistic expectation and can in fact be very limiting.

Science would be the perfect tool for understanding everything in the universe if it wasn't for the fact that it cannot observe the observer - at least not without creating another observer. When it comes to defining the observer and what role he plays in reality, I have found far more illuminating sources than science.

Er...what do you mean by the bolded?

EDIT: I think I'm late to the party on this one

I guess the shortest answer is that consciousness is fundamentally immaterial and that consciousness is also the superstructure on which all matter is reliant. Not the other way around.

Interestingly, some scientists agree and posit that all matter is really just information. In other words, in the beginning there was the word.

The farthest reaches of scientific theory and exploration is becoming increasingly esoteric -dark matter and string theory and quantum mechanics. Maybe the two sides aren't as diametrically opposed as people think. It certainly would be cool if we could unite them one day.

What is consciousness? If the consciousness is immaterial then why is it that we can artificially introduce personality changes into people using material methods?

 

[BocoDragon]

I didn't invent anything. Agnosticism exists with or without my personal opinion on the matter. The real question is when will you understand that one doesn't have to weigh in on matters beyond their purview. It's possible to abstain from judgment. In fact, sometimes it's the most reasonable course of action. I sincerely don't believe I have a metric by which I can approach the question of a higher power adequately. I neither believe nor disbelieve. Period. Your tact of telling people what they can't believe is exactly what turns people off about militant atheism. How can an atheist who is so worried about how others perceive their view be so quick to label agnosticism as some sort of slippery ruse, rather than a philosophical difference.

Spoiler

Now let's see how long it takes for someone to make a stupid reductive comparison to Santa Claus or Odin or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and belittle agnostics as cowardly fence sitters.

If we accept your definition of agnosticism as a distinct category... Then I'm afraid most atheists like myself would also suddenly find themselves in the agnostic camp.. And that would suck since I already got the tattoo

 

[Deadly Cyclone]

Just watched this, it is pretty much how I feel as well.

 

[ultim8p00]

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST GUYS.

LEARN THE GODDAMN DEFINITIONS BEFORE YOU ARGUE SHIT.

Atheist: No belief in a God

Theist: Belief in a God

Agnostic: No way to know.

Agnostic Atheist: No belief in a God and no way to know.
Agnostic Theist: Belief in a God and no way to know.

Technically, Agnosticism is NOT a declaration of religious stance.

This should be OPed so people stop repeating the same uninformed arguments over and over.

 

[Clear]

Totally where I stand, except that I'm perhaps more suspicious of the behaviour of hardline Atheists than Tyson, although his "non-golf player" jibe suggests to me he's making an effort to diplomatic here.

In my opinion the problem with militant Atheists and atheism is that too often they let their ideological opposition to religion override their rationality - in the sense that their zeal blinds them to the pragmatic rationalization that opposing faith/superstition in a confrontational manner does more harm than good.

 

[GrizzNKev]

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST GUYS.

LEARN THE GODDAMN DEFINITIONS BEFORE YOU ARGUE SHIT.

Atheist: No belief in a God

Theist: Belief in a God

Agnostic: No way to know.

Agnostic Atheist: No belief in a God and no way to know.
Agnostic Theist: Belief in a God and no way to know.

Technically, Agnosticism is NOT a declaration of religious stance.

This should be OPed so people stop repeating the same uninformed arguments over and over.

Dude, stop persecuting GrotesqueBeauty because he's different, it's so unfair to him. He used to be an atheist too you know. It could have hurt his feelings at some point too.

 

[KHarvey16]

I neither believe nor disbelieve. Period.

You realize this is precisely equal to saying I am not pregnant and I am not not pregnant, right? You are necessarily one or the other. Whether you like it or not. Either you believe or you do not. Withholding judgment means you don't believe, which makes you an atheist.

 

[sangreal]

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST GUYS.

LEARN THE GODDAMN DEFINITIONS BEFORE YOU ARGUE SHIT.

Atheist: No belief in a God

one who believes that there is no deity

Oops. Could it be that the definition of the word atheism is heavily debated and not at all the fact that you're declaring it to be (yes). Even Dawkins, an oft-cited expert on atheism does not agree with your viewpoint. In his view there is a 7 point spectrum between theist and atheist, and you don't become a defacto atheist until 6 (a belief that there is no god). This is far from your assertion that it is a binary choice. His view isn't necessarily important either, but it is just one of many examples that demonstrate a lack of consensus that atheism means what you are declaring it to mean.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

At what point are you going to realize that there is no such thing as "true agnosticism" and you are just as much an atheist as anyone else who doesn't actively believe in a god? You cannot invent a "maybe" answer for a yes or no question, holy shit this is frustrating. Do you understand what binary means? Two total possible positions. 0 or 1. On or off. Yes or no. One or the other. You are not a 0.5, you are not a "partially kinda sorta on," you are not "agnostic" in the middle like you so desperately try to be.

To me, this whole debate goes round and round because, at the end of the day, we're just not really speaking the same language. In it's application, I don't really know if I agree that it does a lot for the public discourse in terms of allowing for people to properly self-identify by asserting that theism/atheism is a strictly binary position. I mean, we certainly can make it one. However, it strikes me as slightly disingenuous, as I don't think it properly accounts for the people who really just want to sit on the fence -- be it because of apathy or genuine indecisiveness.

Basically, I think that whole Gnostic vs. Agnostic/Theism vs. Atheism chart was seemingly created to really delve into the semantics and add better clarity to the terms. And that's great. However, in application, I don't think it really does much. If all we care about is debating semantics, then it does a great job. However, outside of futile wastes of time like this, do most people really care?

What we care about is a continuum of classification so that people can go "oh yeah, that's where I fall." And I don't know how asserting that Person A who believes that there is no God but concedes that they can't be sure and Person B who asserts that they neither know nor care about whether God exists fall in the same category really helps in that regard. Given that most people with a degree of humility on either the theist or atheist side allow for fallibility, the Gnostic vs. Agnostic division seems largely useless to me. That Persons A and B are both Agnostic Atheists really does little to distinguish where they differ.

 

[GrizzNKev]

Oops. Could it be that the definition of the word atheism is heavily debated and not at all the fact that you're declaring it to be (yes). Even Dawkins, an oft-cited expert on atheism does not agree with your viewpoint. In his view there is a 7 point spectrum between theist and atheist, and you don't become a defacto atheist until 6 (a belief that there is no god). This is far from your assertion that it is a binary choice. His view isn't necessarily important either, but it is just one of many examples that demonstrate a lack of consensus that atheism means what you are declaring it to mean.

The words themselves still function as a binary pair. What he meant with that scale is the varying degrees of likelihood of a god existing (anything between 1 and 7), and absolute gnostic theism or atheism on either side (1 or 7). He didn't use the specific terms to describe them, but he means the same thing we do.

 

[KHarvey16]

To me, this whole debate goes round and round because, at the end of the day, we're just not really speaking the same language. In it's application, I don't really know if I agree that it does a lot for the public discourse in terms of allowing for people to properly self-identify by asserting that theism/atheism is a strictly binary position. I mean, we certainly can make it one. However, it strikes me as slightly disingenuous, as I don't think it properly accounts for the people who really just want to sit on the fence -- be it because of apathy or genuine indecisiveness.

Basically, I think that whole Gnostic vs. Agnostic/Theism vs. Atheism chart was seemingly created to really delve into the semantics and add better clarity to the terms. And that's great. However, in application, I don't think it really does much. If all we care about is debating semantics, then it does a great job. However, outside of futile wastes of time like this, do most people really care?

What we care about is a continuum of classification so that people can go "oh yeah, that's where I fall." And I don't know how asserting that Person A who believes that there is no God but concedes that they can't be sure and Person B who asserts that they neither know nor care about whether God exists fall in the same category really helps in that regard. Given that most people with a degree of humility on either the theist or atheist side allow for fallibility, the Gnostic vs. Agnostic division seems largely useless to me. That Persons A and B are both Agnostic Atheists really does little to distinguish where they differ.

This is like game reviews. You want just a score to look at, we like reading the article.

 

[Atrus]

There is a point where agnosticism becomes de facto Atheism, and most empirically derived agnosticism is synonymous with being an Atheist.

If you want to be really technical, I'm an Agnostic Empiricist and Theological Non-Cognitivist but all that really means is that I possess an empirically valid Atheistic stance.

If I were to simply go around and tell people that I was an Agnostic Empiricist and Theological Non-Cognitivist I would only invite confusion and furrowed brows while distorting my message. Whereas the term 'Atheist' is more succinct and to the point.

Most learned Athiestic positions are ones that believe in the absolute highest degree of probability that there is no God such that it might as well be an empirical certainty, rather than an absolute empirical certainty.

 

[theBishop]

This is like game reviews. You want just a score to look at, we like reading the article.

It's like the score of a reviewer who hasn't played the game.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

This is like game reviews. You want just a score to look at, we like reading the article.

I don't follow. I'm actually really arguing that belief is more nuanced than looking at theism vs. atheism as a binary assertion of you either believe (theist!) or you don't (atheist!). I mean, that might be strictly true based on strict definitions. But I don't know how it really helps the public debate to quibble over that as though it's a pivotal distinction that it is, in fact, binary. Furthermore, I don't think the introduction of Gnostic vs. Agnostic really serves a lot of purpose, pragmatically speaking.

 

[ultim8p00]

Oops. Could it be that the definition of the word atheism is heavily debated and not at all the fact that you're declaring it to be (yes). Even Dawkins, an oft-cited expert on atheism does not agree with your viewpoint. In his view there is a 7 point spectrum between theist and atheist, and you don't become a defacto atheist until 6 (a belief that there is no god). This is far from your assertion that it is a binary choice. His view isn't necessarily important either, but it is just one of many examples that demonstrate a lack of consensus that atheism means what you are declaring it to mean.

What? What the hell is this I don't even...WHAT?

The quote you just gave me is the definition of an Atheist, exactly like the one I posted.

The definition of an Atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a God or deity's existence. That is the very essence of it. That is, a full blown Atheist believes that God does not exist. It is merely an assertion of belief, not knowledge. Dawkin's scale is a spectrum that tells you how Atheistic or Theistic you are. When your at 5 to 7, you hold more Atheistic beliefs. It doesn't change the definition of an atheist. He didn't suddenly call Atheists orange juice. The concept of Theism and Atheism are still binary choices. The only things that have a spectrum or your belief systems.

 

[SUPREME1]

Annoying atheists?


I don't believe it.

 

[KHarvey16]

I don't follow. I'm actually really arguing that belief is more nuanced than looking at theism vs. atheism as a binary assertion of you either believe (theist!) or you don't (atheist!). I mean, that might be strictly true based on strict definitions. But I don't know how it really helps the public debate to quibble over that as though it's a pivotal distinction that it is, in fact, binary. Furthermore, I don't think the introduction of Gnostic vs. Agnostic really serves a lot of purpose, pragmatically speaking.

The words require context(or the article in this analogy). You seem to want words that encompass the entirety of belief and unbelief, which seems futile. Just as attempting to quantify how "good" a game is, a complicated experience, with a number. A discussion is required. Theist and atheist are starting points, the details are offered in dialogue. They were never intended to offer the entire picture regarding a person's belief or lack of belief.

 

[GrizzNKev]

What we care about is a continuum of classification so that people can go "oh yeah, that's where I fall." And I don't know how asserting that Person A who believes that there is no God but concedes that they can't be sure and Person B who asserts that they neither know nor care about whether God exists fall in the same category really helps in that regard. Given that most people with a degree of humility on either the theist or atheist side allow for fallibility, the Gnostic vs. Agnostic division seems largely useless to me. That Persons A and B are both Agnostic Atheists really does little to distinguish where they differ.

Note the difference between the subject of the statements of Person A and Person B. "Person A who believes that there is no God but concedes that they can't be sure" is talking about two things - belief, and knowledge. They don't believe, thus they're an atheist. The can't be sure if a god exists, so they're agnostic on the topic of god's existence. "Person B who asserts that they neither know nor care about whether God exists" is only talking about knowledge - they claim not to know whether a god exists, again making them agnostic. Nowhere does Person B state whether they believe a god exists. This is the problem we run into with people who make claims like Person B and then classify themselves as "Agnostic" fail to realize that knowledge and belief are two separate things, and that not knowing doesn't mean you can't believe nor disbelieve. They're entirely separate. That's why it's much more beneficial to state belief and knowledge as a pair. It gives us a more complete picture.

Saying you don't know isn't the answer to the question of whether or not you believe. Not knowing is not a position of belief.

edit: I realize I misread part of it, hope you didn't catch my mistake

 

[sangreal]

What? What the hell is this I don't even...WHAT?

The quote you just gave me is the definition of an Atheist, exactly like the one I posted.

No, you stated a lack of belief in a god, while I quoted a definition that says you believe there is no god. I understand that the latter falls into your definition (the former), but the reverse is not true.

The definition of an Atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a God or deity's existence. That is the very essence of it. That is, a full blown Atheist believes that God does not exist. It is merely an assertion of belief, not knowledge. Dawkin's scale is a spectrum that tells you how Atheistic or Theistic you are. When your at 5 to 7, you hold more Atheistic beliefs. It doesn't change the definition of an atheist. He didn't suddenly call Atheists orange juice. The concept of Theism and Atheism are still binary choices. The only things that have a spectrum or your belief systems.

That is not what his spectrum says at all.

4 Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's
existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic
but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists
but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'

According to you, a 5 would already be an (agnostic) atheist, and therefore could not be leaning towards atheism. On his scale, you do not become an atheist until 6:

6 Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I
cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable,
and I live my life on the assumption that he is not
there.'

Only now does he agree that you're actually an atheist and this is when you believe there is no god (accept as true your assumption there is no god)

 

[Log4Girlz]

Annoying atheists?


I don't believe it.

We should have our own channel on cable t.v.

 

[GrizzNKev]

No, you stated a lack of belief in a god, while I quoted a definition that says you believe there is no god. I understand that the latter falls into your definition (the former), but the reverse is not true.

That is not what his spectrum says at all.

According to you, a 5 would already be an (agnostic) atheist, and therefore could not be leaning towards atheism. On his scale, you do not become an atheist until 6:

Only now does he agree that you're actually an atheist and this is when you believe there is no god (accept as true your assumption there is no god)

All of this still holds true to the binary function of the words. He's still speaking only about likelihood and knowledge, not belief. He's just using common terms of public perception for the easiest understanding. Really, he's explaining the total spectrum of agnosticism. The percentage in each direction approaches gnosticism. Any point on that spectrum can contain belief or disbelief, it's entirely irrelevant to what he's explaining. This doesn't change what theist and atheist means.

 

[ultim8p00]

There is a point where agnosticism becomes de facto Atheism, and most empirically derived agnosticism is synonymous with being an Atheist.

If you want to be really technical, I'm an Agnostic Empiricist and Theological Non-Cognitivist but all that really means is that I possess an empirically valid Atheistic stance.

If I were to simply go around and tell people that I was an Agnostic Empiricist and Theological Non-Cognitivist I would only invite confusion and furrowed brows while distorting my message. Whereas the term 'Atheist' is more succinct and to the point.

Most learned Athiestic positions are ones that believe in the absolute highest degree of probability that there is no God such that it might as well be an empirical certainty, rather than an absolute empirical certainty.

No it does not!!

Agnosticism has NOTHING to do with your beliefs, only knowledge. It's like saying "there is a point where Alcoholism becomes de facto Atheism". It makes no sense.

If you claim that you are agnostic, it means you claim that it is impossible for us to know whether God exists. That is, we do not posses the means of knowing, or the means of knowing is beyond our reach. As such, the only thing we can really do is believe or have faith that he does. If you choose to believe, you are a Theist. If you choose not to believe, you are an Atheist.

Take for example your house. If you are out of the country and someone randomly tells you that your house burned down. Let's assume that you are in a jungle and have no access to the internet or telephone lines. There is no way for you to know that your house actually burned down since this will require some sort of evidence, like a picture, a video feed, a verified news report, you physically seeing your house burn down etc. You have NO ACCESS to any means of knowing for sure that your house is fucked. At this point if you claim that there is no way for you to know, which is a factual statement, then you are Agnostic about your house burning down. If you choose to believe the guy who told you your house burned down, then you are an Agnostic Burntdownist. If you think the guy is a fraud and you don't believe him, then you are an Agnostic Aburntdownist.


THIS IS NOT THAT HARD GUYS.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

The words require context(or the article in this analogy). You seem to want words that encompass the entirety of belief and unbelief, which seems futile.

No. However, I don't necessarily understand how an attempt to make a word have strictly binary definitions aids in the discourse either. Many people see the word as having more for or against implications. You're arguing that -- strictly speaking -- it merely has for or not for. Given that I'm not terribly in love with semantic-based debate, I don't understand the battle for winning the specific implications of atheism.

If that makes me the person who just wants a score, then so be it I guess.

 

[J.W.Crazy]

At what point are you going to realize that there is no such thing as "true agnosticism" and you are just as much an atheist as anyone else who doesn't actively believe in a god? You cannot invent a "maybe" answer for a yes or no question, holy shit this is frustrating. Do you understand what binary means? Two total possible positions. 0 or 1. On or off. Yes or no. One or the other. You are not a 0.5, you are not a "partially kinda sorta on," you are not "agnostic" in the middle like you so desperately try to be. Agnostic can be used to describe atheism or theism, it is not its own group or party. We're not persecuting you for being different, we're upset because you make up your own fucking definitions for words and claim them as absolute truth. You are intentionally defying the function of the language you're using, then turning the reaction into an excuse to push your perceived superiority as the man who is above the debate or discussion because he didn't choose a side.

This has nothing to do with how people feel about your opinions on atheists and theists and everything to do with the fact that you're using the words incorrectly and ignoring every other poster in the thread when they try to explain the actual definitions to you.

Is gray a shade of white or a tint of black?

 

[Toby]

Never heard of this guy before, but he's suddenly everywhere
Atheism just seems like the popular thing to be on the internet now. I down vote almost everything that comes out of that circle jerk r/atheism

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Saying you don't know isn't the answer to the question of whether or not you believe. Not knowing is not a position of belief.

That's why I also threw in the "I don't care" part of it as well. Saying that the apathetic person who identifies as agnostic is actually an agnostic atheist is a clarification that is of little benefit to me. I personally don't see how that gives us a clearer picture of where people stand.

Back in my day (we're probably going back like ten years now) of discussing this on the internet, the popular distinctions were more agnosticism (neutral), weak atheist, and strong atheist. The popular groupings now don't allow for that truly neutral outlook, and instead have added Gnosticism vs. agnosticism into the mix. Personally, I don't see how this is an improvement.

 

[GrizzNKev]

That's why I also threw in the "I don't care" part of it as well. Saying that the apathetic person who identifies as agnostic is actually an agnostic atheist is a clarification that is of little benefit to me. I personally don't see how that gives us a clearer picture of where people stand.

Back in my day (we're probably going back like ten years now) of discussing this on the internet, the popular distinctions were more agnosticism (neutral), weak atheist, and strong atheist. The popular groupings now don't allow for that truly neutral outlook, and instead have added Gnosticism vs. agnosticism into the mix. Personally, I don't see how this is an improvement.

They've been added because because agnosticism isn't a position of belief, it's a statement of knowledge. Adding that you don't care doesn't change that. You're saying that you don't care whether you can know because it doesn't mean anything to you. We're still talking about knowledge here. Belief is unrelated and addressed separately by the words theism and atheism. The spectrum you're looking for doesn't exist in the theism and atheism argument, but elsewhere in a combination of words and meanings. That's where we get the chart that's been posted.

Never heard of this guy before, but he's suddenly everywhere
Atheism just seems like the popular thing to be on the internet now. I down vote almost everything that comes out of that circle jerk r/atheism

I highly recommend you stop visit reddit. Nothing positive can come from that.

 

[KHarvey16]

No. However, I don't necessarily understand how an attempt to make a word have strictly binary definitions aids in the discourse either. Many people see the word as having more for or against implications. You're arguing that -- strictly speaking -- it merely has for or not for. Given that I'm not terribly in love with semantic-based debate, I don't understand the battle for winning the specific implications of atheism.

If that makes me the person who just wants a score, then so be it I guess.

It's the starting point. Belief in god or a lack of belief in a god is the earliest fork in the road.

 

[Bombadil]

You realize this is precisely equal to saying I am not pregnant and I am not not pregnant, right? You are necessarily one or the other. Whether you like it or not. Either you believe or you do not. Withholding judgment means you don't believe, which makes you an atheist.

False analogies are logical fallacies.