Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.***[W:1682]****

[Cephus]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

Eh, man? I just told you why I was using that definition. The "how" is the "why" here: that's the definition of the monotheistic God across the vast vast majority of religions, therefore, it's the one I'm focusing on.

Do you assert I was in the wrong to use that definition? Do you think I should use another? And if so, does it call portions of my argument into question?

I can't possibly address every single actual definition of Godhood that humanity has come across, let alone imaginable ones.

I was questioning why you think that definition is a valid one in the first place. Popular delusions are still delusions after all. So why does that particular delusion become your go-to definition, other than popularity? Is it the most reasonable definition you can come up with? Because it seems to me that you're taking the definition which is, by design, unfalsifiable and then pointing to its unfalsifiability, as though you've proven anything.

 

[Mach]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

Chalk it up to me being a poor communicator. My intent was not to cherry pick, but to find the key root issue that when answered, makes the rest fall into place. And then just discuss that one thing, to save time (and another 5000+ words). I get in trouble either way (too long winded or too brief) in different scenarios, I can only say it wasn't my intent.

"We cannot know about gods with certainty"

If you exclude the certainty part (which you seem to be telling me above that I shouldn't really include in the broadest sense), then I read your claim as simply:
Mr Person claims to know, [what cannot be known].

I think you will accept the first part, that, "we cannot know, is a claim of knowledge, written this way, it helps make the contradiction more clear:
"I claim to know that we cannot know". This is not meant to twist words or straw man, it is simply showing an underlying assumption in words that make it easier to see the contradiction. If you do NOT claim to know anything, then there is no discussion, so I'm thinking I can stick with that?

So then, can we know about [gods]? Yes or no?

If no, then:
B: I claim to know that, we cannot know about gods.

Which looks to me like a contradiction. I claim to know [that which cannot be known]

 

[Visbek]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

Who are"we"? You mean you.

So, you have no answer when shown numerous problems with your position. Again, fascinating.

 

[Mach]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

From "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent", "omni" meaning "all".

You tell me, are those qualities real qualities or imaginary?

You can test it yourself, and see if it leads to a reasonable statement, or absurdity.
I know X is omniscient.

How would you know that, without being omniscient yourself?

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

So, you have no answer when shown numerous problems with your position. Again, fascinating.

I have answered many times. You did not answer my question. Who are "we"? Were you using the royal we? You are not the first to succumb to my fatal fascination.

 

[Mr Person]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

I was questioning why you think that definition is a valid one in the first place. Popular delusions are still delusions after all. So why does that particular delusion become your go-to definition, other than popularity? Is it the most reasonable definition you can come up with? Because it seems to me that you're taking the definition which is, by design, unfalsifiable and then pointing to its unfalsifiability, as though you've proven anything.

What are you talking about?

This THREAD, ok, the entire thread is about "isms." Those "isms" only exist with respect to the all/all/all monotheistic definition of God. Debates around the existence of that God are how they came into being.

I didn't "design" the all/all/all monotheistic God. I told you that. To claim otherwise is a deliberate falsehood. It was designed thousands of years ago and echoed ever since. Again, that's why the "isms" this thread is about all concern that definition of God.

From "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent", "omni" meaning "all". That definition is quite literally what people who accept the bible as truth believe. It defines the monotheistic God for Jews and Christians, and Allah isn't fundamentally different as far as I understand it. That boils down to any common sect I know of, and their belief as far as theologians I am aware of have argued about it.

What sort of God do you think they're praying in?

Anyway, regardless of the specific wording, monotheistic religions at least do seem to all believe that their "God" is the highest being. That's enough for these purposes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptions_of_God

but the all/all/all or omni/omni/omni definition really is the one that the holds a huge dominance over the others.

And to claim that my argument is faulty because I didn't address the entire set of possible things that someone might define a God with is absurd on its face. As I said.

Eh, man? I just told you why I was using that definition. The "how" is the "why" here: that's the definition of the monotheistic God across the vast vast majority of religions, therefore, it's the one I'm focusing on.

Do you assert I was in the wrong to use that definition? Do you think I should use another? And if so, does it call portions of my argument into question?

I can't possibly address every single actual definition of Godhood that humanity has come across, let alone imaginable ones.

Again, philosophy gets complicated in a hurry. Any other definition of "God" to talk about would for example perhaps spark a different debate about the required level of certainty required for proof of that God's existence.

What's your point? You're acting like telling me that using the overwhelmingly vastly used monotheistic definition of God to address various "isms" that came into existence around that exact concept of God is absurd, where I'm talking about being agnostic as toward that God's existence.

How is that supposed to be problematic?

You're not even making an argument of your own about a different definition of "God" that can be used to poke some hole in some premise of my argument. (It certainly couldn't defeat the whole thing, because I'm talking about the common definition of God and you're...well..you haven't even tried to argue about what definition of "God" should be used instead).

I'm using the definition of god that the overwhelmingly overwhelming number of sects of monotheistic religions have used, which in turn sparked the various "isms" describing categories of doubt or certainty regarding that God's existence, and you say I designed the definition of God just to trot out a tautology? That's an absurd criticism. I'm responding to what is generally believed.

If you can imagine some alternate God, make an argument for why that definition is used instead, and then describe how it supposedly undermines my argument about the all/all/all common definition, then go for it.

 

[Mr Person]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

Anyway, maybe I should bugger off for a bit. It was good thought-provoking fun for a while but now it's gotten rather gotcha-like.

 

[Cephus]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

What are you talking about?

This THREAD, ok, the entire thread is about "isms." Those "isms" only exist with respect to the all/all/all monotheistic definition of God. Debates around the existence of that God are how they came into being.

I didn't "design" the all/all/all monotheistic God. I told you that. To claim otherwise is a deliberate falsehood. It was designed thousands of years ago and echoed ever since. Again, that's why the "isms" this thread is about all concern that definition of God.

No, but you're the one taking it seriously. And there are lots of gods out there that don't have omni-properties, all of which fall under the belief structure of "theists", which is what this thread is about. That's exactly why I pointed out that no one has provided a rational definition of any god yet. Because everything you've described is just a bunch of arbitrary, made-up characteristics invented by man and assigned to an imaginary friend in the sky. Why should we take any of that seriously again?

 

[Visbek]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

Funny how you ignored the first one and jumped straight to the second.

I'm not ignoring either of them. All I need to show is that "belief" is not exclusively religious in nature. (You do understand that's how dictionaries work, right?)

And again, it is downright routine to use the word "belief" in this manner. You even acknowledged this in post #511. Protesting the secular use of "belief" is wholly unimpressive, and seems more like agonism than a genuine attempt to provide a coherent argument.

Well, since I am not responsible for determining if China has a valid claim or not, I can only offer my personal opinion which means exactly jack squat to anyone.

Riiiiiiiiiight

It is clear that you have no valid response, which is why you're ducking the issue.

We're talking about hypotheticals, not passing a binding judgment that impacts international affairs. I'm demonstrating that we do not treat a "lack of evidence" as a "lack of belief." We don't say that when it comes to history, the sciences, economics, or pretty much anything except the question of religion. That's not how our minds work, that's not how epistemology functions, that's not how we use claims about or rejection of evidence. I.e. you're engaging in special pleading.

I don't find the claims made by theists to be convincing, therefore I do not accept them as true.

Yes, we've got that part. As a result, you have clearly constructed a belief system. You have criteria; you choose which evidence you will and will not accept. And when you apply that evidence, and reject claims, you still have a bunch of beliefs. (And again, this is why we're talking about "beliefs" in a generic sense.)

Nope. The claim is not accepted as true. I am not stating that it is false. This is where you are going wrong.

Your capacity for self-deception is noted. Have a good one.

 

[Mach]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

A very good description of everyone I know. Indifference towards religion. I may be an apatheist, the only time that religion comes up in my life is in these forums.

Come live in Texas, it comes up regularly here...

 

[Mach]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

Sorry, I missed your question. I would say that it is a question about unreality.

That's my impression as well.
No unicorns exist, is a statement about "not reality" (or the imaginary).

Just the same "god does not exist", is a statement about the imaginary...not about reality "minus a god".

 

[Mr Person]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

No, but you're the one taking it seriously.

A few things, then:

1. Multiple people have argued seriously about it. What are you suggesting? You took it just serious enough to enter the thread, read, and respond, but anyone who discusses it with a little more seriousness is a loser? It's starting to sound that way.

2. What do you even mean, taking it "seriously?" I don't schlep around all day worried about how God might exist but I might not be able to disprove it. I usually don't even visit this section. I have a different answer for that, but then explaining it would probably be taking it too "seriously", huh? The only thing I'm taking seriously is the mechanics of logical/persuasive argument.

And there are lots of gods out there that don't have omni-properties, all of which fall under the belief structure of "theists", which is what this thread is about. That's exactly why I pointed out that no one has provided a rational definition of any god yet. Because everything you've described is just a bunch of arbitrary, made-up characteristics invented by man and assigned to an imaginary friend in the sky.

Again, the thread had over 80 pages of things it was about before you commented.

If you want to take it seriously, you can certainly make an argument for a better definition of "God". That is, why it is better, and why it undercuts what I said. I'm fairly certain that most if not all of these less than all/all/all Gods still justify my definition of being agnostic. But, I'd have to see the premises.

If you don't want to take it seriously, what is the point of saying I'm wrong and then verbally sneering at me for taking it "seriously"?

Because everything you've described is just a bunch of arbitrary, made-up characteristics invented by man and assigned to an imaginary friend in the sky.

Yup. But if you're going to weigh in on a metaphysical question about the nature of what can be known and what cannot be known, you're talking about something transcending the fact that the all/all/all deity is just something someone made up.

It gets right to the nature of empirical proof/disproof vs. metaphysical proof/disproof.

And if you don't care about it, well, is there a point that doesn't suck in showing up just to sneer at something like considering that?

Why should we take any of that seriously again?

If you're saying you don't give a **** about agnostism and what you call a gnostic belief (it ....really wasn't that simple), then say so and prove it by leaving. If you don't care then just bugger off.



Why do I care? Well in addition to 1-3 above,

4. My main attraction to Philosophy is that regardless of the validity of the specific subjects in play, there is always validity in the idea of studying the interplay of logical structures and persuasive argument.

5. My other attraction is that I love trying to understand ideas even if they are unlikely to have a direct relation to my life. (again, see #4, in part). I love thinking about strange things like what the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposition regarding the big bang has to do with the validity or invalidity of asking questions like "where did the universe come from?" I don't care if you retort that it makes me look pompous to say it.



So what is it you're sneering at, exactly? Enjoying thinking about things logically? Enjoying an intricate discussion?




The existence of an all/all/all deity is a real possibility, especially in light of various iterations of multiverse theory, whether suggested through quantum mechanics (each reality-determining observation causing existence of alternate self-contained realities where other states were determined by observation....I...sort of think) or string theory variants. It's a real possibility even without it, even if "made up". It's in the nature of the idea.

I think you need to make more of an effort between being interested in thinking about it during a break from work turned into a discussion that is going to cause me to work until midnight tomorrow and actually worrying about it on a daily basis.

 

[Mr Person]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

Funny how you ignored the first one and jumped straight to the second.

Well, since I am not responsible for determining if China has a valid claim or not, I can only offer my personal opinion which means exactly jack squat to anyone. The real arbiter here would be an international court of law. The same goes for religion. I don't find the claims made by theists to be convincing, therefore I do not accept them as true. They have not presented convincing evidence that would make me take their claims seriously, any more than, say, UFO nuts have presented convincing evidence that aliens are visiting this planet. I'm not saying that either side is wrong, I am saying that I have not been convinced they are right. Of course, most of the time, UFO nuts aren't banging on my door trying to convert me to their side so the subject rarely comes up. Religion, though, is another matter.

Nope. The claim is not accepted as true. I am not stating that it is false. This is where you are going wrong.

You're arguing with him and me about things. Why are you taking it seriously?


(See, I mean, wtf? Either enjoy arguing in depth or ....well...just don't).

 

[Visbek]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

What of "We lack sufficient evidence of X. Therefore, I do not accept X as true but do not assert that it is false. I do not reach a judgment on that question." instead of "We lack sufficient evidence of X. Therefore, I believe X is false" ? Eh, maybe not a distinction because it involves a belief that the insufficiency of evidence neither rules in nor rules out a proposition.

The former ("we lack evidence, therefore we cannot decide") is agnosticism.

The latter ("we lack evidence, therefore it is false") can be justified. The more important point for this discussion, though, is that you can't hold both simultaneously. Either we know, or we don't. Claiming both simultaneously is a contradiction.

That aside, it seems the core of his claim is that he's an atheist without belief. The broadest sense of the definition is "Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities."

That's nice. Of course, you left out the rest of the definition -- that it is also defined as a rejection of theism, and/or the position (i.e. belief) that deities do not exist. Oh, and ignore years of philosophical investigation into the nature of belief, and what it means to "lack a belief." Seems like a pretty thin thread to hold onto.

More importantly, I cannot help but notice that we rarely -- if ever! -- make statements like "there is a lack of evidence, therefore a lack of belief" for... anything else. For example: We do not say "the evidence is insufficient to prove that Caligula engaged in incest, therefore I lack a belief in the question of whether Caligula engaged in incest." (Just reading that line should display how rarely we use such a clunky formulation.)

No, what we say "therefore I do not believe Caligula engaged in incest" or "despite the lack of evidence, it seems likely he engaged in incest" or "we know that contemporary commentators hated Caligula, therefore the claims are more likely than not to be fabricated," and so on.

In addition, this scenario is mutually exclusive. Either Caligula did engage in incest, or did not. Either we can know the answer, or we can't. You can be undecided (agnostic) on the issue, you can be conflicted about the issue, you can speculate. However, once you pick a position, that choice excludes you from holding the other positions.

Obviously, someone who is completely ignorant of the concept of Gods does not, in fact cannot, have any beliefs in the existence of Gods and would therefore fit under that very broad definition. That's obviously ruled out.

So if we use a very broad definition of atheism - "Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief about the existence of deities." - the question becomes can someone who knows of the concept of Gods literally not have any beliefs abouttheir existence?

Nope. Definitely not. Obviously not. Which is part of my point.

Atheists still have beliefs (in the secular sense of the term). They do not necessarily all adhere to one single philosophy, but neither do theists. Atheists share a common belief ("deities do not exist") and theists share a common belief ("deities exist").

Can a person have no beliefs about a thing for no particular reason?

Not really, no.

They may not articulate the belief, or the reason for the belief may be permanently obscured. Self-deception and bias are also common reasons not to recognize the origin of a belief, or a deep-seated need to deny something that is screamingly obvious.

 

[Mr Person]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

Cut up posts can be tough to respond to. Bear with me..

Hold on, though. I'm coming in at an angle so this may be somewhat beside the point, but....

What of "We lack sufficient evidence of X. Therefore, I do not accept X as true but do not assert that it is false. I do not reach a judgment on that question." instead of "We lack sufficient evidence of X. Therefore, I believe X is false" ? Eh, maybe not a distinction because it involves a belief that the insufficiency of evidence neither rules in nor rules out a proposition.

The former ("we lack evidence, therefore we cannot decide") is agnosticism.

The latter ("we lack evidence, therefore it is false") can be justified. The more important point for this discussion, though, is that you can't hold both simultaneously. Either we know, or we don't. Claiming both simultaneously is a contradiction.

Well, again, this keeps coming back to which definitions are in play. Agnosticism does not seem under most of the definitions I've seen to mean "we lack evidence, therefore we cannot decide." To the contrary, it is an assertion: there cannot be evidence that would allow us to decide. I quoted some fitting that earlier. But then, my first post quoted other definitions of that and multiple ones of atheism. My first reaction was that this sounded like more of a fight over definitions than where to go from there.

Secondly, if your dispute with zyg is about whether or not that definition and "we lack evidence, therefore it is false" is compatible with your description of agnosticism, then I wasn't speaking to it. But again, so much of what I saw in the last thirty-odd pages seems to be deeply affected by definition.

P2 coming up
+

 

[Visbek]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

As he defined them, he most certainly can. Plenty of definitions can be had to support either, but when you look at the more modern definitions and the reasoning behind their adoption, it typically makes more sense.

Uh... yeah, I'm using the modern definitions, and I see no justification for proclaiming any sort of overlap. Nor have you actually provided any.

But that's semantics. Understanding both positions is required here, with the hopes of discovering that one position is flawed and the other valid, in which case, you can make a choice to support reason, instead of absurdity. I think it can be shown that the definitions you use, lead to absurdity, which is sufficient for me to reject them.

Erk?

I'm using widely accepted definitions. Nor have you actually shown any absurdities in my position which justifies a rejection. I'm not even sure you know my position yet.

Atheism is a set of beliefs about the world? I think that's a contradiction.

It isn't.

Atheism is a rejection of theism. It is saying that "there are no deities in the world." There is no question that expresses a belief about the world.

It also entails a family of beliefs -- e.g. in naturalism, and/or physicalism, property dualism, empiricism, science, and other views. As noted in a previous post, the amount of diversity in atheist philosophies is as great as the diversity in theistic ones.

Try using a non-god example so it's easier to swallow:
Is this claim "unicorns are not real", a statement about reality?

Definitely.

You're asserting that a specific creature does not exist in the world (or, presumably, anywhere else).

And as noted above: We rarely -- if ever! -- make statements like "there is a lack of evidence, therefore a lack of belief" for... anything else. For example: We do not say "the evidence is insufficient to prove that Caligula engaged in incest, therefore I lack a belief in the question of whether Caligula engaged in incest." (Just reading that line should display how rarely we use such a clunky formulation.) That's just not how we operate. Demanding that atheism be granted an exception, primarily for the psychological comfort of atheists, is just special pleading.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

Well, again, this keeps coming back to which definitions are in play. Agnosticism does not seem under most of the definitions I've seen to mean "we lack evidence, therefore we cannot decide." To the contrary, it is an assertion: there cannot be evidence that would allow us to decide. I quoted some fitting that earlier. But then, my first post quoted other definitions of that and multiple ones of atheism. My first reaction was that this sounded like more of a fight over definitions than where to go from there.

Secondly, if your dispute with zyg is about whether or not that definition and "we lack evidence, therefore it is false" is compatible with your description of agnosticism, then I wasn't speaking to it. But again, so much of what I saw in the last thirty-odd pages seems to be deeply affected by definition.

P2 coming up
+

Agnosticism -- on any issue, not just religion -- is merely neutrality on an issue. It doesn't matter why you're neutral.

"We lack evidence in favor of X, therefore X is false" is not agnosticism. It's taking a position; it's mutually exclusive with agnosticism.

Some people are disputing this, because they don't want to accept that a rejection of theism entails certain beliefs.

And yes, almost everything here is that a few people don't want to accept several definitions that are commonly held, that are in routine use, and/or whose technical definitions refute their position.

It's very clear that the "lack atheists" gain nothing by this semantic exercise, except to display their own rabid intolerance for any use with a term that has any religious associations whatsoever. So it goes.

 

[Mr Person]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

P2.

ME:

That aside, it seems the core of his claim is that he's an atheist without belief. The broadest sense of the definition is "Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

If that's valid, then one could have various beliefs about the concept Gods, since the definition is simply that the individual lacks a belief in the existence of Gods.

That's nice. Of course, you left out the rest of the definition -- that it is also defined as a rejection of theism, and/or the position (i.e. belief) that deities do not exist. Oh, and ignore years of philosophical investigation into the nature of belief, and what it means to "lack a belief." Seems like a pretty thin thread to hold onto.

More importantly, I cannot help but notice that we rarely -- if ever! -- make statements like "there is a lack of evidence, therefore a lack of belief" for... anything else. For example: We do not say "the evidence is insufficient to prove that Caligula engaged in incest, therefore I lack a belief in the question of whether Caligula engaged in incest." (Just reading that line should display how rarely we use such a clunky formulation.)

No, what we say "therefore I do not believe Caligula engaged in incest" or "despite the lack of evidence, it seems likely he engaged in incest" or "we know that contemporary commentators hated Caligula, therefore the claims are more likely than not to be fabricated," and so on.

In addition, this scenario is mutually exclusive. Either Caligula did engage in incest, or did not. Either we can know the answer, or we can't. You can be undecided (agnostic) on the issue, you can be conflicted about the issue, you can speculate. However, once you pick a position, that choice excludes you from holding the other positions.

I could respond in like tone: that's nice.

I could also respond: you cut out parts of my post.

Ultimately, you're not responding to my point that it depends on which bloody definition you're using. If he's an atheist in this sense: "Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities" then you're speaking about one scenario.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism


You seem to agree with my later suggestion that someone cannot know of the concept of God without having a belief about the existence of God.

But again, that gets back to whether we're having a fight about the appropriate defintiion of "atheism".




If it's simply an absence of beliefs in the existence of God, then I think you're actually wrong on it. You can fail to have a belief in a thing without believing the thing does not exist, specifically because you can believe that insufficient evidence of its existence has been presented but still believe in the potential for future evidence to fit that mold. (Hence, the distinction I draw with Cephus). But that doesn't mean that you believe that the thing does not exist.

If it's an absence of beliefs about (I dunno - relating to? having to do with? Relevant to?) the existence of a God, then I'm not so sure. You're probably right on that one because I do not see how someone could know about a concept without having any beliefs relating to it.

But does atheism actually extend that broadly - to the absence of any belief about the existence of deity (I suppose also involving a wobbly definition of "about")?

I mean, most of the times I hear it used, it's used as an affirmative disbelief in the existence of God. There you'd also be right. But if he's saying he merely has an absence of beliefs in the existence of God, then you're arguing about definitions.

 

[Mr Person]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

Agnosticism -- on any issue, not just religion -- is merely neutrality on an issue. It doesn't matter why you're neutral.

"We lack evidence in favor of X, therefore X is false" is not agnosticism. It's taking a position; it's mutually exclusive with agnosticism.

Some people are disputing this, because they don't want to accept that a rejection of theism entails certain beliefs.

And yes, almost everything here is that a few people don't want to accept several definitions that are commonly held, that are in routine use, and/or whose technical definitions refute their position.

It's very clear that the "lack atheists" gain nothing by this semantic exercise, except to display their own rabid intolerance for any use with a term that has any religious associations whatsoever. So it goes.

Again, definitions.

This list took me a minute:

It depends on your definition.

"Atheism"


1
:a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
:a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

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



noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[1][2][7][8] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[9][10] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[10][11][12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism




"Agnosticism"

:a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly ne who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnosticism



an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.

Agnosticism | Define Agnosticism at Dictionary.com


Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.[1][2][3]

According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, "agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

I'm sure there are more if I poke around. There are multiple definitions and the one I take is more than mere neutrality. It is a positive assertion of the fundamental unknowability regarding one category of knowledge.

I'm sure there are others that boil down to just "well, I dunno. I fold." But that certainly isn't all of it. At the very least, they concern ultimate knowledge aka, knowledge of God's existence or whatever other asserted top-level of knowledge there is supposed to be.


That's the distinction: ONE definition of agnosticism involving an assertion of unknowability vs. ONE definition of atheism involving a mere lack of beliefs in the existence of God.

Change definitions around and the debate shifts




Edit: look, if you still disagree, I'll have to take a break and remember to respond properly. I respect you as a poster. I really do think you're missing the potential middle ground on this one, but I've spent far too much time on this thread today. I'll try to be back later tomorrow.

I really don't think the thing about definitions is silly. So much of Philosophy (at least as far as I recall from back then) is about making sure the reader understand that the writer means a complex set of ideas by use of one key term or another. I suspect that's an insurmountable problem, especially if we get into ideas that have bubbled around for a while (See and consider Quine's "Ontological Relativity" lectures. With the meaning of terms in flux, just about everything is a potential rabbit hole).

 

[Mach]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

Uh... yeah, I'm using the modern definitions, and I see no justification for proclaiming any sort of overlap. Nor have you actually provided any.

I thought it was trivial and plenty have posted definitions, but if you insist, first line of wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

So again, why not take both definitions, and see that one leads to one side of the argument, and the other to yours. Then take it one step further, and see which definitions are reasonable, and which lead to absurdity (or neither/both, whatever). Otherwise, it's a debate about who pulled what definition, which seems not interesting.

It isn't.Atheism is a rejection of theism. It is saying that "there are no deities in the world." There is no question that expresses a belief about the world.

First, given the above, that would be incorrect.
Given some other definitions, it would be closer to correct, but that leads to the unicorn question (discussed further down).

So now we have to know the definition of this "deity" to know if they are talking about reality, or not reality (the imaginary).

If it's a god that has the quality of "omniscience" for example (as Mr Person correctly said was kind of the typically assumed Christian god) , to some atheists it looks like this:
omniscience is an imaginary concept (we can debate that as necessary)
To discuss an imaginary entity (since it has an imaginary quality), is discussing the imaginary. It is therefore specifically NOT a claim about reality (imaginary being the opposite...a common term for "not real")

Therefore the statement "gods are imaginary", is a justified true belief. Or in other words "god doesn't exist", as justified true belief.
Notice that this claim does fit the sub-category of atheism that is specifically a disbelief in gods a real. (doesn't meant its a belief "system" for now, simply a belief which I think was part of what you wanted). Which leads right into the unicorn question.

Imagine a magical, imaginary creature, called a unicorn.
Claim: unicorns do not exist.
(identical: Unicorns are imaginary)

Is this a claim about reality, or about the not-real (imaginary)?

Visbek says "unicorns are not real" is a statement about the what is real (the real world).
Mach says "unicorns are not real" is a statement about what is not real ( imaginary).

I see that as clearly a contradiction on your part, but I'd love to understand how it's not if I'm wrong.

If an author makes up a planet, and he discusses his work of fiction, you appear to be saying explicitly that when he is telling me about a fictional world, he is not telling me about a fictional world, but about the REAL world. Which seems obviously incorrect(?) If my interpretation went wrong, please show me where. I mean, you're basically saying we cannot ever discuss the not-real...

 

[Visbek]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

Ultimately, you're not responding to my point that it depends on which bloody definition you're using.... etc

My point is that the radicals are latching on to one definition of atheism, and using it to run as far away from any association with the word "belief." As best I can tell -- and no one has shown otherwise yet -- this seems to be because the term, again, has some associations with religious belief. Given that beliefs are core mental states, it's kind of ridiculous (and a bit sad). The absurdity is further displayed by how rarely we claim that a "lack of evidence" produces a "lack of belief."

Do we have a lack of beliefs about loop quantum gravity, because there isn't enough evidence to prove it is correct?

Do we describe our views about LQG as "a lack of belief" because there is a lack of evidence?

No. We don't. We have beliefs about things, even when we lack evidence of those things.

It should be obvious that I don't accept the "lack" position. Atheism is a rejection of belief in deities, which both relies on and entails other beliefs. Calling atheism a "lack of belief" does not wave a magic wand which eradicates the common and/or technical definition of a "belief" as a core mental state. It does not magically waive the laws of logic such that one can simultaneously know, and not know, a proposition. It does not establish that the refusal to accept certain types of evidence means you do not, in fact, hold any beliefs about the topic under discussion. It doesn't change the fact that ultimately the only way to not have any beliefs at all about X is to be completely ignorant of X.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

I'm sure there are more if I poke around.... etc

Again, we try to use a broad definition of agnosticism because it is not just a term used in religious debates. If I do not believe we can know whether Caligula engaged in incest, then I am agnostic on the issue.

The terms aren't really in that much flux. What's happening is that a few people are disputing common and technically established definitions in order to avoid saying "I have beliefs." Even when you tell them, over and over, that "beliefs" are just core mental states that everyone holds.

I'm really not all that fascinated with yet another semantic debate. There's enough of that in this thread.

 

[Mach]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

My point is that the radicals are latching on to one definition of atheism, and using it to run as far away from any association with the word "belief..

Wikipedia's first line definition is radical?

atheist.org represents radical atheists? Come on Visbek.
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

The argument about atheism+ belief is a response to religious apologists who seek to classify opposition to their god beliefs, as simply "other beliefs that are equally deserving of merit", etc. And this goes for both teaching creationism alongside evolution (beliefs deserve merit after all!), as well as keeping "non secular" policy out of the government square (removing ten commandments, and worse, etc.)
So it's a response born of religious attacks on basically separation of church and state. Is sep church/state "radical"? Like all challenges, it was such a stupid challenge few people had thought hard about it. But when real stuff is at stake (religion in schools), people looked harder at it, and arrived at a better understanding. (Like I don't know, most of modern science, etc.)

Here is a key argument:

definition: omniscience is not a concept related to reality
god some entity that has the quality of omniscience

Claim "God is real"

Atheist: That's a contradictory claim, it has no meaning.

Now, how is that a belief about REALITY, when specifically it's simply pointing out that a claim is a contradiction and has no meaning....

It is RADICAL to suggest that pointing out that a claims is contradictory and therefore illogical....is somehow, magically, a statement about as you put it "the world". It's certainly false...radical is perhaps a matter of opinion.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

I thought it was trivial and plenty have posted definitions, but if you insist, first line of wikipedia:

Did you not read the second line?

So again, why not take both definitions, and see that one leads to one side of the argument, and the other to yours. Then take it one step further, and see which definitions are reasonable, and which lead to absurdity (or neither/both, whatever). Otherwise, it's a debate about who pulled what definition, which seems not interesting.

Again, I ask: What position do you think I hold?

So now we have to know the definition of this "deity" to know if they are talking about reality, or not reality (the imaginary).

We could do that, but... nah

This is not a new debate to pretty much anyone here, we have a pretty good idea what we're talking about, and I've had enough semantic arguments.

Visbek says "unicorns are not real" is a statement about the what is real (the real world).
Mach says "unicorns are not real" is a statement about what is not real ( imaginary).

I see that as clearly a contradiction on your part, but I'd love to understand how it's not if I'm wrong.

OK. We have two sets:
Set 1: Things that have material existence
Set 2: Things that do not have material existence

We stipulate that these are mutually exclusive. X is either in Set 1 or Set 2. Period.

If we say that P is in Set 1, then logically we must conclude that P is not in Set 2. This is called entailment. It's a logical consequence of this structure.

So, when we say that unicorns are in Set 2, we are describing properties of unicorns ("unicorns are mythical creatures.") But we are also entailing that unicorns are in Set 1, and entailing a property of the physical world ("the physical world does not/cannot contain unicorns").

It also entails (or at least implies) a whole series of other beliefs. E.g. certain types of evidence are not valid; unfalsifiable claims should not be taken as true; mythical creatures cannot exist in the physical world, and more.

To put it another way: We don't have single isolated beliefs. We have entire constellations of mutually supporting beliefs, and any specific belief usually needs to harmonize with, support, and be supported by all the other beliefs we hold. There are some exceptions (e.g. people can certainly be inconsistent), but generally that's how it works.

The "lackers" are trying to insist that "I lack a belief in deities" can somehow be firewalled off from everything else the person believes, has nothing to do with beliefs at all, and burns a hole in our brains where any beliefs used to reside. That's not how it works. You're still going to ascribe properties to deities, such as "mythical" or "fictional" or "imaginary." You're still going to believe that Allah is worshiped by Muslims, that Allah is not the same as Zeus, that Zeus had a lightning bolt, and so forth. You're still going to believe that pieces of evidence A, B and C are affiliated with that imaginary deity. (And of course, you're also making an assertion about the world -- namely, that it does not actually contain deities.)

You cannot escape the fact that as long as you are aware of the concept of a deity, you're going to assign properties to that concept, and that process involves beliefs that are intimately connected to an entire network of beliefs you hold. If that wasn't the case, then the atheist couldn't discuss deities at all.

If an author makes up a planet, and he discusses his work of fiction, you appear to be saying explicitly that when he is telling me about a fictional world, he is not telling me about a fictional world, but about the REAL world.

No, that's not even remotely what I'm saying.

If I tell you that "Brantisvogan is not a real planet," I'm obviously not saying "jk lol it's real!" I'm saying that the designation of "fictional planet" tells you that the planet is made up -- AND that the universe doesn't contain a planet called Brantisvogan, where filing a change of address card is a recreational impossibility. The latter is entailed by the former.

After all, a world that contains unicorns different from a world that does not. Yes?

 

[maquiscat]

Re: Why theists are so desperate to call atheism a belief.

This is a matter of plausibility. We have experience with back yards. We have experience with bears, Indeed. .. many people (myself included) have seen bear in their yards. It is a claim that experience shown can be true. Now, change that into claims that we do not have any experience or evidence for. The claim, for example, the someone was abducted by aliens. We do not have evidence for any aliens. We do not have any evidence of technology that would allow a species to get to intersteller travel. That claim can justifiably cause skepticism. .. even if we would LIKE to see it to be true.

(Oh, here is the bear in my yard)
View attachment 67224252

I will have to take it on faith that that is your back yard.