The faithless atheist

[Wiccan_Child]

This thread is a continuation of the discussion begun over at "Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science"

This is derailing the thread, so this is the last I'm going to post on this here. I will gladly discuss it in an appropriate thread if you will give me a link or I may start one when I get time.

There needs to be sufficient evidence for a belief to be rational, but I didn't get into the rationality of the belief. Additionally, faith isn't restricted to religious belief and it does not exist in a vaccum where evidence isn't allowed. This is a mistake atheists often make. Everyone has faith and utilizes it every day. Related to the topic of this thread, naturalism requires faith that only natural causes are sufficient to account for the universe, origin of life, and its diversity.

That depends on how you define 'naturalism' and, indeed, 'natural'.

As far as "we can define any word any way we want" claim, it makes no sense. Yes words' meanings can change over time, but if we followed your relative linguistics as you seem to define it, we could have no meaningful discussion or ideas.

On the contrary, we're having a meaningful discussion right now. If we wanted to discuss evolution, it may well be prudent to refine our respective vocabularies: more than one Creationist has adopted Kent Hovind's unscientific terminology, to great confusion. In the same vein, the definition of just who is a Christian has lead to furious debates - groups of self-professed Christians have denied the Christian-ness of other self-professed Christians.

So, like it or not, words have variable definitions. If we want to have a meaningful discussion, we need to be clear on our terminology. That's why it makes no sense to see your vocabulary as the only vocabulary - especially when such a stance leads to equivocation.

Atheism comes from the Greek word atheos, which means "godless" or "no god" and has been used that way throughout history. It wasn't formed by simply slapping an "a" on the front of theism. It is not simply "no belief" in any god, it is a definitive claim on the existence of gods. This recent attempt to change the meaning of atheism only serves as a semantic attempt to absolve atheists of having to defend their belief.

The original Greek word ἄθεος (atheos, meaning 'godless' or 'without god') was "applied with a negative connotation to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society" (from Wiki). Christians themselves were labelled 'atheists', since they didn't believe in the traditional pagan deities.

But, regardless of its etymological origins, the point is that the majority of self-professed atheists define 'atheism' in a certain way - declaring them to have faith based on your definition of 'atheism' is fallacious.

The claimed position of "weak atheism" as you have presented is illogical. To reject "no gods exist" while also rejecting "gods exist" is a violation of the law of non contradiction, so this is not a valid position.

On the contrary, I explicitly stated that weak atheists fully acknowledge the fact that deities must either exist or not exist, as per the Law of Non-Contradiction. But the weak atheist simply remains silent as to whether she beliefs deities exist or not. It's like predicting the outcome of a sporting event: though there obviously will be a winner, it's entirely possible to affirm neither time as the predicted winner - especially if you've never heard of the sport before. Likewise, it's entirely possible to simply affirm neither the existence nor non-existence of deities.

As I said in post, the only logical in between is agnosticism, regardless of any word games a person attempts to play or what label they misapply to theirself.

Misapplication implies an objective standard, of which there is none.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You rang?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Just to (hopefully) bring everyone up to speed:

Then why are you an atheist?

I'm guessing that professing ignorance is a better position than professing knowledge over something we know nothing about?

That would be an agnostic position. As much as atheists protest to the contrary, atheism is a position that makes a truth claim. Now, atheism can be believed by a person while acknowledging that they don't know that there is no god, but all this shows is that they hold that position by faith. They may see evidence that they think supports their faith, but it is faith, nonetheless.

First, if they see evidence for their claim, then it's not faith - it's a rational belief. It may be wrong, their analysis of the evidence may ultimately be incorrect, but if their claim is based on empirical evidence, then it's not faith.

Second, the word 'atheist' can be defined to mean anything we want, just like any other word. So what definition should we use? Well, when someone says "I'm an atheist", the definition we should use when analysing that sentence is the definition they use. If we use some other definition, then we equivocate: we run the risk of saying "Aha! You said you're an atheist, and by my definition of atheism, that means you have faith! Nyer!" - obviously, semantics cannot force someone to have faith. If the person in question genuinely doesn't have faith in anything, then our semantics therefore means squat.

We have to use the definition used by self-professed atheists, otherwise you equivocate. So, what is the definition used by self-professed atheists? The vast majority of atheists define theism and atheism thusly:

Theism is the affirmation of the existence of deities; theists are those who make the claim "God exists". Atheists, then, are everyone else: they're those people who don't make the claim "God exists". Atheism can be further split according a particular self-professed atheist's stance on the claim "God does not exist". An atheist who affirms this second claim is a 'strong' atheist: they reject the claim "God exists" as well as affirm the claim "God does not exist". Those who reject the second claim are 'weak' atheists: they reject both the claim that "God exists" and the claim that "God does not exist" - they know he either exists or doesn't exist, but they don't affirm either stance. These weak atheists make up the vast majority of self-professed atheists.

Theist: Affirms "God exists" and rejects "God doesn't exist"
Weak Atheist: Rejects "God exists" and rejects "God doesn't exist"
Strong Atheist: Rejects "God exists" and affirms "God doesn't exist"

This is the definition used by the vast majority of people who say "I am an atheist". You can personally define these terms how you wish; some theists call 'atheism' what atheists call 'strong atheism', leading to confusion. Regardless, when a person says "I am an atheist", they are almost certainly implying that they are a 'weak atheist' as defined above.

As such, the vast majority of self-professed atheists do not make a faith-based claim.

This is derailing the thread, so this is the last I'm going to post on this here. I will gladly discuss it in an appropriate thread if you will give me a link or I may start one when I get time.

There needs to be sufficient evidence for a belief to be rational, but I didn't get into the rationality of the belief. Additionally, faith isn't restricted to religious belief and it does not exist in a vaccum where evidence isn't allowed. This is a mistake atheists often make. Everyone has faith and utilizes it every day. Related to the topic of this thread, naturalism requires faith that only natural causes are sufficient to account for the universe, origin of life, and its diversity.

As far as "we can define any word any way we want" claim, it makes no sense. Yes words' meanings can change over time, but if we followed your relative linguistics as you seem to define it, we could have no meaningful discussion or ideas.

Atheism comes from the Greek word atheos, which means "godless" or "no god" and has been used that way throughout history. It wasn't formed by simply slapping an "a" on the front of theism. It is not simply "no belief" in any god, it is a definitive claim on the existence of gods. This recent attempt to change the meaning of atheism only serves as a semantic attempt to absolve atheists of having to defend their belief.

The claimed position of "weak atheism" as you have presented is illogical. To reject "no gods exist" while also rejecting "gods exist" is a violation of the law of non contradiction, so this is not a valid position. As I said in post, the only logical in between is agnosticism, regardless of any word games a person attempts to play or what label they misapply to theirself.

 

[selfinflikted]

WretchedMan:

Could you please define how you are using the word "Faith?"

 

[Magnus_the_Red]

*popcorn*

 

[quatona]

@ Wretched Man:
Seems to me you have the choice:
- Either you accept that the vast majority of self-professing atheists here do not hold the position you feel they should hold,
- or you keep talking about an extremely small group of us self-professing atheists (in which case I would be wondering what the reason is for you to ignore the actually held positions of the posters you are discussing with).

 

[The_Evelyonian]

 

[The_Evelyonian]

The claimed position of "weak atheism" as you have presented is illogical. To reject "no gods exist" while also rejecting "gods exist" is a violation of the law of non contradiction, so this is not a valid position.

You misunderstand the weak atheist position.

No one will argue that either gods exist or they don't. That's a true dichotomy.

The false dichotomy is that you can only believe they do or believe they don't. That is not the case.

The best analogy I ever heard put forward regarding this idea had to do with a jury. When a jury return a verdict of 'not guilty', that doesn't necessarily mean that they believe the defendant is innocent. It simply means that, in their minds, there is insufficient evidence to warrant a guilty verdict.

That's how I look at atheism.

Theists make claims that a god exists and I reject those claims because, to date, none of them have met their burden of proof. However, that doesn't necessarily mean I believe no god exists.

Rejecting the positive claim (guilty/god exists) does not necessarily mean affirming the negative claim (innocent/no god exists).

For my own part:

I do not believe a god exists.

I do not believe no god exists.

I lack belief.

Understand?

 

[WretchedMan]

This thread is a continuation of the discussion begun over at "Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science"


That depends on how you define 'naturalism' and, indeed, 'natural'.

Naturalism: a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena.

For the moment their is no real need to split hairs about ontological or methodological.

As far as natural causes, I am talking about things like gravity, thermodynamics, hydrologic cycle, genetics, chemistry, Brownian motion, et al. Nothing that would be classified as supernatural.

On the contrary, we're having a meaningful discussion right now. If we wanted to discuss evolution, it may well be prudent to refine our respective vocabularies: more than one Creationist has adopted Kent Hovind's unscientific terminology, to great confusion. In the same vein, the definition of just who is a Christian has lead to furious debates - groups of self-professed Christians have denied the Christian-ness of other self-professed Christians.

So, like it or not, words have variable definitions. If we want to have a meaningful discussion, we need to be clear on our terminology. That's why it makes no sense to see your vocabulary as the only vocabulary - especially when such a stance leads to equivocation.

I never claimed words don't have variable definitions. I was merely commenting on your statement.

Second, the word 'atheist' can be defined to mean anything we want, just like any other word.

Would it be valid for me to claim to be an atheist and then say it means I believe in God? Of course not, because words mean things. If we were going to be taking a vote on what atheism means in order to determine its usage, and we actually polled everyone, not just a small group of people that like to apply the term to themselves, we are never going to come up with the definition of agnosticism that so many of you are applying to it.

The original Greek word ἄθεος (atheos, meaning 'godless' or 'without god') was "applied with a negative connotation to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society" (from Wiki). Christians themselves were labelled 'atheists', since they didn't believe in the traditional pagan deities.

Which supports what I said in my previous post. It was applied to Christians because they made a truth claim that denied the deities of the Romans, specifically Caesar himself.

But, regardless of its etymological origins, the point is that the majority of self-professed atheists define 'atheism' in a certain way - declaring them to have faith based on your definition of 'atheism' is fallacious.

It's not my definition. It is what the word has always meant. What gives a small minority of people misapplying a word to themselves the authority to change it for the English speaking world, not to mention French and Greek, which had the word first?

Could you explain how anything I've said is fallacious? I don't like fallacies so would like to avoid it in the future.

On the contrary, I explicitly stated that weak atheists fully acknowledge the fact that deities must either exist or not exist, as per the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Fair enough. I was posting on my phone and missed it. But, it was sandwiched between...

An atheist who affirms this second claim is a 'strong' atheist: they reject the claim "God exists" as well as affirm the claim "God does not exist". (...this...)Those who reject the second claim are 'weak' atheists: they reject both the claim that "God exists" and the claim that "God does not exist" - they know he either exists or doesn't exist, but they don't affirm either stance. These weak atheists make up the vast majority of self-professed atheists.


Theist: Affirms "God exists" and rejects "God doesn't exist"
(... and this,...)Weak Atheist: Rejects "God exists" and rejects "God doesn't exist"
Strong Atheist: Rejects "God exists" and affirms "God doesn't exist"

...so forgive my oversight. I wasn't trying to misrepresent what you were saying.

But the weak atheist simply remains silent as to whether she beliefs deities exist or not.

Remaining silent about whether you believe or not is now a variable definition of atheism? Would this apply to a Christian who believes in God but keeps silent due to fear of rejection by their peers on campus, or does someone have to be silent about their belief with everyone at all times? How long would one have to remain silent to officially become an atheist?

This definition is even worse than the definition you gave earlier, which is, again, the definition of agnosticism...

- they know he either exists or doesn't exist, but they don't affirm either stance. These weak atheists make up the vast majority of self-professed atheists.

...or did the agnostics get together and change the meaning when I wasn't looking?

It's like predicting the outcome of a sporting event: though there obviously will be a winner, it's entirely possible to affirm neither time as the predicted winner - especially if you've never heard of the sport before. Likewise, it's entirely possible to simply affirm neither the existence nor non-existence of deities.

While I agree with what you say about it being entirely possible to not come to a conclusion about whether any gods exist, or not, I don't think your analogy works. This isn't a competition where the team that scores the most points is going to win, this is a matter of whether something is or is not (A or Not A).

Additionally, this is the definition of agnosticism (unless, of course, I didn't get the memo that agnostics are no longer undecided on the existence of any gods).

Misapplication implies an objective standard, of which there is none.

Over two thousand years of language convention is a pretty objective standard to go by.

 

[quatona]

Additionally, this is the definition of agnosticism (unless, of course, I didn't get the memo that agnostics are no longer undecided on the existence of any gods).

This has never been the definition of "agnosticism". You can be an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist. Agnosticism is the position that the existence of a god is unknowable. Wikipedia may give you a good idea:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1][2][3] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves there is a God, whereas an atheist disbelieves there is a God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify knowledge whether God exists or does not. Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a God exists but do not claim to know that).

 

[WretchedMan]

WretchedMan:

Could you please define how you are using the word "Faith?"

Let me give you a practical example to illustrate what I mean by faith.

You wake up in the morning and fix yourself a bowl of cereal and, without hesitation, you chow down with no fear that you are eating something poisonous. Why? Do you know, empirically, that the cereal you have brought home from the store isn't going to make you sick or kill you? No you do not, but you have observed others eating cereal from the store and you have eaten cereal from the store enough that you have developed faith in the process that produces and delivers it to your store shelves. Is there no chance it could ever be poisonous? No, as we have all observed over the years, contamination from a bacteria, an accident, or a ticked worker somewhere along the line can lead to sickness, disease, and even death for an unsuspecting consumer that just wanted some spinach in their salad or were hungry for some spaghetios. However, even with the reality that these things happen, we do not operate out of fear, but rather faith, when we eat food bought at a store or in a restaurant. The only time this changes is for a short time after we hear a story of something happening or experience it first hand.

That is a practical example of faith. Another example is flying on a commercial airliner. You cannot personally and empirically, confirm that an aircraft is serviced properly, in flyable condition, or that the pilot didn't just find out his wife was cheating on him and has decided to run the plane into her bedroom window, killing everyone. You put your faith in the ground crew, the maintenance crew, the air traffic controllers, and your pilots. You have faith that they are competent, well trained, thorough in their job, are concerned about your safety, etc.

You exercise faith in almost everything you do everyday. Faith is, in essence, trust, and it is as central to human life as breathing.

The idea that faith is this blind, religiously exclusive, mystical thing is a very new idea and was not at all what Jesus meant when He spoke of having faith. Is there an additional aspect to it within the context of a relationship with God? Yes, but it is an extension of what we already have and use, not something foreign to human experience.

This is not to say that no one ever has blind faith in something. I would have to dwell on that. What may appear as blind faith may just be weak, poorly reasoned faith. I know that if faith was disassociated from reason, I would not have any faith at all.

 

[WretchedMan]

@ Wretched Man:
Seems to me you have the choice:
- Either you accept that the vast majority of self-professing atheists here do not hold the position you feel they should hold,
- or you keep talking about an extremely small group of us self-professing atheists (in which case I would be wondering what the reason is for you to ignore the actually held positions of the posters you are discussing with).

I haven't ignored anyone's position insofar as I am aware. I accept that the vast majority of self-professing atheists on here are agnostics, according to how they have described their position.

What I have not done is kowtow to ridiculous assertions that atheist also means agnostic now because some agnostics wanted to be atheists without committing to the position, or that atheism makes no truth claims because some atheists didn't have the onions to defend their position or admit they have little to no basis for it.

I don't understand why someone would mealey-mouth about it. If you're agnostic, be agnostic. When did agnostic become so taboo or unchic that some started calling themselves "weak atheists"? If you're atheist, be atheist and don't try to hide the fact that you believe that no god exists or play semantics games to claim that there is no truth claim involved in your position.

If you can't give me something much better than, "this group is (A) because they say they are (A)", when they clearly demonstrate the characteristics of (X), I am not going to go along with you on this change of a word that is older than Christianity.

Now, you don't have to agree with me, just don't expect me to unquestioningly go along on this asinine definition change and don't get offended if when you present yourself as an atheist, I assume it's true. As I get to know you better I will better remember what your position is and we will be able to discuss ideas just fine. Until then, remind me if necessary.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I have never seen that type of discussion before ...

*Is glad to not be a weak atheist*

 

[Ken-1122]

Wreched man (quote)

Let me give you a practical example to illustrate what I mean by faith.

You wake up in the morning and fix yourself a bowl of cereal and, without hesitation, you chow down with no fear that you are eating something poisonous. Why? Do you know, empirically, that the cereal you have brought home from the store isn't going to make you sick or kill you? No you do not, but you have observed others eating cereal from the store and you have eaten cereal from the store enough that you have developed faith in the process…… That is a practical example of faith. Another example is flying on a commercial airliner. You cannot personally and empirically, confirm that an aircraft is serviced properly, in flyable condition……. You exercise faith in almost everything you do everyday. Faith is, in essence, trust, and it is as central to human life as breathing”

(reply) You seem to believe faith has the same definition as the word “believe” which makes the word “faith” meaningless; why not just use the term believe?

To believe something that is backed up by facts, logic, reason, and empirical evidence is MUCH different than believing something that is not! Thus a different word should be used to distinguish the two. If you are not going to use the word “faith” to describe the type of belief that is not backed up by reason, logic, and empirical evidence, what word would you like to use?

(quote) “The idea that faith is this blind, religiously exclusive, mystical thing is a very new idea and was not at all what Jesus meant when He spoke of having faith.”

(reply) actually it was. Hebrews 11:1 describes faith as the substance of things hoped for, evidence of things UNSEEN. If it were backed up by logic reason and empirical evidence, it would not be unseen

Ken

 

[quatona]

I don't understand why someone would mealey-mouth about it. If you're agnostic, be agnostic. When did agnostic become so taboo or unchic that some started calling themselves "weak atheists"? If you're atheist, be atheist and don't try to hide the fact that you believe that no god exists or play semantics games to claim that there is no truth claim involved in your position.

If you can't give me something much better than, "this group is (A) because they say they are (A)", when they clearly demonstrate the characteristics of (X), I am not going to go along with you on this change of a word that is older than Christianity.

You´ve got that wrong: For most of this time the word was used to signify a philosophical position of the knowability of deities, and not until fairly recently it is used to signify some middle ground between atheism and theism.

Now, you don't have to agree with me, just don't expect me to unquestioningly go along on this asinine definition change and don't get offended if when you present yourself as an atheist, I assume it's true. As I get to know you better I will better remember what your position is and we will be able to discuss ideas just fine. Until then, remind me if necessary.

Fair enough. Likewise, I will accept your self-identification as a Christian.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I never claimed words don't have variable definitions. I was merely commenting on your statement.

Would it be valid for me to claim to be an atheist and then say it means I believe in God? Of course not, because words mean things.

Actually, it would be valid - that's the original meaning of the term. If you want to define atheism as that, then you're more than welcome to. A man named Jazer here on CF defines YEC according to his reading of Bishop Ussher's works - which is decidedly contrary to its modern incarnation.

If we were going to be taking a vote on what atheism means in order to determine its usage, and we actually polled everyone, not just a small group of people that like to apply the term to themselves, we are never going to come up with the definition of agnosticism that so many of you are applying to it.

Fortunately, a person's vocabulary isn't determined by fiat. The word 'spin' has a very particular meaning, no? If we took a poll of everyone, then we'd get a consensus on its meaning. But if we restricted our poll to scientists, or to physicists, we'd get a split: those scientists who voted for the colloquial meaning of 'rotation', and those who voted for its scientific meaning as an intrinsic property of particles (the two meanings are related in name only). Which definition is right? Well, obviously, both are. That scientists have a particular definition of a term that's unused by the population at large, is irrelevant.

And I'd be interested in such a poll. If you polled those people who called themselves atheists, what do you think you'd get? Why would we bother polling theists, when our aim is to unearth what a self-professed atheist means when they use the term 'atheist'? And would it even matter?

Which supports what I said in my previous post. It was applied to Christians because they made a truth claim that denied the deities of the Romans, specifically Caesar himself.

Exactly - and if you took a poll today, you wouldn't get that definition. Words change, so pointing out their etymology, fascinating though it is, is ultimately moot.

It's not my definition. It is what the word has always meant. What gives a small minority of people misapplying a word to themselves the authority to change it for the English speaking world, not to mention French and Greek, which had the word first?

Authority? No one has authority over a person's vocabulary. The antiquated definition of the word has long since gone, and both atheists themselves (who, of all people, should have the most 'authority' to define what 'atheism' means; Buddhists don't get to define 'Christian' more than Christians themselves) and by at least two centuries of philosophical discussion. It is not "a small minority of people misapplying a word to themselves" - it's a definition used the world over by scholars and philosophers, not to mention a full 20% of the Western world - from about 5% in the Turkey to about 84% in Malta.

As early as 1772, Baron d'Holbach commented that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God." - they don't actively affirm the non-existence of God, but rather, their implicit rejection of the claim "God exists" qualifies them as atheists. This isn't just some company rebranding, this is a long-standing idea that's evolved its way into English like any other word.

Could you explain how anything I've said is fallacious? I don't like fallacies so would like to avoid it in the future.

Person A: "I'm an atheist"
Person B: "Aha! That means you have faith!"

B has committed the equivocation fallacy: he's equated his definition of 'atheist' with A's definition of 'atheist'. When A said "I'm an atheist", they naturally meant something quite particular by that, which, statistically speaking, probably correlates with the 'weak atheist' position I mentioned before - i.e., a position not based in faith. Person B, defining 'atheism' to mean what is more accurately called 'strong atheism', equates his definition to A's use of the word - which is false. Therefore, a fallacy is created.

You have espoused your own definition of atheism ("As much as atheists protest to the contrary, atheism is a position that makes a truth claim"), effectively dismissing Magnus_the_Red's own definition when he explained why he called himself an atheist - though you didn't outright equivocate, you came very close indeed, hence my objection.

Remaining silent about whether you believe or not is now a variable definition of atheism? Would this apply to a Christian who believes in God but keeps silent due to fear of rejection by their peers on campus, or does someone have to be silent about their belief with everyone at all times? How long would one have to remain silent to officially become an atheist?

It's an idiom. Don't take it so literally.

This definition is even worse than the definition you gave earlier, which is, again, the definition of agnosticism...

On the contrary, it's your definition of agnosticism, which is shared primarily with other theists - but not self-professed agnostics and atheists. Gnosticism and agnosticism are most often defined as one's position on the epistemology of God: can God be known to exist, or is that knowledge impossible to attain? It doesn't address the question of whether God does exist or not.

If I affirm that God exists, or if I that God doesn't exist, or if I affirm neither - that places me on the Theism - Weak Atheism - Strong Atheism scale.
If I affirm that God's existence can be known, or can't be known - that places me on the Gnosticism - Agnosticism scale.

Thus, you can be a gnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist.

...or did the agnostics get together and change the meaning when I wasn't looking?

Indeed they did. Bertrand Russell, for instance, said "[a]n agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time". Robert Flint in 1887 said "[i]f a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist – an agnostic-atheist – an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other" - in other words, both Russell and Flint defined gnosticism/agnosticism as a scale separate from theism/atheism.

But then, what authority do those pesky self-professed agnostics have to define their own terms, eh?

While I agree with what you say about it being entirely possible to not come to a conclusion about whether any gods exist, or not, I don't think your analogy works. This isn't a competition where the team that scores the most points is going to win, this is a matter of whether something is or is not (A or Not A).

And their either is or is not a winner. There will be a winner, even though we don't know what that winner is (in this case, because the triggering event hasn't transpired yet; in the case of theism/atheism, because deities remain conspicuously hidden). Every analogy fails somewhere, because they're analogies. In any case, if you understand what the position is, that's fine. What you call 'agnosticism', others, notably self-professed atheists themselves, call 'atheism'.

Suppose a group of Muslims, atheists, or Buddhists, took it upon themselves to spread a new definition of 'Christian' which meant 'one who wore pointy hats' - would you consider this somewhat absurd? Would you look at that and thing "What authority do they have to tell me that I'm not a Christian"?

Over two thousand years of language convention is a pretty objective standard to go by.

So 'atheism' still refers to Christianity, as per its original definition, yes?

 

[Eudaimonist]

You wake up in the morning and fix yourself a bowl of cereal and, without hesitation, you chow down with no fear that you are eating something poisonous. Why? Do you know, empirically, that the cereal you have brought home from the store isn't going to make you sick or kill you?

No, I don't.

I eat it anyway because the odds that it will kill me are very small, and if the cereal looks okay, I have some empirical reason to think that the cereal is probably healthy, but I don't demand very high levels of certainty.

This idea of faith implies that one will never do anything for which there is any risk whatsoever. But this is ridiculous. People rationally accept risks. There is no need for faith that one is perfectly safe.

Another example is flying on a commercial airliner. You cannot personally and empirically, confirm that an aircraft is serviced properly, in flyable condition, or that the pilot didn't just find out his wife was cheating on him and has decided to run the plane into her bedroom window, killing everyone. You put your faith in the ground crew, the maintenance crew, the air traffic controllers, and your pilots. You have faith that they are competent, well trained, thorough in their job, are concerned about your safety, etc.

No, I don't.

I certainly hope that they are all competent, but I accept the risk that they aren't. I am never perfectly confident when I board an airplane that I will leave that airplane safely. I board the airplane anyway because I know the risks are statistically very small.

No faith here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

I haven't ignored anyone's position insofar as I am aware. I accept that the vast majority of self-professing atheists on here are agnostics, according to how they have described their position.

Yep, they're likely both atheist and agnostic, at least for some concepts of gods.

I really don't see the point of all of these word games. Either you can understand what people mean when they use a word as defined in the dictionary, or you can pretend that the made-up meaning of a word that didn't exist 2000 years ago in a language which didn't exist then either defines what other people believe today.

I am not going to go along with you on this change of a word that is older than Christianity.

Are you Eastern Orthodox? If not you need to change your icon and stop being mealy-mouthed about your religious beliefs - I am not going to go along with you on this change of a word that is as old as Christianity. Now, you don't have to agree with me, just don't expect me to unquestioningly go along on this asinine definition change and don't get offended if when you present yourself as Christian, I assume it's true.

 

[selfinflikted]

Let me give you a practical example to illustrate what I mean by faith.

You wake up in the morning and fix yourself a bowl of cereal and, without hesitation, you chow down with no fear that you are eating something poisonous. Why? Do you know, empirically, that the cereal you have brought home from the store isn't going to make you sick or kill you? No you do not, but you have observed others eating cereal from the store and you have eaten cereal from the store enough that you have developed faith...

Going to stop you right here. This is not "faith." This is a reasonable expectation. A lot of Christians say that atheists have "faith" that the chair I'm about to sit on will hold me up when I sit on it. No. This is not "faith." This is a reasonable expectation that the chair will hold me, as every chair I've ever sat in has held me before. The same can be applied to your cereal analogy. I have a reasonable expectation that the cereal I'm about to eat will be safe simply because when I ate that cereal yesterday (and every other time before) nothing bad ever happened.

You exercise faith in almost everything you do everyday. Faith is, in essence, trust, and it is as central to human life as breathing.

Again, this is not the same thing as a Christian's "faith." What I exercise everyday is a reasonable expectation.

The idea that faith is this blind, religiously exclusive, mystical thing is a very new idea and was not at all what Jesus meant when He spoke of having faith. Is there an additional aspect to it within the context of a relationship with God? Yes, but it is an extension of what we already have and use, not something foreign to human experience.

I disagree. I can't have reasonable expectations of god, because I have no prior experience on which to base any expectation (much less a reasonable one). That would require "faith." See the difference?

 

[WretchedMan]

You misunderstand the weak atheist position.

No one will argue that either gods exist or they don't. That's a true dichotomy.

The false dichotomy is that you can only believe they do or believe they don't. That is not the case.

The best analogy I ever heard put forward regarding this idea had to do with a jury. When a jury return a verdict of 'not guilty', that doesn't necessarily mean that they believe the defendant is innocent. It simply means that, in their minds, there is insufficient evidence to warrant a guilty verdict.

That's how I look at atheism.

Theists make claims that a god exists and I reject those claims because, to date, none of them have met their burden of proof. However, that doesn't necessarily mean I believe no god exists.

Rejecting the positive claim (guilty/god exists) does not necessarily mean affirming the negative claim (innocent/no god exists).

For my own part:

I do not believe a god exists.

I do not believe no god exists.

I lack belief.

Understand?

Whether gods exist or not is absolutely argued by many people. It is argued on these forums constantly.

If I have not been clear, I apologize. I have never meant to imply that one must believe gods exist or believe they do not. One can be undecided, as I once was, but that doesn't change that either there is a god or there is not a god. There's no middle ground in reality concerning this, though there is in the position one takes concerning their belief.

Your analogy is a good one, but I don't think it is applicable to atheism, but to one of the commonly held definitions of agnosticism, which more accurately fits your described position.

Atheism does, and always has, contained the truth claim that no god exists. I know agnosticism is a fairly new word, but the concept has been around since, at least, Protagoras and your described position fits that idea.