Atheism, Learned Helplessness, and Clinical Depression

[Cearbhall]

I think CF should have a dedicated Semantics Forum for those people who now keep hijacking threads with their tiresome insistence on what other persons should call themselves.

Oh man, is this still going?

Is there a pride in being atheist? The people who don't think there is a god are definitely atheists, but the people who aren't sure and yet use the term atheist for their belief seem to be doing so out of something other than accuracy.

Maybe we're doing it because we disagree with you and therefore don't need a hidden agenda to justify our usage of the term!

 

[quatona]

You stated that words have no inherent meaning, then again said they have no meaning (unqualified). My point was that if words have no inherent meaning,[...]

Ok, since you also had inherent meaning in mind, we are clear.

I disagree with you that words have no inherent meaning (words evolve, but they do so with shared acceptance of meaning).

Well, apparently this statement isn´t true without qualification, or else we wouldn´t find a list of different definitions for one word in the dictionaries.

Words such as "and" have inherent meaning... it is accepted by all as a conjunction of additive function.

Which, of course, doesn´t equal "inherent" meaning, but just universally agreed upon meaning. Which, of course, is also not quite correct, since not all the world speaks English.

 

[KCfromNC]

You are correct, and we are in agreement. An agnostic would reply "I do not know."

No. Agnosticism isn't about lack of knowledge of one's own beliefs. It is about a lack of knowledge of gods. So an agnostic wouldn't be forced to tell you that they don't / can't know their own beliefs or lack thereof, just that they lack epistemological certainty if those beliefs involve god(s).

I'm not sure if there is a term for someone who believes that they can't know their own beliefs. Seems self-defeating to me.

 

[BL2KTN]

While I am agnostic, I am not theist. I could be non-theist, but I'm not sure that is distinct from atheist.

A non-theist is anyone who does not take the positive position that the divine exists. You could be either agnostic or atheist, or a combination of the two.

What do you think you're right about? The original usage of the term or the current one?

I didn't read all your posts...but I remember you saying you're a language guy, surely you understand why words change meaning. If you'd like a discussion of why "agnostic" did...I'm sure I could present some rather obvious reasons.

I think I'm right about the meaning of agnosticism and atheism, and I think I have now repeatedly shown it using dictionaries, logic, Wikipedia, and the originator of the term "agnostic." Theism is a default gnostic position which posits the existence of the divine. Atheism is a default gnostic position which posits the non-existence of the divine. Agnostic is the default position of those who do not feel they have sufficient evidence to make a determination. It is possible to be somewhat agnostic on either position if one feels they are right about theism or atheism, but at the same time acknowledges they could be wrong.

Edit: You know what? Since I'm a nice guy I'll just tell you. There's lots of reasons why agnostic is an almost worthless distinction. Reasons that could relate to definitions of "god", reasons that relate the time period Mr Huxley lived in, but I think the obvious answer is probably the right one. It's a worthless distinction. A self professed Christian who is 99% certain there is a god is as much an agnostic as the atheist who is 99% certain there isn't a god. In the eyes of such strict semantics, we are both equally agnostic...which tells you absolutely nothing about what we believe except our certainty.

Yes, theism and atheism are gnostic positions in that believing there is or is not a divine being(s) requires some persuasive element the individual has accepted. However, agnosticism is a worthwhile distinction for those who have seen no persuasive element for either side.

This is why the definitions changed to statements of belief...not certainty, not knowledge. Perhaps before you go around the room questioning atheists why they call themselves atheists you should cross the entire forum and check the certainty of every christian and ask them why they don't use the term agnostic for themselves.

Or you could just admit the definitions involved here have changed over time and we can move on to more meaningful conversation.

I am uninterested in all of that. I simply gave the definition of theism, atheism, and agnosticism. I have since been responded to by many, and I have replied to all of them. Thus we have the length of this discussion.

Earlier on in the thread, I seem to recall that you spoke against the use of strict categories for describing people's thinking about deities, acknowledging that there are variations according to the level of certainty, for example. Yet your attempt to place people into strict categories of 'atheist', 'theist' and 'agnostic' is at odds with this view. While it is absurd to suggest that one can be an atheist-theist, it is not absurd to declare oneself an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist (or a gnostic atheist or a gnostic theist). Those are terms that describe how some people think about deities. Those terms add nuance to the description, thus breaking down the strict categories you seem to want to use.

I have repeatedly and uniformly stated that it is possible to be an agnostic theist and an agnostic atheist, though referring to oneself as a gnostic theist or gnostic atheist is redundant. I have repeatedly and uniformly stated that there are various measures of assurance in regards to one's beliefs, and I have referred to Richard Dawkins and the originator of the term "agnostic," along with other leading philosophers in this regard.

I don't see this fact as particularly important, since words such as "agnostic" and "atheist" have a life of their own as people tease out their logical implications and form better boundaries for their concepts. Why do you think that Wikipedia talks about "types" of agnosticism? As quatona had pointed out, there is no intrinsic meaning to the word.

Words have the meanings that people agree upon. In ideal cases, the meanings are sensible and aid discussion because they are well formed and logical. Consistency with etymology is a plus. This is why I tend to use the definitions I do. We are having a problem agreeing on the meaning of these words, so we just need to move on.

If you are trying to get me to agree with you that only the author of a word can determine its meaning, you're fighting an uphill battle. I don't see word meanings in that way. Words do not have fixed meanings. If I had really thought that, I would use the word "atheist" in the precise way it was used in classical times, which wouldn't match anyone's usage today.

I have simply given the traditionally accepted meanings, accepted by society, tradition, leaders, and dictionaries, for the words atheism, theism, and agnosticism. Words do change, however I see no reason for referring to oneself as an atheist for lack of belief if atheist means you do not believe in god, and in fact, the word agnosticism refers to lacking belief one way or another. These are the traditionally, universally accepted meanings of the words. Still, those who lack any belief one way or another (known as agnostics) seem to want the label "atheist." I'm fine with that, except that it is confusing since it makes the term "atheist" less meaningful and the term "agnostic" unuseful.

Picturing how people would talk should language not change over time

Communicating would be tough, that's for sure. The French have this problem at times in that they dislike other languages infiltrating their vocabulary - yet the world today introduces so many new items with names from non-French locales. English, on the other hand, gobbles up every foreign word it can with gusto.

Maybe we're doing it because we disagree with you and therefore don't need a hidden agenda to justify our usage of the term!

I have never suggested any hidden agenda, and I'm also perplexed because you say "we", yet you label yourself an agnostic.

Well, apparently this statement isn´t true without qualification, or else we wouldn´t find a list of different definitions for one word in the dictionaries.

Words have multiple definitions for many reasons, and these reasons vary from language to language. We could go over the reasons, but it might bore us all to sleep. That said, if there is an obscure meaning of a word which very few know, it is likely confusing to use the word in that manner if there are better alternatives. A quick glimpse at the dictionary would reveal many examples.

Which, of course, doesn´t equal "inherent" meaning, but just universally agreed upon meaning. Which, of course, is also not quite correct, since not all the world speaks English.

I thought it was understood I was specifically referring to English. Obviously the meanings of phonemes change from language to language. That is so elementary, I did not think it needed clarification.

[quote="KCfromNC]No. Agnosticism isn't about lack of knowledge of one's own beliefs. It is about a lack of knowledge of gods. So an agnostic wouldn't be forced to tell you that they don't / can't know their own beliefs or lack thereof, just that they lack epistemological certainty if those beliefs involve god(s).[/quote]

That is incorrect. One can be agnostic in regards to anything which one declares unknowable due to lack of information. If someone asks you if you believe in ghosts, you can say, "I'm agnostic in that regard." However, using the term agnostic as a label for yourself does tend to indicate your belief in the divine (not just gods). For example, saying that you are an agnostic doesn't just mean you lack belief in a specific god, but also that you lack belief in a supernatural creative force or that the universe itself is divinity.

I'm not sure if there is a term for someone who believes that they can't know their own beliefs. Seems self-defeating to me.

Agnostic theist and agnostic atheist would both refer to that idea. Agnosticism by itself just refers to the inability to take a position based on lack of persuasive information.

*Whew*

 

[Eudaimonist]

I have simply given the traditionally accepted meanings, accepted by society, tradition, leaders, and dictionaries, for the words atheism, theism, and agnosticism.

No, you haven't. You have given some of them. You have not given all of them.

And I hardly see what "tradition" matters. By tradition, Christians are atheists. Just ask third century Roman pagans.

These are the traditionally, universally accepted meanings of the words.

They aren't "universally" accepted meanings.

I am through with this particular line of conversation. Please let's move on.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[BL2KTN]

No, you haven't. You have given some of them. You have not given all of them.

And I hardly see what "tradition" matters. By tradition, Christians are atheists. Just ask third century Roman pagans.

Atheism
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
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
-- Atheism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

"Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial." -- Concise Encyclopedia

Two dictionaries, an encyclopedia, the creator of the word "agnosticism", the leading thinkers on atheism and agnosticism, all agree with what I've been saying. I don't know what more you want. I'm sorry that what you want to be true is not held as accurate. It just isn't.

As for what the pagans called Christians, who cares? People who disagree with one another call other all sorts of things. Atheists are those who do not believe in the divine. Perhaps the Romans only thought their pantheon was legitimately divine, so thus the Christians following a guy were atheists. I'm atheist to all but a single Creator whom I'm not very familiar with. So while I'm atheist for 99.99999% of all the imagined deities over time, I'm still a deist.

They aren't "universally" accepted meanings.

I am through with this particular line of conversation. Please let's move on.

As I've said, I just don't know what it would take to convince you. You are using a word in a way which is not supported by any dictionary I can find.

 

[quatona]

Words have multiple definitions for many reasons, and these reasons vary from language to language.

Exactly.

We could go over the reasons, but it might bore us all to sleep.

Indeed, and for purposes of my point it is completely sufficient to agree that words are used in multiple definitions.

That said, if there is an obscure meaning of a word which very few know, it is likely confusing to use the word in that manner if there are better alternatives. A quick glimpse at the dictionary would reveal many examples.

Indeed, but the way we use "atheism" isn´t one of them.

One can be agnostic in regards to anything which one declares unknowable due to lack of information.

Exactly, and since God/the Divine/the Supernatural are unfalsifiable by the very definition of those who claim their existence, agnosticism as a logical conclusion goes without saying, from my perspective. Thus, if having to choose between the labels "agnostic" ["the (non)existence of God(s)/the Divine" can not be known] and "atheist" [I don´t believe in their existence] I will always go with the latter, because it contains more information (since the former is practically redundant). The label "agnostic atheist", however, should be sufficient to remove all misunderstandings.

 

[quatona]

Atheism
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
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
-- Atheism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

As I've said, I just don't know what it would take to convince you. You are using a word in a way which is not supported by any dictionary I can find.

That´s because you stopped reading at a certain point. From your first link:

World English Dictionary
atheism (ˈeɪθɪˌɪzəm) — n
rejection of belief in God or gods

 

[BL2KTN]

Indeed, but the way we use "atheism" isn´t one of them.

The way you are using it isn't even found in the dictionary.

That´s because you stopped reading at a certain point. From your first link:

World English Dictionary
atheism (ˈeɪθɪˌɪzəm) — n
rejection of belief in God or gods

Rejection of belief in God or gods is not lack of belief. To reject something is to turn it away - lack of belief would say "it could be possible, but I am unsure." In other words, agnosticism doesn't reject, it says it is one of two real possibilities. Atheism rejects the belief, which is the opposing opinion, not the lack of opinion.

Good grief people, this is not hard.

 

[quatona]

The way you are using it isn't even found in the dictionary.

Yes, it is (apart from the fact that dictionary one liners aren´t meant to give a thorough description of complex abstractions, anyway).

Rejection of belief in God or gods is not lack of belief. To reject something is to turn it away - lack of belief would say "it could be possible, but I am unsure."

No, "lack of belief" simply means "I don´t believe it", which equals turning away from the belief. The differences between "I don´t believe there is...", "I believe there isn´t..." and "I know there isn´t..." shouldn´t be hard to understand for a confessing semantics fan. Unfortunately, all three are covered by the term "atheism".

 

[Ana the Ist]

[bless and do not curse] Atheism rejects the belief, which is the opposing opinion, not the lack of opinion.

Good grief people, this is not hard.

This is just silly. Rejection of belief doesn't require adopting an opposing position...it absolutely results in the lack of belief and doesn't necessarily result in anything else. Sorry, this isn't hard...but you seem to be intent on digging yourself deeper anyway.

 

[quatona]

From Wikipedia:

Definitions and distinctions


A diagram showing the relationship between the definitions of weak/strong and implicit/explicit atheism.
Explicit strong/positive/hard atheists (in purple on the right) assert that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement.
Explicit weak/negative/soft atheists (in blue on the right) reject or eschew belief that any deities exist without actually asserting that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement.
Implicit weak/negative atheists (in blue on the left) would include people (such as young children and some agnostics) who do not believe in a deity, but have not explicitly rejected such belief.
(Sizes in the diagram are not meant to indicate relative sizes within a population.)


Writers disagree how best to define and classify atheism,[27] contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. Atheism has been regarded as compatible with agnosticism,[28][29][30][31][32][33][34] and has also been contrasted with it.[35][36][37] A variety of categories have been used to distinguish the different forms of atheism.

 

[Cearbhall]

I have never suggested any hidden agenda, and I'm also perplexed because you say "we", yet you label yourself an agnostic.

It's fairly apparent that this would perplex you.

 

[sea oat]

I've seen just as many depressed and mentally ill Christians as I have atheists. No shortage of them at all.

 

[Eudaimonist]

As I've said, I just don't know what it would take to convince you. You are using a word in a way which is not supported by any dictionary I can find.

Except that it is supported by Wikipedia, which is a far better resource than a dictionary.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, and tend to focus on pop meanings instead of the best meanings for philosophical discussion.

If you can't find my preferred definition in dictionaries, you haven't been looking hard enough. It took me 5 seconds of Googling to find this at dictionary.com:

World English Dictionary
atheist (ˈeɪθɪˌɪst)

— n
1. a person who does not believe in God or gods

— adj
2. of or relating to atheists or atheism

In any case, dictionaries are not prescriptive, and are not carefully philosophical. They don't tell us how we must use words. They tell us how words are often used, and usually looking somewhat towards the past. They probably give the favorite definitions of Christians, since those are most like to be popular. They don't tell me how atheists themselves use words.

I know from experience how atheists use the word "atheist". I'm not saying that 100% of them use the word in precisely the same way, but I certainly have enough experience to notice a strong trend. I also have enough experience as an atheist thinking about the distinctions between atheism and theism to have good reasons to adopt the definitions I do. I am better than any dictionary on this particular matter.

Now, please let's move on from this silly discussion. It serves no purpose any longer. I don't care if you believe me, and I don't know why you are so attached to this subject. Let's move on.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have repeatedly and uniformly stated that it is possible to be an agnostic theist and an agnostic atheist, though referring to oneself as a gnostic theist or gnostic atheist is redundant. I have repeatedly and uniformly stated that there are various measures of assurance in regards to one's beliefs, and I have referred to Richard Dawkins and the originator of the term "agnostic," along with other leading philosophers in this regard.

Yet despite this you've continued to push for strict categories. Why? You've already undermined the strict categories you want to use.

 

[KCfromNC]

Agnostic theist and agnostic atheist would both refer to that idea. Agnosticism by itself just refers to the inability to take a position based on lack of persuasive information.

But how is it possible to lack persuasive information of your own beliefs? I'm stumped as to what it might mean to not believe you can believe your own beliefs. It seems nonsensical to me.

 

[KCfromNC]

Rejection of belief in God or gods is not lack of belief.

Maybe, but disbelief is. And that's listed in both of your examples.

 

[BL2KTN]

This is just silly. Rejection of belief doesn't require adopting an opposing position...it absolutely results in the lack of belief and doesn't necessarily result in anything else. Sorry, this isn't hard...but you seem to be intent on digging yourself deeper anyway.

This is only true when there are multiple options beside what is being rejected. Theism versus atheism is a two-sided coin, however. It's much like if I said do you think the light is on or off... if you say you do not think the light is on, then you must mean the light is off. Either there is a divine, or there is not a divine. Agnosticism says you simply don't know.

Implicit weak/negative atheists (in blue on the left) would include people (such as young children and some agnostics) who do not believe in a deity, but have not explicitly rejected such belief.
(Sizes in the diagram are not meant to indicate relative sizes within a population.)

Even in your attempt to find the most inclusive understanding of atheism on Wikipedia, it still says that most inclusive understanding requires a rejection of the divine, just not explicitly. It is still the counter position to theism, not a lack of position (agnosticism). This is now what I have been saying for page after page after page.

Except that it is supported by Wikipedia, which is a far better resource than a dictionary.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, and tend to focus on pop meanings instead of the best meanings for philosophical discussion.

If you can't find my preferred definition in dictionaries, you haven't been looking hard enough. It took me 5 seconds of Googling to find this at dictionary.com:

World English Dictionary
atheist (ˈeɪθɪˌɪst)

— n
1. a person who does not believe in God or gods

— adj
2. of or relating to atheists or atheism

A person who does not believe in God or gods or the divine, is absolutely an atheist. How many times have I stated this? A person who takes no position is an agnostic. This is now bizarre that I am saying the same exact thing to the same people over and over and over, and that they are using examples which say what I am saying yet they do not see it. It is perplexing.

In any case, dictionaries are not prescriptive, and are not carefully philosophical. They don't tell us how we must use words. They tell us how words are often used, and usually looking somewhat towards the past. They probably give the favorite definitions of Christians, since those are most like to be popular. They don't tell me how atheists themselves use words.

I know from experience how atheists use the word "atheist". I'm not saying that 100% of them use the word in precisely the same way, but I certainly have enough experience to notice a strong trend. I also have enough experience as an atheist thinking about the distinctions between atheism and theism to have good reasons to adopt the definitions I do. I am better than any dictionary on this particular matter.

Now, please let's move on from this silly discussion. It serves no purpose any longer. I don't care if you believe me, and I don't know why you are so attached to this subject. Let's move on.

I am simply responding to what you say. If you feel the discussion is silly, remove yourself from it. If you feel it serves no purpose, cease responding. I am not attached to the subject, but I do hope that people have learned a very simple lesson from all of this:

Theism = gnostic position, belief in divine
Atheism = gnostic position, disbelief in divine
Agnosticism = lack of belief in either theism or atheism

If I start using the word "Christian" to mean someone who doesn't take a position on Christianity, and then some of my friends do the same... I could make the exact same argument you are trying to based on experience. I could say, "I know how Christians use the term from experience." It would be just as bizarre.

Yet despite this you've continued to push for strict categories. Why? You've already undermined the strict categories you want to use.

I do not push for strict categories... I simply have stated over and over, with a mountain of evidence in my favor, that theism, agnosticism, and atheism have specific meanings. I have stated that if atheism means what some desire here, then agnosticism ceases to describe something that atheism does not. At the same time, atheism would then be broader to the point of lacking the same specificity it already has. That is why every resource available has pointed to this exact point -- even the resources provided by those wanting that position and who apparently didn't understand their resource well.

People, unlike positions, are much more difficult to describe. Even within an individual, different parts of the brain are taking different positions at different times and struggling to win. One can be a theist and an atheist at the same time in different parts of their brain. Categorizing others is not something that I am strict about. This whole discussion came about I believe when someone declared atheism when in fact it was agnosticism. I simply wanted to clarify what the two positions meant, not provide three strict labels for every individual. You can see that through my repeated discussions of a scale, and of the possibility for agnostic theists/atheists.

But how is it possible to lack persuasive information of your own beliefs? I'm stumped as to what it might mean to not believe you can believe your own beliefs. It seems nonsensical to me.

You and I may be unable to do that, but some people do in fact base their beliefs on emotional desires rather than persuasive information. Those who are able to recognize their positions are based on emotional desire are capable of saying they are an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist: positions not rooted in any persuasive information, but completely in want.

Maybe, but disbelief is. And that's listed in both of your examples.

You'd have to quote me on it - I'm not sure where I listed "disbelief" in two examples. Theism is the belief of the divine, atheism is the disbelief in the divine, agnosticism is the lack of belief either way.

 

[quatona]

Even in your attempt to find the most inclusive understanding of atheism on Wikipedia, it still says that most inclusive understanding requires a rejection of the divine, just not explicitly. It is still the counter position to theism, not a lack of position (agnosticism). This is now what I have been saying for page after page after page.

If you feel the discussion is silly, remove yourself from it.

Ok.