Atheism vs Theism confusion

[ToddNotTodd]

Better still:
theist -- agnostic theist -- agnostic -- agnostic atheist -- atheist.

Judging by what i read from Cody, he was never like Dawkins.
I think Dawkins calls himself an atheist though.
Heck, he's THE famous atheist idol, isn't he?

No. Are you attempting to set the record for "most wrong in a thread"?

 

[Hieronymus]

You have to understand that it's a Dawkins' self-described scale that he himself made up to align and categorize spectrum of beliefs on basis of claims of certainty.

O, so it's even worse?
His scale goes from "i don't know" to "i'm certain there's no God" i.e. from agnostic to atheist.

If Dawkins calims that he doesn't know whether God exists or not... he is by definition an agnostic, which he admitted that he doesn't know.

His score on his scale indicates he's quite certain God does not exist, but not 100%
But still 87.5% certain God does not exist.
A 'pure' agnostic would score 0%
Conclusion: Dawkins is an atheist.

 

[devolved]

His score on his scale indicates he's quite certain God does not exist, but not 100%
But still 87.5% certain God does not exist.
A 'pure' agnostic would score 0%

There's actually no percentage you can put on unfalsifiable certainty .

For example, how certain are you that there isn't a teddy bear in space (as in Earth's orbit)? What would be the percentage of certainty that you'd attach to that claim, and what would you base these numbers of certainty on? Lol.

Would you be 97.6 percent certain that it's not the case )))

 

[CodyFaith]

This is an atheist:

He's an atheist yes, but he also takes the stance that there is NO GOD. You can be an atheist without saying "there is no God" and being confident in that belief.

Better still:
theist -- agnostic theist -- agnostic -- agnostic atheist -- atheist.

Judging by what i read from Cody, he was never like Dawkins.
I think Dawkins calls himself an atheist though.
Heck, he's THE famous atheist idol, isn't he?

I'll try to put it more simply. Your definition of what is agnostic, is actually what an atheist is.
What the thread makers is saying, and what he's saying is true, is that the actual definition of what an atheist is is just simply one who doesn't lacks belief in God. Which means, if you don't believe, you're one who lacks belief. An "agnostic" person is actually an atheist because they don't have a belief in God. They're open to the possibility of there being a God, but they don't have faith in one.
They're atheists, but they're agnostic (use that as an adjective) about there being God or not.

Richard Dawkins is not an agnostic atheist. He's an atheist who holds a belief that there is no God, a very strong stance that there is no God.
But no, I was absolutely never like Dawkins and always disliked the guy.

 

[devolved]

Dawkins and Hitchens would probably be an example of antitheism rather than atheism.

Again, there are overlaps in beliefs or lack of beliefs, or claims to knowledge or lack of knowledge, but there are plentiful confusion when it comes being open to evidence that a God exists, which I think most Atheists would be because they don't claim a 100% certainty that no God exists.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Full Definition of theism
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[ScottA]

Ok, I admit that the title is a bit of a "click bate" for both ends, but here it goes.

Browsing through some popular threads here, it seems like there's a general confusion as to what Atheism really is, and how that label tends to take on a "form" that shouldn't be ascribed to Atheism.

First of all, it should be noted that labels like Christian, Atheist, Republican, Democrat tend to be more pragmatic than carry some full scope of ontology of reality that these labels supposed to describe. These are very different from a more precise labels like "human", etc.

Thus, it's very easy to get lost in arguments against your own perception of the label as to what that label means to a person who takes it on as a description. In such, I'm not sure whether such labels are useful as shortcuts, or these create problematic perception.

We generally use them, because we are either "lazy" to repeat a list of what we believe, or because we find solace in some form of "righteous identity".

But, in short time I've spent on this forum, I've already had to clarify several times that "Atheism" is not a charge that God doesn't exist, at least it's not necessarily the case. In scope of our human experience, it tends to be a default position of not knowing and not believing.

From there we can progress into:

1) Staying in the default - not knowing and not believing that a God exists
2) Not knowing and believing that God exists
3) Claiming to know and by extension believing that God exists
4) Claiming to know and by extension not believing that God exists

So, there are a variety of positions. Some refuse to believe without evidence. Some believe without evidence.

But generally, #1 is labeled as "Agnosticism" and not Atheism, and here where confusion lies. Agnosticism is merely a claim of lack of knowledge through some form of experience or evidence. Both Atheists and theists have an overlap of not knowing.

IMO, the more general form of Atheism is anyone's default position of #1 - not knowing and not believing by extension. There are people who attempt to convince people both successfully and unsuccessfully to shift to a position of believe, but if they do shift to theism based on claims alone... that would make them Agnostic Theists.

The reason why I'm writing this is primarily because a lot of Christians associate Atheism as being closed to possibility of God, and view atheists on this board as trolls. That can be the case, but generally not IMO. There are cynics on either side of the spectrum and it's not inherent to either Christians or theists. I think people like myself are interested following up with whatever innovative evidence there may be for existence of supernatural and God, and such evidence and line of reasoning can come from individuals.

I hope that all of us would be interested to know if we indeed mistaking. I hope that would be true for either side of this issue. But, I don't think it's helpful to assume what a person believes or doesn't solely based on a one word label.

The rub, as I see it, is the great and opposing difference between the two worlds.

"Evidence" for instance, is not defined the same - nor should it, or could it be. They are two different worlds, after all. If we could come together on that one fact alone...it would be huge, a leap of progress. So, we need to include the misdefined use of the word "evidence" in your list of labels. Example: Have Christians not been clear that in order to have access to the proofs or evidences of our witness - that you must literally be born again first? Indeed, we have been clear. And so, what is left is just talk, which is not acceptable, because, understandably, it's not evidence.

So, then, where does the shortcoming fall - to those who extend their hand, or to those who refuse it?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Full Definition of theism
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I don't even know why we're having this discussion, other than some people like to attach emotions to words. I remember when the word "liberal" was benign, before the push to make it a dirty word.

I think I'm just going to define my disbelief in deities using the word "genius"...

 

[Albion]

But, in short time I've spent on this forum, I've already had to clarify several times that "Atheism" is not a charge that God doesn't exist, at least it's not necessarily the case. In scope of our human experience, it tends to be a default position of not knowing and not believing.

My view is that an Atheist is an Atheist and an Agnostic is one who hasn't enough information to be able to decide if there is a god. Just as the words suggest. It's evident that many Atheists would like to burnish their reputations, just like Liberals want to be Progressives now, Illegal immigrants want to be known as "undocumented" instead, and Homosexuals, not content to be Gays anymore, want to be LBGTQIsomething or other.

I prefer to call all groups by the correct term.

 

[ScottA]

I think I'm just going to define my disbelief in deities using the word "genius"...

Oh, that will never do. How about: "Siseneg" (Genesis spelled backwards)?

"In the beginning, we slept in and missed the bus."

 

[Hieronymus]

He's an atheist yes, but he also takes the stance that there is NO GOD. You can be an atheist without saying "there is no God" and being confident in that belief.

Confident in no belief then. That's an agnostic, maybe even an 'agnosticist', but not an atheist.

But wait... maybe this is the cause of the confusion.
Bare with me:

I think the issue is about people who say:
"i don't believe in God"
This is possibly different from "i don't know" (agnostic) and certainly different from "i believe God does not exist" (like atheist Dawkins).
But they tend to call themselves atheists (nowadays).

We should then ask that person: "Why do you not believe in God?"
If the answer is: "I'm not convinced by the evidence" he/ she is an agnostic, maybe a seeker.
If the answer is: "Because God does not exist" he / she is an atheist, his / her mind is made up.

...but, what did we mean by "God"?
God of the Bible? An un-defined God maybe?
In our 'judeo-christian' culture (or what's left of it) it's usually not believing in God of the Bible and Jesus Christ and Christianity.
Allah also helps making people call themselves atheists...

There is actually no proper term for an agnostic that does not believe in God of the Bible and / or Christianity, but is open to the concept of an omnipotent Creator (but has no evidence).
I was once like that myself, but i never was an atheist.
I was 'new age western (euro) buddhist' like.
I believed Christianity was (based on) a lie.

Anyway, i hope you see my points.
Dawkins is an atheist, Cody was never like that, so i wouldn't have called him an atheist.
But what would have been a proper term?
I.m.o. 'secular' would be a better term than atheist.
But i think 'agnostic' is also suitable.
Or 'skeptic', is maybe even better.
(unfortunately 'skeptic' has been hijacked by disbelievers to mean 'naturalist'.)

 

[Hieronymus]

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Hmm...
A bit confusing..
There's a big difference between lacking belief and disbelieving...
Maybe i was wrong then, since they're apparently both atheism (according to that dictionary)..

 

[Hieronymus]

Dawkins and Hitchens would probably be an example of antitheism rather than atheism.

Indeed..
It's not really credible to dislike God and still believe He does not exist.

 

[Hieronymus]

There's actually no percentage you can put on unfalsifiable certainty .

I was using Dawkins' scale on his own beliefs.
I believe him when he says he scores 6 on a his scale from 0 to 7.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Oh, that will never do. How about: "Siseneg" (Genesis spelled backwards)?

"In the beginning, we slept in and missed the bus."

I've got a great term to use for you, but I think I'd get in trouble if I post it here...

 

[Hieronymus]

Still though....

A monotheist believes in 1 God.
A polytheist believes in more than 1 God.
An atheist believes in 0 God.

O well...

 

[CodyFaith]

Hmm...
A bit confusing..
There's a big difference between lacking belief and disbelieving...
Maybe i was wrong then, since they're apparently both atheism (according to that dictionary)..

That's it.

Our work here is done. *walks away to matrix music*

 

[Hieronymus]

That's it.

Our work here is done. *walks away to matrix music*

Not so fast buddy

Consider this:

A monotheist believes in 1 God.
A polytheist believes in more than 1 God.
An atheist believes in 0 God.

I mean, it's Latin or Greek (not sure which), it's how we construct terms, especially defining terms.
It's how anyone anywhere at any time in history (or future) can understand something.

Anyway, matrix music...

 

[Hieronymus]

No. Are you attempting to set the record for "most wrong in a thread"?

I can't beat you.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I can't beat you.

See post #35...