Atheists or Agnostics?

[razeontherock]

What do you mean, we can't base everything off assumption anymore? Listening is a lost art?

You make an awfully good showing, for an atheist

 

[Freodin]

I suppose if you can give me another option, I am more then willing to listen, but, a term like "Atheist" should have a definition, don't you agree?

Just like Christian.

God Bless

Considering that this very forum we are posting on uses a lot more narrow definition of "Christian", to the exclusion of a lot of people who would fall under this dictionary definition, I don´t think that it is so easy.

Do you think that those "person who believes in Jesus Christ" that are excluded from posting in the "christian only" parts of this forum are hiding something or don´t know what the term actually means or are to lazy to clarify their own position.... or that they simply work under a slightly different definition from the authorities of that forum?

 

[Freodin]

I see it more simplistically (Too simplistically?)

Agnostic = I don't know if God exists.
Atheist = I know god doesn't exist.
Theist = I know God does exists.

It really comes down to how we think/feel we "Know" something, but that is a separate question.

I think that is a good question, and that it would indeed show your distinctions as "too simplistic".

There are - I think we all can agree on that - a huge number of things that we "don´t know".
"Will Bayern München win the German Soccer Championship again this year?"
"I don´t know."
"Do you believe they will?"
"Nah, they are not good enough this season."

Lack of knowledge does not hinder you from stating or even having a belief on a topic.

On the other hand, what we call "knowledge" can be wrong.
"Does God exist?"
"Yes, he does, and he has come to us in the form of his only son Jesus!"
"Nah, God exists, but he doesn´t have sons. But Muhammed is his prophet!"

One of these "known things" must be wrong (or both ).

So Theism / Atheism cannot be a distinction between "knowledge".

 

[razeontherock]

Ok, definitions get trickier now. Knowledge, understanding, and wisdom are clearly defined in the book of Proverbs. If you're trying to talk to Christians, you just used "knowledge" in a way that will cause communication breakdown. Our usage of the word would make your last sentence a true statement: yes we CAN have a distinction in KNOWLEDGE, proving not only theism but Christianity over atheism.

We just can't prove it to YOU, because you have no such knowledge

 

[Key]

Considering that this very forum we are posting on uses a lot more narrow definition of "Christian", to the exclusion of a lot of people who would fall under this dictionary definition, I don´t think that it is so easy.

It is Simple. You are just trying to over think it, and make it into a gobblygook mess.

Why?

I don't know., but there can be no good motive behind it.

Do you think that those "person who believes in Jesus Christ" that are excluded from posting in the "christian only" parts of this forum are hiding something or don´t know what the term actually means or are to lazy to clarify their own position.... or that they simply work under a slightly different definition from the authorities of that forum?

First off, you're arguing apples to oranges, thus you are being argumentative for the sake of it.

Secondly, Everyone that posts in the Christian only section meets the requirements of the definition of Christian, thus your entire point is invalid anyway.

God Bless

 

[Freodin]

Ok, definitions get trickier now. Knowledge, understanding, and wisdom are clearly defined in the book of Proverbs. If you're trying to talk to Christians, you just used "knowledge" in a way that will cause communication breakdown. Our usage of the word would make your last sentence a true statement: yes we CAN have a distinction in KNOWLEDGE, proving not only theism but Christianity over atheism.

We just can't prove it to YOU, because you have no such knowledge

Isn´t that the core of the question here? "Our" usage and "your" usage... and a conversation about the differences and similarities? Finding a common ground in language, so that we can exchange our ideas?

 

[Freodin]

It is Simple. You are just trying to over think it, and make it into a gobblygook mess.

Why?

I don't know., but there can be no good motive behind it.

I have been on this board for over eight years... and I have seen a lot of people talking about "true" christians and pseudo-christians and the distinction between Christians and Catholics... and somehow everyone of these self-proclaimed Christians assumes that the non-believer should see the obvious truth of his position and the falsehood of what he argues against.

And then there are those who get angry and offended when a non-believer starts to ask questions.

First off, you're arguing apples to oranges, thus you are being argumentative for the sake of it.

Now that IS indeed simple. There are people who use term X in a certain way. There are people who use term X in a slightly different way. There are conflicts arising from these different ways. Is it apples and oranges when we use "Christians" and "Atheists" in these situations? I don´t think so.

Secondly, Everyone that posts in the Christian only section meets the requirements of the definition of Christian, thus your entire point is invalid anyway.

God Bless

As you completely misrepresented my point, I don´t think you can decide whether it is "invalid anyway".

Point: everyone posting in the Christian only sections meets the requirements (with that I guess you mean according to your dictionary definition).
Point: there are people who meet this dictionary definition who are not allowed to post in the Christian only sections.
Point: this forum uses a different, narrower defintion than your dictionary.

POINT: people use different definitions of terms.

 

[Key]

I have been on this board for over eight years... and I have seen a lot of people talking about "true" christians and pseudo-christians and the distinction between Christians and Catholics... and somehow everyone of these self-proclaimed Christians assumes that the non-believer should see the obvious truth of his position and the falsehood of what he argues against.

Issues of Doctrine and Adherence have nothing to do with a definition, as the "Christians" being discussed need to meet the basic definition of what is a Christan, to be considered a Christian at all.

The problem is, that Atheist tend to try and be liquid about the very basic, primal, foundation definition of what exactly (at minimal) an Atheist is.

Like I said, is it dishonest to try and play games with what Atheist means.

This is the Definition.

It is what I, you, anyone, should mean, when they use this term.

If you want to add on more strict requirements for yourself (or forum you might make), like "Strong Atheist" or follow some moral code like Social Darwinism, that is fine.

But you do not to get to play with the definition of the word. Is you say I am an Atheist, this is what EVERYONE should think when they hear that term.

Playing with it, at that level, indeed means you are being dishonest.

And then there are those who get angry and offended when a non-believer starts to ask questions.

Like Loaded Questions?

One can assume, after eight years, you know when your question looks like horse pucky, and when they look legit.

But that should be irrespective of belief or topic.

Now that IS indeed simple. There are people who use term X in a certain way. There are people who use term X in a slightly different way. There are conflicts arising from these different ways. Is it apples and oranges when we use "Christians" and "Atheists" in these situations? I don´t think so.

There are also people who can't use a dictionary and, Yes it is Apples to Oranges.


As you completely misrepresented my point, I don´t think you can decide whether it is "invalid anyway".

Point: everyone posting in the Christian only sections meets the requirements (with that I guess you mean according to your dictionary definition).

If you are not using the same dictionary as me, you know, like Websters, that would explain why you have no idea what words mean.

There is no good that can reflect on you, when you use the line "Your dictionary" as I use standard ones. (Have linked them twice in this post)

Point: there are people who meet this dictionary definition who are not allowed to post in the Christian only sections.
Point: this forum uses a different, narrower defintion than your dictionary.

POINT: people use different definitions of terms.

No, they set additional requirements to post in their private area for people who meet the basic requirements.

If you made an Atheist site and required everyone that was to post in the "Atheist Only" section believe in Evolution, that would not redefine what Atheist means, now would it?

God Bless

 

[Freodin]

Issues of Doctrine and Adherence have nothing to do with a definition, as the "Christians" being discussed need to meet the basic definition of what is a Christan, to be considered a Christian at all.

The problem is, that Atheist tend to try and be liquid about the very basic, primal, foundation definition of what exactly (at minimal) an Atheist is.

Like I said, is it dishonest to try and play games with what Atheist means.

This is the Definition.

It is what I, you, anyone, should mean, when they use this term.

If you want to add on more strict requirements for yourself (or forum you might make), like "Strong Atheist" or follow some moral code like Social Darwinism, that is fine.

But you do not to get to play with the definition of the word. Is you say I am an Atheist, this is what EVERYONE should think when they hear that term.

Playing with it, at that level, indeed means you are being dishonest.

So let´s see....

I am an atheist. I state "I don´t believe in God, yours or anyones."

So what does the definition say?
"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."
That´s what I said, isn´t it? I proclaimed my disbelief in the existence of the supreme being called "God". I could have used "deities" instead... the meaning would be the same.

What about agnostics. The quote I gave as reference regarding my position on agnosticism says:

...agnosticism is about a lack of knowledge in divine beings...

The definition from "your" website - meaning, the website that you quoted as your souce: "An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God..." A narrower definition, but close and not contradicting.

These are the definitions I use, have always used in this thread and in all other threads where I commented on that question, and that I have never denied using.

So what are other definitions that we find posted here?
For example the one posted by Jacks:

Atheist = I know god doesn't exist.

Atheists know that God doesn´t exist? Where does dictionary.com mention that?

Or the one that made me start that thread.

[Atheists]must profess virtual omniscience in all areas to be certain that God does not exist.

Atheists must be certain that God does not exist in order to be called Atheists, else they would be Agnostics?
Hm, I deny the existence of God. That is what dictionary.com says Atheists do. I doubt the possibility of knowledge, positive or negative, about God. This is what dictionary.com says Agnostics do. I do both without having to decide for one or the other, and I still stay within the given definitions.

So I´d say it isn´t me who uses the "wrong" or "liquid" or "dishonest" definitions. It is Christians making statements about my position.

And I don´t call them dishonest or assert that they are playing games or arguing for arguings sake... I ask them why they do that. I deliberately invited Jig, who made the post quoted in the OP to this thread... and I must say that I am quite disappointed with his "explanation".

So here I am, following your script... and still I get accused of "playing games" and "being dishonest". Can you for once get rid of your preconceived ideas about Atheists and just talk with me?

Like Loaded Questions?

One can assume, after eight years, you know when your question looks like horse pucky, and when they look legit.

Loaded question?
I asked why Christians - add the relativating "some" if you like - change the definition - and I have just shown that they do.

There are also people who can't use a dictionary and, Yes it is Apples to Oranges.

If you are not using the same dictionary as me, you know, like Websters, that would explain why you have no idea what words mean.

As I have shown above, it is not me who uses different definitions.

There is no good that can reflect on you, when you use the line "Your dictionary" as I use standard ones. (Have linked them twice in this post)

Oh my! Different connotations. "Your" as in "your post - that post you made." "Your dictionary - the dictionary you linked to".

As for the "standard ones"... even those can differ. For example the Oxford Dictionary I personally use has only "a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods" as definition, without the need or mention of denial, as does Merriam-Webster: "one who believes that there is no deity ".

No, they set additional requirements to post in their private area for people who meet the basic requirements.

If you made an Atheist site and required everyone that was to post in the "Atheist Only" section believe in Evolution, that would not redefine what Atheist means, now would it?

God Bless

I see that the forum policy on that point seems to have changed, now considering the "unorthodox" Christians as Christians for posting requirements. That wasn´t always the case. Sorry that I am not up to date on a point that doesn´t touch me.

 

[jacks]

Some of the confusion may stem from the (disputed) distinctions between knowing vs believing.

Could we say:

Knowing are things that we can support with less reliance on subjective impressions. Research, measurable outcomes and more "objective" measurements.

Believing is often things about which we have no empirical evidence, nor do we feel that we require any. We believe what we believe.

In this case would you say an atheist only believes what he can know? Or at least leans that way?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

An atheist could be said to believe based more on knowing than feeling in terms of their atheism. Any extraneous beliefs to one's atheism vary by person.

The distinction seems to be also between knowing and feeling. Both a theist and atheist could agree we know that the earth is not flat nor is it the center of the universe, but there are disagreements still on the age of the universe, even though it would appear we have pretty conclusive evidence on the relative age of the universe.

But we contrast with what we believe, particularly how we approach the universe and our discovering meaning within it in one way or another

 

[seashale76]

I think they're actually attempting to give atheists more credit than is their due, frankly. Agnosticism- saying that one simply doesn't know- is a more honest position to hold.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I think they're actually attempting to give atheists more credit than is their due, frankly. Agnosticism- saying that one simply doesn't know- is a more honest position to hold.

But one can argue that agnosticism can apply to both theism and atheism in the sense of epistemology. There are therefore agnostic atheists and agnostic theists, if you will.
How many theists would genuinely claim they know God exists in any explicit gnostic sense? They would have to admit their belief is through faith by virtue of God's grace, as opposed to genuinely knowing things as we commonly knowthem.

 

[Key]

So let´s see....

So what does the definition say?
"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."
That´s what I said, isn´t it? I proclaimed my disbelief in the existence of the supreme being called "God". I could have used "deities" instead... the meaning would be the same.

To believe something, means: "to hold it as true". (likewise, to Disbelieve something means "to hold it as false")

So "An Atheist holds as true that there are no gods"

Now, while I suppose you could split hairs about the subtle difference between "Knowing" and "Believing", in how one is based on empirical and the other emotional, and I believe that all decisions of this liking are stances of faith, we may have more in common then we first thought then.

yet I always find people that want to disagree with me on that, claiming they know they are right. Hummmmm

Funny... ironic...

God Bless

 

[EvanWilliams]

There is some disagreement in the atheist community regarding what exactly the term "atheist" entails, mainly because we are not a group united by any one common set of beliefs, but rather the absence of a belief in a god. This means that what we do believe may vary wildly from one atheist to the next.

Personally, many atheists would peg me as an agnostic, but I still identify myself as an atheist. This is because I think there are two sides to the question of God's existence:

1. Objective reality

I do not believe one way or another that God exists; my judgement is suspended on that issue until I have more reason to believe one way or another that he/she/it does or does not exist. However, since I do not have a positive belief in a god or gods, this technically makes me an atheist. So, in my view of things, all agnostics are also atheists, just a different kind of atheist than what they believe "atheism" to entail, if that makes sense.

2. What I believe I can say I "know" about objective reality

I also believe that it is impossible to know one way or another whether or not a god exists, save for divine revelation or a manifestation of said god; many believers will agree with me on this, as this is where the concept of faith plays such an important role in religion. This is the "agnostic" side of the argument.

So, in essence, there are really two types of atheists as far as knowledge is concerned: gnostic and agnostic. I am the latter. A gnostic atheist believes with certainty that God does not exist, a position I find untenable and arrogant. However, you can be agnostic and an atheist at the same time. The two terms address different sides of the issue. Many who identify themselves as agnostic choose that moniker because it shirks the negative connotations of the word "atheist", or do not realize that in the dictionary sense, they are really atheists.


EDIT: Having read the thread a bit more thoroughly, I'll also throw in my two cents regarding the question of whether atheism is or is not a belief.

I will agree with the general Christian sentiment here that to say with certainty that God does not exist is in fact stating a belief. If you echo this sentiment, your belief, of course, is that God does not exist. It's as simple as that. However, if you fall into the agnostic variety of atheism, the question becomes a little more complicated. Personally, I admit full well that I do not know whether or not God exists. He might; he might not. It is unknown to me; so what can I really say that I believe? I suppose in a nutshell it would be: I believe I don't know; I believe no one else knows either; and, anyone that says they know for sure has either lost sight of what faith means, has been somehow lucky enough to experience God firsthand whereas the rest of us curiously enough have not, is deluded, or is lying.

 

[Paine]

I tend to think that an analogy for Christians to understand how and what an Atheist believes or does not believe is this: We do not believe in the Christian deity in something like the same way a Christian does not believe in the Greek pantheon. This isn't a perfect analogy-nothing ever is-because the both the New and Old Testaments can be seen as being positively emphatic on the non-existence of other gods, and atheists do not of course believe in any sort of divine revelation that would be in any position to make such a statement of definite non-existence.

Still, though, many atheists I know give no more thought to the existence or non-existence of the Biblical deity than Christians do about the non-existence of the Hindu god Ganesh. Or they would do, if they didn't live in a largely Christian culture in which the question is very difficult to avoid (not that some people don't manage it). It's only because of this cultural context that the question "Do you believe in God" is even meaningful at all; if you were to ask that question to your average Buddhist in, say, 200 B.C., it would come off as a very silly one. You'd have to do a great deal of theological exposition before you could really even ask and expect a reply.

This is, of course, really only *my* personal definition of atheism; a lack of any positive belief in any sort of deity. I noticed there was some irritation upthread at atheist's perceived collective failure to define themselves. This has always seemed to me to be the result of the insistence of some to view Atheism as a religion of its own, implying that there should exist at least a smattering of cohesion. In reality, there's exactly as much cohesion among atheists as there is among "Ganesh-deniers". Any seeming cohesion seen among infidels in the States, say, is just the natural reaction of a group of people surrounded by a pervasive belief that they all lack.

Discussions like these always seem to come back to the burden of proof. It's only because we live in a largely Christian culture that we expect anyone to justify a lack of belief in God. It would be preposterous to expect everyone to justify their lack of belief in Ganesh.