-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Question for atheists
- Thread starter jamie4418
- Start date
Actually, the two aren't mutually exclusive. Agnosticism is about knowledge, atheism is about belief.
Gnostic Atheist: One who believes he knows with certainty that there are no gods.
Agnostic Atheist: One who does not believe in gods, but who claims no special knowledge about the question, or believes it to be unknowable.
Upvote
0
Skaloop
Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
- May 10, 2006
- 16,332
- 899
- 48
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-NDP
One can be an agnostic atheist. Most are, I would suspect, because very few rule out a deity with 100% certainty. They at least allow for the slim possibility.
As a sort of example, say the issue is whether my boss was wearing a tie to work today. I haven't seen him yet today, but I would deduce that because I work in a fairly casual office, and because it is Friday, do not believe that he is wearing a tie. But I certainly admit I don't really know one way or the other; I only know that the evidence strongly suggests that he isn't wearing a tie. I lack a belief that he is wearing a tie because there's no reason to suspect that he is.
If I had already seen him today, and knew that he was not wearing a tie, then I would actively believe that he wasn't wearing a tie.
The difference is between "no reason to believe" and "reason to not believe." But it's all atheism.
Upvote
0
plindboe
Senior Member
He didn't say that "someone who believes that no gods exists can hold belief in any god". He pointed out that the term atheism means 'without belief in God/gods' and not 'with belief that no God/gods exist' as you said. The first of these describes a lack of a belief, while the other describes a belief.
Saying that atheists belief God/gods doesn't exist is like saying that mammals are cows. Sure, cows are mammals, but not all mammals are cows.
It's a pretty important distinction, that I think every atheist should keep in mind.
Peter
Upvote
0
An atheist doesn't necessarily assert that no gods exist only that they lack belief in any.
It's a subtle difference, but an important intellectually honest one.
It's a subtle difference, but an important intellectually honest one.
Upvote
0
Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are the same in the way Lamarckian and Darwnian evolution are the same. The basic idea is the same, but the specific proceses are completely different.
At its most basic, evolution simply means changes in life forms over time. There have been a number of different theories of evolution over the centuries. I've already mentioned two of them, but these days any mention of evolution without qualifiers is taken to mean Darwinian evolution, or more correctly, the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis.
Similarly, abiogenesis, at its most basic, can be taken to mean any theory about how life arises, or arose, from non-life. This includes the disproved theory of spontaneous generation, but whenever someone mentions abiogenesis without qualifiers, you can assume they are talking about the modern theory, just as using the word "evolution" sould be taken to mean Darwinian evolution.
Now, here's the real point. I say that we all accept some form of abiogenesis. Yes, even the YECs out there. If you think about it, a literal reading of Genesis would count as a theory of abiogenesis.
Upvote
0
Beastt
Legend
So you're suggesting that someone with no introduction whatsoever to religion, (assuming this were possible), and no personal idea about the possibility of the existence of god(s) would be an atheist?
If that's your point then I tend to differ. And the reason for that is all the claims I hear from Christians here who say, "I used to be an atheist", when all they really mean is that they didn't used to hold any real interest in religion one way or the other, then became interested in Christianity.
I don't see that as atheism. Unless I'm still misunderstanding you, you're claiming theism as a belief, and atheism as either a belief that god(s) don't exist or the lack of belief in gods. To me the lack of belief insinuates a lack of interest or never having been introduced to the concept. I don't think a lack of interest or ignorance of the concept qualifies one as an atheist. To be an atheist one has to be interested enough to explore the topic, and to discover, through that exploration, sufficient cause to hold the belief that no god(s) exist.
Not caring about the potential for the existence of god(s) isn't the same as atheism just like not caring about the evidence for or against evolution doesn't make one a creationist.
Theism and atheism are both beliefs. If you disagree, please explain.
If I'm still just missing your point, count this as one of my really off days.
Upvote
0
Skaloop
Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
- May 10, 2006
- 16,332
- 899
- 48
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-NDP
I guess it depends on whether one includes the reason behind the atheism. An adult like me and a newborn baby are both atheists in that they do not believe in god. I don't believe in a god because of a lack of evidence, basically. A baby does not believe in a god because of ignorance. Those certainly constitute different forms of atheism, but I'd contend that they are still atheistic.
If, as you say, lack of interest or ignorance does not qualify as atheism, how would you label a baby's theistic position? Can something be neither atheist nor theist?
Upvote
0
Beastt
Legend
Well I suppose there are those who believe in UFOs, those who don't and those who really don't care to look at the research/evidence for either side. But at some point perhaps we're getting into the very fine points of the terminology.
I would have to agree that babies aren't born with a belief in god(s). So if not atheists, I'm not sure what you'd call them. I suppose that's where we get into the classifications of weak and strong atheists and from that perspective, I'd have to count myself as wrong in my assertions. But I do see the need to clarify to those who developed an interest in religion later in life, and chose theism, that this doesn't necessarily make them an atheist anymore than someone who hasn't studied the arguments of evolution is automatically a creationist.
Perhaps after a day's work I'll be able to reflect on this and figure out if I'm way out in left field on this, playing in the middle or snoozing away to the right.
Upvote
0
AirPo
with a Touch of Grey
I've never considered that. I guess it could be argued that one who has never been exposed to theism could not be considered either.
The point is the one does not need to hold the belief there is no god in order to be atheist.
Consider the universe. I do not believe it was created by god but that does not mean I need to have some other belief about how it came to be.
Upvote
0
TheDreadedAtheist
Active Member
1) I believe that most Atheists believe in evolution, and I certainly do.
2a) The Universe cam into being via the Big Bang
2b) This is largely uncertain, I believe that when certain combinations of chemicals were present in a electrically charged location, the building blocks of life were created. My belief on this is supported by the most science. Here is the experiment that supports this-
http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/miller_urey_experiment.html
Upvote
0
plindboe
Senior Member
Indeed. The word "theist" is well-defined as "A person who believes in God/gods" while the prefix "a" is a negation, like "not" or "without". As the old saying goes "Atheism is a religion, like not collecting stamps is a hobby". Atheism is the default position, that we're all born with.
I don't see why a well-defined word should change, because of the statements of creationists. In fact all creationists used to be atheists at some point. They might not have been atheists due to rational considerations, but atheists nontheless.
Well, there are many different opinions on what the word means, but that doesn't really change what the prefix "a" stands for. In my experience it's usually creationists who consider atheism a belief system, and have to be corrected on the matter.
This is flawed logic. Not caring about evolution, one could rather be described as an aevolutionist.
Peter
Upvote
0
ENominiPatri
Regular Member
That is a deceiving statement as evolution is observed fact and therefore not something you must "believe" in. Do you believe in germ theory? See my point?
Upvote
0
plindboe
Senior Member
I don't agree. Belief is not the same as faith. A belief is the same as a conviction. This conviction could have been established without evidence, and we would refer to it as faith, or it could have been established due to proper evidence, which instead is a rational kind of belief.
Creationists have a habit of equating all kinds of beliefs, but they are wrong, as there's a sliding scale from irrational to rational beliefs, and they are not all equal. It seems that you have accepted their claims, and instead of explaining to them the difference between rational and irrational beliefs, you have stopped referring to your convictions as beliefs.
Personally I believe that the TOE and the GT are valid theories, or said in another way, I believe in them.
Peter
Upvote
0
