Are you an Agnostic, but think you are an atheist? A rebuttal to RationalResponse
Offline The definition of agnosticism by RationalResponse is a modern corruption used primarily in psychology to describe god claims as ultimately unknowable. The more accepted meaning, and the one defined originally by Thomas Huxley, is that in the absence of evidence you cannot claim to know.
To say you doubt the existence of god is a knowledge claim because you are stating your position on the spectrum between truth and false. To cast doubt is to simply place yourself closer to the false position. So the question becomes, what evidence do you have to say god does not exist?
If you lack evidence yet feel this doubt in your bones, then you are indeed an atheist. To an agnostic person, an atheist is irrational, though not to the extent as extreme theists who make extraordinary claims with no evidence.
The argument of double negation used in paragraph two is illogical because of the assumption that there are only two positions you can take; believing or not believing. So why can we not take a third position, which is “I cannot claim to know either way”. This position is perfectly rational and is simply a statement of having no evidence, or that the evidence in your judgement balances equally; in either case it means that you are a traditional agnostic.
How will you answer this question; did I (author) eat cereal today for breakfast? According to your atheist double negation argument, you can only say Yes, or I doubt it. Clearly both positions are inadequate.
Further, if you feel in your bones that you are closer to the theist position, but accept you have no evidence, then again you are agnostic. It is the admission of “no evidence” that makes you agnostic. In fact this is the very position that Huxley himself took; Discussing Christian doctrine he says “Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them”.
Furthermore, what if your belief system has nothing to do with god? A spiritualist, a mystic, a belief in the interconnectedness of the universe, Serendipity, Synchronicity. The word atheist is totally inadequate because as you rightly state the root derivation of the word theist is “God” and there is no room for those who reject this supreme entity outright. Agnosticism however is compatible because instead of using the archaic concept of God, it uses a broader terminology; “anything beyond and behind material phenomena” (OED).
By the way, I am more than happy to change my own terminology as it seems many members here have.
- Login to post comments
Jcgadfly, you're obviously choosing to be a complete moron here; I don't believe that it's not an act.
I know what I was trying to say- you don't. If I stated it in a way that *actually* confused you, well, tough- I've done what I could to clear it up.
If anybody else can understand what I've said and clarify it for jcgadfly, that would be lovely.
Mellestad, where are you? I miss your intelligence and desire to actually communicate and make pertinent points.
I'm using your bat-shit crazy logic against you.
When it gets revealed to you for what it is, don't shoot the messenger.
You know what you were trying to say - great. Feel free to try again because what you posted before was pathetic.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Hey, I'm still waiting here
Jc,
I'm not shooting the messenger, the message is yours, and it's a dishonest one.
Your insincerity has failed to make any real point. Are you attacking my response to the Original poster, to Mellestad, or to Eloise?
Why don't you just say what you mean rather than being a deceptive ass-hat?
And it comes from your work, Blake (as I have shown you). You're the one who said there could be such a thing as an atheist who worshipped pagan gods (at least as far as invoking them in rituals).
If I'm tearing you up with your words, are you SURE you want mellestad back? He's better at shredding you than I am.
If clearly explaining where your logic falls flat makes me an ass-hat - sign me the fuck up.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Yes, I want him back because he's better at discussion and understands the point of it- understanding and progress towards some kind of agreement - you merely see it as some kind of fight, and you aren't playing by any rules at all.
Mellestad at least understands my arguments and can make valid points. He has just yet to respond to my argument on the nature of confusion and the potential benefits of a more logically coherent definition. You have not once correctly paraphrased my arguments, and Mellestad has even corrected you.
Everything you say displays painful ignorance of the beliefs of others. I'm unwilling to continue trying to educate you, because you are unwilling to learn from me.
I'd be happy to hear from Luminon, as to your recent attempt at a point about exorcisms- he may be able to explain where you're making assumptions.
Luminon probably knows even more specifics about non-Christian exorcisms and force of will/power than I do.
You went to the ad homs first and I'm not playing by the rules? You called me a moron and I referred to your hypothetical atheist as a dick. Hardly an equal comparison.
This isn't a fight. I honestly see your hypothetical atheist using theistic tools or looking to experiment with them while still claiming atheism. For me, that seems as effective as calling upon the powers of God in the midst of a black mass.
As an atheist, it makes no sense to me to use the rituals of one religion I don't believe in to fight the main being of another religion I also don't believe in.
I apologize for getting off on the wrong path when arguing against your hypothetical atheist.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
That could not have been what the argument was about, because this has only come up in the last few posts.
This is, at most, a red herring. As soon as I explain why you are wrong, you'll just chose something else to complain about and ignore my explanation.
You can call him a dick or a moron, your problem was first in posing that as an argument, and second in ignoring where I said very clearly before that he did care. The only way I could make a comparable error is if I presented the suggestion that he was a 'nice guy' in the context of evidence that he must be an atheist.
It's a non-argument, yet you presented it as one.
Like I said, you have pretty well demonstrated that all you're going to do is ignore my arguments and change the subject to something else and pretend that's what the argument is about every time I demolish your stance.
I can explain clearly where you are wrong, but nobody else is likely reading this or cares (anybody who might, unlikely, be reading this- correct me if I'm wrong), and it won't do you any good since you won't likely be willing to consider my explanation.
Unless somebody else replies that he or she is actually interested in my answer, I don't see a point in answering every one of your invalid arguments- you could keep at that forever.
And your definition of "invalid" is what? "I don't like them"?
I asked questions and presented my disagreements. Sorry if that pissed you off.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
You two can handle yourselves, but it would be nice if you treated each other with more respect. I do "favor" a side here, but I'd rather not state it... I'd just like to see more respect if possible. The atheists who have participate in this thread are wise people, more respect and humility can't hurt anyone.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
no problem - apologies for getting heated
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I'm not sure what you mean by "favor" a side... do you mean on the "bickering", or on the actual topic at hand?
With regards to the bickering, I see it only as an unwelcome distraction from actual conversation- I'd like it to stop as much as anybody, but I don't think JC is willing. That's why I have said I'm unwilling to continue to address his straw men.
I just want to have a coherent and fruitful discussion.
I am curious as to your thought on the topic, however.
In your opinion, can an atheist believe in ghosts or "luck"? Or must an atheist lack belief in anything supernatural?
Since Luminon is labeled Theist (I may be wrong here, but he doesn't seem to believe in any 'god', much less worship anything), would I be wrong in assuming that you hold that atheists can not believe in anything supernatural?
It sounds something like Paisley's "lurking god-belief" accusation to me... to show that atheists are some how double-minded frauds. He constantly referenced atheist author Sam Harris as an example ...
Thanks for the comment ProzacDeathWish.
Sorry, though, I'm not sure I follow.
Do you mean calling an atheist a theist because there may be a minor gap or inconsistency somewhere in the world view that could allow for something supernatural?
I do believe that the accusation:
...is a potentially faulty one.
Just because some (most, even) atheists may believe something supernatural/impossible, doesn't make them theists, in my opinion.
My reference to the panentheistic RRS member named Paisley was just something that popped into my head, but I do seem to recall his assertion - usually the lurking god-belief - to exist among self-avowed atheists who would normally reject any such claims. I think he did it ( partially ) simply to gall us or perhaps as an expression of contempt, who knows ?
As far as the differing views as to what the term atheism can actually encompass yet still be in contrast to theism I will leave to you and your fellow RRS members to establish. I find it interesting but not a matter of personal importance. I simply present myself as what is commonly defined as an agnostic-atheist. At present I reject the existence of non-corporeal, sentient beings of any order of magnitude. Not because I find the concept to be unappealing ( I was a Christian for over 25 years of my life ) I simply find no compelling evidence to accept the existence of such supernatural manifestations.
Yet I claim no absolute certainty. In order to completely test the concept I have to die first and obviously at this moment I haven't achieved that necessary condition
. In the mean time, if anyone wishes to present their arguments as to the existence of this mystical, supernatural realm they will have to do better than anything I have encountered so far. But hey, my door is always open, so to speak.
Regarding atheism, I will leave the finer distinctions in the hands of the more capable members here who wish to examine it. Always interesting.
I meant that one person seemed to be pushing the limits of the antagonism rule of this site more than the other. Like I said though, I'm looking the other way.
The only thing I hold that one atheist MUST have in common with all others is that they are without a belief in any gods. I've never quantified it as believing that this god was worthy of worship. I believe all atheists are without a positive belief in any gods. Luck is typically defined as "good fortune" and if that's true then luck certainly exists. I've heard of an atheist who believed in ghosts, I've also heard of atheists who don't believe in evolution.
I don't know his views well enough. Luminon has a theist badge because other mods imposed it.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
There is an extremely powerful political lobby who represents a significant portion of the population who are voting for candidates who would legislate against our rights, and stifle those who do not aceed to their astigmatic socio/political/religious agenda...
....and here we are, bickering over things that could (and should) be reasonable discussed.... This is a smarter than average messageboard, and many of us are offended way to easy when people disagree with our assertions... moreover... too often in our attempts to "One Up" someone, hence establishing our place at the top of the food chain in this community.... We respond to the initial assertions with undo beligerance.... We too often show one another much less respect because the annonimity and safety of communicating on a messageboard accords a bravado that we'd never employ should we be sitting next to one another......
I am as guilty as anyone... I have also bickered needlessly when I reacted like a child to someone who posted something I percieved as an atack on me personally... Had I tempered my response with more lucid verbiage rather than doing my part to allow a diference of opinion to degenerate into argument, maybe things would have turned out differently... I recall my argument with Beyond Saving... who is a smarter dude than me... and who brings a lot to this community... and because our passions for the topic we were discussing were so vibrant...we weren't able to disagree civilly... For my part... I will acknowledge my contribution to the Douchebaggery....
Perhaps I'm being idealistic, but I believe that fundamentally, what sepparates "us"....from "Theists"... is our collective ability to employ rational perspectives... except, it seems, when we interact with each other...
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
^
What is the difference between a god and a ghost?
If I assert that ghosts are kinds of weak gods, doesn't that make all of those people theists? Then the distinction between atheist and theist is rather arbitrary- as weak and indefinite as the definition of a god itself; as changeable as a mere assertion.
As to "Luck"
I'm talking about the emphasized definition. Some people consider luck as a substance or force that you can have or not- that will influence you negatively or positively.
This is inherently a sentient, intelligent, supernatural force.
That's what "believing in luck" means. It doesn't mean believing in statistical chance (whether truly random or derived from chaos)- that's evident. If you "believe in luck", you believe in the intelligent supernatural force or substance.
There are some usages which only passively reference this as a figure of speech, merely meaning chance that happened to resolve favorably (not one that intended to so resolve)- that's not in the context of belief in luck, though, which is that context I expressed above.
Like my question on ghosts:
In the context of "Luck" as a supernatural force that brings good or bad fortunes to people deliberately and intelligently- what is the difference between this sentient and intelligent supernatural force/entity and a god?
In your opinion, is it only the word "god" that is the offender?
If some Joe says he believes in and regularly prays to YHWH, but that YHWH is actually just a really, really, powerful ghost, and not a god- then is Joe an atheist?
Joe doesn't believe in any "gods" at all... so, by the definition you gave, he must be an atheist if he insists that YHWH is really a super-ghost, rather than a god, right?
We could go about telling Joe: No Joe, you're wrong- what you are describing is a god. But at the same time, we could go around telling anybody who believed in Luck, or ghosts, the same thing.
That is, unless you're willing to explain the difference between a ghost, or any other supernatural being, and a god?
You may have a very eloquent distinction I've never heard before.
I have found a fairly clear distinction, and that's what I base use of the words on- worship.
I have yet to see any other clear distinction.
I see, maybe he asked for one.
I don't want to start a needless war again but I fear this question might.
Blake, how do you differentiate between praying to a being and worship?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
As long as you aren't *trying* to start a fight, it's unlikely that you will.
If that's an earnest question, I'm glad to answer it.
Note my emphasis- addressing the predominantly Christian use.
Largely, praying is asking for something- in a humble way, or in a matter of plea- when Christians do it, they're asking for forgiveness, strength, advice, for their god to send the heathens to hell, or for a new car... or something of that matter. That they gush with adoration while they do it, well, is usually secondary. The gushing adoration to the greatness of their god in respect to their lowliness is worship- and in so far as this is part of prayer for some people, those prayers must be some form of worship.
A prayer doesn't have to be worship, but it usually is- perhaps particularly because gushing with adoration and submissiveness is seen to be a better way to get what you want. That is, when one prays for something from another, there's usually a little groveling involved- that doesn't necessarily mean there always is. It might also even be insincere- but that brings up an entirely different topic.
If you ask the distinction between praying and requesting... well, that I can't give you; there isn't much of one as far as I know. Just degree of need, I suppose, or context.
I'd imagine people usually pray to powerful supernatural beings (or emperors, kings, lords, etc.) rather than submitting a more casual request because of the perceived power difference; so prayer would much more often occur in the context of a worshiping relationship (or might even qualify worship) than a request. It's not really relevant to the point, though.
If you're trying to refer to this:
1. It would be nice if you just say what you mean more directly, as it avoids confusion. It's still not clear *why* you are asking.
2. Yes, in order to make my point more clear, I should have said "worships" instead of "prays to" because prayer is only probably worship in that context, and might not be. Kind of like saying somebody goes fishing does not mean that person eats fish- they probably do, but might not. If that's what you're getting at there, then you're right.
3. There's really no need to correct it or worry about it now, since it's still a valid question as to Sapient's definition; it just isn't as clear cut as to mine as I wanted to make it (meaning I will perhaps need to clarify later).
Why I asked is because in my churchgoing days prayer and worship were inextricably linked. You didn't do supplication without thanksgiving and adoration. It seems as though you are reducing prayer to just asking for stuff (without believing in the ability being you're asking or believing in its ability but just not calling it a god).
Of course, my grief with prayer in general is that people ask for stuff, go out and get what they asked for and chalk it up to God.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Yes, that one is absurd: "I asked god for it, and then I worked hard and bought it- see, it was all from god. Atheists can't do that..."
The ones that bother me most, though, are the ones who pray to get better, go to a doctor, and then thank their god after the doctor saves their lives.
I mean, if the Christian wants to do hard work, and then ignore that work and give the credit to his or her god- fine. But giving the credit due to a doctor to this god without consent is pretty low...
They'll almost always give their gods the credit if they end up, however it happened, with something that was asked for, and conveniently forget about the things that didn't happen for them... "Meant to be".
Blake, I like you! Really!
I see you've finally found two sentences in which to explain what I had previously thought was a particularly strange semantic quibble. Now, I know you're just a nit pick.
I don't think you're questioning the commonly (and appropriately, I'm sure) held notion of an atheist as someone who doesn't believe in what people call gods. So, I wonder why this is an issue for you at all? I mean, I wonder if you don't have a super-secret, rigorous and definite definition of atheist that you're just not sharing ...for fun? Feel free to share if it's not actually super-secret.
Or, does it really matter?
I'm guessing not. Not if we're going to nit pick apart every definition because it's got holes in it.
I'm a person who doesn't believe in anything supernatural. Gods are supernatural. (That's not a problematic statement, is it? Well, not counting the obvious problem with the term supernatural not actually having a definite referent.) I can call myself atheist and not be inconsistent, even given your point about the weak and indefinite nature of the definition.
Other people, based on the common understanding of atheist, can also call themselves atheists comfortably. They may even do so despite your objection by stating that your little example of the person proclaiming not to believe in god(s), but rather in a super ghost is just being dishonest and playing word games. That person probably is playing words games and their super ghost probably fits in with the common definition of a god.
Which leads me back to wondering if you have a really good™ definition for atheist because otherwise your objection can only be noted, but passed over for being, well, for being largely irrelevant to the way in which people intend to be understood when they use terms. I can't see the point in the sort of nit picking you engage in with the term atheist when it has no practical application to the reality of the subject as it's being discussed.
Perhaps there actually is some merit to your contention (maybe I should call it a contention and not a nit pick ...sounds nicer, yeah?)? Well, can you expound on what merit there is? And if you do have a super-secret, really good™ definition for atheist, please share it? Umm ...wink!
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Hi Thomathy, thanks for the reply.
Actually, I do have a more rigorous definition, and that's why I'm showing the weakness in that one. I discussed it at some length on the second page in an argument with mellestad. If you page back, you can start reading at his first post; my definition is clarified and argued for (and against) in that discussion.
My definition lacks such holes, is inclusive of yours, and is more historically accurate as well.
Yes, gods are supernatural- by definition. Or natural humans of celebrity like Elvis- but that's obviously not what we're talking about in the context of belief.
Yes! You can so call yourself atheist under any definition- so it's probably not a big concern for you. Anybody who doesn't believe in anything supernatural must be an atheist- one can't legitimately worship something one doesn't believe exists.
However, that leads to an interesting question:
What if somebody believe in something that is in fact supernatural, but that said person believes is natural? That's somebody who *thinks* he or she doesn't believe in something supernatural, but in fact does.
My example to this point was oriented around certain superstitions like "luck"- but it also applies to people who, for example, subscribe unwittingly to the Copenhagen interpretation (of quantum physics).
Muddy ground again- I'd be happy to tread there, but it's not really the most important point in this.
I think perhaps you misunderstand me. I do consider those ghost believers to be atheists.
It wouldn't, but fortunately I do have a good™ definition! My contention in itself is merely my argument against the bad™ definition in favor of mine.
It is expounded at length on page two, and please do pop over there to read my conversation with mellestad- but I can summarize here briefly (and very crudely) for you:
Definition of a god: Supernatural + worshiped.
Ghost + worship = god (There is no other consistent distinction)
An atheist is somebody who is not a theist. A theist is somebody who worships a god or gods (and probably has to believe in said god or gods too, in order to do so in earnest)
An atheist is godless- meaning he or she has no god. Doesn't mean that he or she has to deny that other people have gods, or have any particular opinion or lack thereof on the reality of those gods- the atheist merely cannot be a subject of those gods- can not have one. Much in the way a bachelor is without a wife- but may or may not believe women exist
(Of course women aren't impossible where gods are, but that's aside from the analogy)
See Epicureans- classic Greek atheists who believed the gods existed (as nearly every classical atheist did), but taught that the gods were made of atoms like everything else, and weren't particularly special in any way, and didn't need, want, deserve, or care about worship. That is, they didn't see the gods as inherently above themselves in make, and did not worship them.
Also see the teachings of Buddha, which were similar (the gods being stuck in the same cycle of ignorant reincarnation, and it being not only unnecessary, but also foolish, to worship them).
I go into all of this in some detail on page two; I'm happy to answer to anything I missed there.
Blake, I actually have no problem with your definition. I mean, I don't find it problematic in and of itself. I don't find it particularly helpful, however, and wouldn't use it myself in common parlance. I also don't think it needs to replace the current use of the term. It won't, of course, but that's aside form the point. I'm unsure if you do think it should replace the current use, but it seems likely that you do given what you've written.
I think you're being rather ahistorical in your application of the English term atheist to ancient Greeks, godless people and people who believe in gods, but don't worship them. You're committing a rather grievous mistake. Historical definitions and uses do not take precedent over, nor are they more correct than, current usage. These people are better termed, in Modern English, apostates, I think, sans the pejorative connotations. These people still believed in gods, just didn't worship them and I think it's unimportant if they divested them of their specialness (in the case of some of those Greeks).
Further, atheist is a term that was not created from the joining of a+theist. The term emerged whole into the English language before the term theism. There is literally no historical use of atheist in English before that. It was taken as an insult and not used to personally describe disbelief in a god (which, of course, precludes worship) until the 18th century. Notice that it never meant godless in English, as the term atheos, did in Greek. It's important to note that the word did not come into English from the Greek as a borrowed term. Atheist was brought into English with a very specific meaning, from French, after a very long transition into that language. That's the history of the word in English. I actually wrote about the etymology of the words atheism and atheist some two years ago. I always did mean to update that article. Anyhow, the link is here.
So, I have to disagree with you very strongly regarding your statement, 'By historical usage, and the most simple definition of atheism "godless", these people are certainly included.'
They aren't. That's not the definition of atheism in English and it makes more sense to refer to those people using the particular context and meaning of atheist from the Greek, not redefining the English term in terms of the Greek to make it jive with ancient Greek usage.
That said, I really don't have a problem with your definition because it is more rigorous, but only in an academic sense. Atheist as it's used works. I don't think you'll deny that. And if you do, well, you'll obviously see that that will make further conversation problematic. I think that you and I can agree that your definition is more rigorous, but we're going to have to live with disagreement over the term's use; I don't think it's useful in common parlance.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Wow! Blake, you are still finding some flock who reads the creations of your mind that would be honored if it sees a better fulcrum.
BTW, FYI, in Russian, there are two similar words: atheist and godless. Curiously, by some, godless used to apply to those who may be a believer, but does not respect church.
... what am I about ... ah... fcuking magnets, how do they work?
have a good night...
Largely, I'm referring to people who actually, currently, self-identify as "atheist" and hold such beliefs.
Really, my expression of that definition is for purposes of demonstration of the wide range of what atheists are and what atheism means.
If we go by regionally common definition, in the Bible belt atheist means:
"somebody who actually believes in 'God' but hates god because he or she loves his or herself too much and can't stand being under any authority due to pride, and as such pretends not to believe in 'God' as an excuse to engage in selfish and amoral activity"
I don't imagine very many of those actually exist, but ask the average Southern Baptist in the Southwest of the U.S., and that's what you'll get.
'Common' meaning ranges from "Devil worshiper" to "Devout belief that god is impossible" to any number of strange misunderstandings. Because atheists are such an unpopular minority, the definition is really quite in flux.
I think it is for us to advance a meaning to explain the bounds of our inclusion, and one that is more logically coherent (and more inclusive of many people who define themselves as atheists but whom many here would like to exclude) is ultimately going to serve to be less confusing and divisive.
I don't agree that these are not the same word- yes, the word chained through French as an insult which had little to do with the modern meaning (and included application to many people I think we would all agree are theists). I don't think that's really very relevant.
*Many* words have taken similar paths; I'm not just talking about the English history, but the history in the context of the general body of Western thought and philosophy-- and Greek is where the word originated.
I consider atheos to be the same word in an older language. You seem to believe that atheos is better translated to apostate and that atheist is a word expressing a completely new concept (in the past few hundred years). I do not agree that the concept is that young.
Looking only at the English context- which has been fabulously inconsistent- really doesn't tell us much. It *has* meant, and does have a meaning of godless (which can be found in many dictionaries)- that's not to the point, though.
Can only English speakers be atheists? Even in the context of "doesn't believe in a god or gods", translating the various spiritual beings in different world beliefs and determining if they qualify as gods is a mess in itself.
In Chinese, it translates to "Not monotheist" or "Not monotheism person" because the typical western notion of "GOD" is what is considered.
The definition, across languages and cultures, is a huge mess; and it's almost always more inclusive than people think it is today.
This is kind of an academic sense
I don't expect common people to ever have any idea what they're talking about or to use internally consistent definitions. I think we should be advancing something more consistent and rigorous in the contexts of such discussions, though, and in consideration for the bounds of our group rather than excluding people who consider themselves atheists because they happen to believe in some supernatural beings that we may or may not arbitrarily consider to be gods.
The latter, in my opinion, is the most important context in which to use it- more objective inclusiveness, rather than ruling people theists and unwelcome to use the term because we consider what they believe to exist to be a god. The context of worship just seems much more important to action and to removing that ambiguity.
Does it work, though? Nobody knows what it means- and the edge cases where people disagree on who is or isn't an atheist (including the people trying to apply the term to themselves) are a perfect example of it not working.
What do you mean by, "Atheist as it's used works"? How is that working?
For people to whom the distinction and edge cases are not important- sure, it can work- in these contexts though, it's all about the ambiguity and edge cases. The average Christians will never need to use this definition, because they don't really understand anything we believe in or don't believe in anyway- they'll always have things a bit backwards.
We, on the other hand, should be pursuing something more rigorous to come to agreement on who is and isn't when we go about excluding people because of it.
Blake,
What is interesting about your posts, it is that they prove the existence of transcendental powers!!!
100%
100precent seems only to be trying to goad and start a fight- to what ends I don't know. His posts don't seem to have any other purpose, and he promptly replies whenever I respond to argument, doing so with only these apparently insulting but not so clever quips. Further, any attempt at fruitful discussion seems to inevitably result in a "too long, didn't read" sentiment from him. This seems to be what is known as trolling.
Fine. So what?
No, I just thought we agreed that your terminology is so wishy-washy that when you follow it you can call anyone you want to an atheist. I agreed that if one follows your basic, pointlessly non-standard/non-common use definitions then your usage works. I think we already have descriptive words and phrases that solve the problems you bring up over the common usage of atheist, and I don't think your usage brings any additional clarity to the table, quite the opposite.
----------
Seriously though, was there some particular thing I had not answered yet? I thought we were done with this? I think your usage is pointless and confusing but it is internally consistent and I understand it, so I'm not sure what else there is to discuss. As I said above, my 'official' position is that the downsides of your usage outweigh any benefit, and we already have pre-existing terms to cover any strange belief systems without throwing the baby out with the bathwater like you do when using atheist in a way that will confuse 95%+ of listeners. If you want to encapsulate your idea you'd be better off making a brand new word without the baggage.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
No... that's not even remotely the case. It's your definition that has no basis and allows us to call anybody a theist or atheist, depending on whether we arbitrarily call what they believe in gods or not.
My definition is substantially more objective, and does not allow such wiggle room. I'm not sure what you're missing there.
Yes, that 'particular thing' being the point of my definition, which you seem not to understand -- or which you seem to have precisely backwards.
You may also be one of the ones arguing that we all use non-theist inclusively instead of atheist because some people think atheist means somebody who believes that gods certainly do not exist. I not entirely convinced that your opinion is well represented in the general spirit of these forums; that is, I'm not sure what kind of mindset I'm arguing against here- that is an important point of understanding.
I'm not starting this discussion again from square one Blake, we both have better things to do. What I said above is what I've been saying the whole time, and your response is the same as well. Unless you have some new insights I'm not going to waste more of our time rehashing the stuff we went over three weeks ago word for word.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
So, you mean to say that you are disagreeing with my point by ignoring it and pretending that I never explained it?
You have not made a counter argument, you have only built a straw man, which I just addressed- I can only assume that you don't have a counter argument- if you don't have one, that's fine, but please don't insult me by pretending I didn't make an argument and instead re-inventing what I said to be something very different from what was actually said.
If you're not trying to throw of the conversation by deliberately misrepresenting me (which seems to be the case), then you don't understand my argument as well as you think you do.
I see three plausible choices here.
1) Everyone in this thread is unable to keep up with you intellectually, and we just cannot understand your reasoning through no fault of your own. That is a possibility.
2) You have some sort of point, but your communication skills have failed to translate that into a message anyone else can understand. Also a possibility.
3) Some of us *do* understand your point, and still don't agree, and you can't accept that for some reason. Perhaps 1 or 2 apply in reverse. Another possibility.
Obviously I lean towards 3 but I'm wrong all the time so who knows? What I do know is from my standpoint we're both saying the same thing over and over again and you still don't think I get it. Maybe I don't, but I'm not excited about spending another couple of hours going back and forth reading and writing the same things I read about and wrote about the last time.
So again, unless you have some brand new method of communicating your idea I'd rather step away from the debate and save myself the aggravation. On the other hand, I'm an idiot and I can never let anything drop...so if you keep pounding away I'll probably keep responding.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Blake, if I've re-read your definitions correctly (though I think I got them correct the first time around when you started accusing me of picking a fight), you can:
acknowledge a deity exists
believe in said deity
talk to said deity
claim said deity talks to you
but unless you worship said deity (preferably in a structure devoted to said deity) you can still claim to be an atheist?
Or am I misrepresenting you by using your claim that worship is the main criterion?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
You're replying, but I don't think you're responding- that's the issue.
you said:
And I actually replied:
I don't like that you're putting words in my mouth- saying that I agreed that my definition is wishy-washy? That's the whole bloody reason I don't like your definition. My definition is not wishy-washy at all- it is very clear.
Your definition allows me to do this:
I hereby declare that the concept that we can't be absolutely certain if a god exist or not- the concept- is a kind of deity. Therefore, insofar as you are agnostic towards any deity, you believe in a god (the validity of this concept I have mentioned, being a god)- thus you are a theist.
I'm not agnostic, so I don't believe this concept is valid- so I'm still an atheist.
But all agnostics are actually theist now.
Explain to me how my definition is wishy-washy. Explain to me how your definition is more clear.
If you think I believe my definition is more wishy-washy than yours, you got my argument precisely backwards- that was my argument against your definition. Maybe you thought my arguments against your definition were me arguing against my usage? I don't know, but it seems pretty clear that you missed something.
So because one doesn't know whether a particular god concept exists, one believes in said concept as a god?
My view is that because it is impossible to be a gnostic atheist or gnostic theist (that lack of evidence thing), the most one can say is:
Agnostic atheist - "since I don't know for sure that a deity exists, I can't believe in one"
Agnostic theist - "I don't know for sure that a deity exists but believing in one seems better (safer, more reasonable) than not believing."
What proof do you have that any god concept is invalid? If you truly know this, backing it up shouldn't be a problem for you.
Or do you "know" it because you believe it really, really hard?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
1) I guess next time I need more than a heart icon and a tongue wagging icon to let you know I was being sarcastic? Christ, Blake, I thought it was obvious I was being a smart-ass by saying we'd agreed your terms were wishy washy. "
you Blake 
" Then a separation line "-------" and then my serious statement below that...the serious statement that said your terms were "internally consistent" which is the opposite of "wishy-washy".
2) I fully agreed, multiple times, that the definition of deity is not totally clear. However, if anyone tried to butcher it as badly as your example they would be called idiots, that example is just hyperbole. No reasonable person would use the word in that way.
3) If someone can abuse "deity" they can abuse "worship" just as easily.
4) Your usage has the added problem of confusing every single person that hears you use it (At least everyone in the modern world), including everyone in this thread. I honestly don't care if it is more internally consistent than my usage: My usage is not confusing to the average theist or atheist. If I ran into a person who's belief is not easily explained under my terms I would elaborate with additional words, rather than try and expand my term to include beliefs not commonly associated with the word atheist and confuse everyone. You are the only person I've heard in my life who would describe your primary example as an atheist. To me, language is about clearly communicating ideas, not about navel gazing and pedantry to reach some theoretical ideal at the cost of explaining what the heck you mean to other people every time you use a word.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
You can acknowledge that something supernatural exists. Whether that thing is called a deity, a ghost, luck, or the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, is trivial. All of these concepts have overlap, and share one thing in common without any other distinguishing features with the exception that a deity is qualified by.... worship.
In so far as calling a thing one's deity is implicitly worshiping it, one can not (and be an atheist).
In so far as calling a thing somebody else's deity is not worshiping it, that can be done.
What's the difference between believing in something and acknowledging that it exists?
Communication in itself doesn't qualify worship, so these would be permissible (pending that the deity relationship is clear). Like I said, whether it is a 'deity', a ghost, or the Easter bunny, it doesn't really matter. Schizophrenics can talk to things that aren't there without being theists.
It doesn't need to be in such a structure- but worship is needed, otherwise there's no logical means of distinguishing between a relationship with a deity and a ghost.
Worship isn't just a particular action, but can be expressed by belief or attitude- a sentiment of difference in worth can be enough. For example, anybody who acknowledges a deity as omnibenevolent is inherently worshiping that being in that acknowledgment in so far as they consider benevolence to be a good thing (if the person was decidedly and willingly 'evil', then that would be a bizarre exception).
Worshiping something supernatural would be summarizing it aptly.
Worshiping a natural thing wouldn't qualify- that's just a teenybopper or obsessed fan. I don't really understand why anybody would do this...
Pretty much everything else ranges from ancestor worship and forms of worship based animism to the standard monotheistic traditions.
The only questionable area is where not enough information about what the person is worshiping is available to determine if it is supernatural or natural. That comes up in any situation with insufficient information to categorize.
If there's no worshiping going on, though, or if the subject of worship is definitely natural, it's pretty straight forward that the person is atheistic.
Not sure I agree - If one is treating a natural or man-made object as he would treat a supernatural entity, He has created a god as surely as the writers of the Bible did.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Well, plus how do you categorize things like Scientology? Pantheism? You still have to make somewhat arbitrary decisions about where you put belief systems. I think trying to get a perfect, unified terminology isn't very important. It seems like a solution in search of a problem.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Pantheism? Everything = God. polytheist.
Scientology? Deifying Hubbard. They made their God. Theist.
Thought this was going to be hard.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Is pantheism a supernatural idea though? How? Would all pantheist agree? Do pantheists worship? You could argue that just believing in certain concepts equals worship, but that is not commonly understood.
What about Scientology? Do they claim anything supernatural? Unrealistic and stupid and based on bad science maybe, but supernatural? Would they consider it to be supernatural?
What about Luminon? I'm not sure how Blake would categorize him...using the idea of worshiping the supernatural as a criteria though, Luminon would probably consider himself an atheist. I think I would categorize him as an atheist under Blake's terms...he believes in beings of a higher plane, but does not worship them in any conventional way (as far as I know anyway). I think either way you can't just say, "Luminon is a theist/atheist"...it just isn't descriptive enough. I think it is more appropriate to call him a theist who is an occultist/spiritualist/whateverist than an atheist occultist/spiritualist/whateverist because it does not confuse the issue as much with most readers.
*Edit* Essentially, I would be getting creative with the definition of 'deity' and Blake would be getting creative with the definition of 'worship'.
Under my terminology all three of those examples are theists. Under Blake's they are all arguably atheists (arguably, because I don't want to put words into his mouth and because he says I don't understand his usage, and I still might not). Blake can come up with scenarios where my usage is confusing as well, but I think he runs into the problem more often than I do *when discussing it with other people*, simply by virtue of using the word atheist in a way not common to most speakers.
He would probably argue that his usage is more clear in an academic sense in that he has less difficulty categorizing people for his own use, and I think he might be right...I just don't think it is worth the trouble it causes. Trouble like this entire thread.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I categorise the positions people take regarding "God" like this, and I think there is nothing faulty about it.
1. If one believes there exists, in some some extraordinary seeming form, an omni-efficacious ulitmate being, their concept of which is either:
a. consistent with
or b. based upon
the tenets of a traditional theological work.
Then they are a theist. No matter how they regard this being or any they concieve to be like it.
In history one who was accused (rightly or ludicrously) of failing any of these criteria had the charge of atheist levelled against them. For people self defining as theists, consistently enough with the above, to have historically been labelled atheists takes nothing from the definition. Being wrongly executed for murder doesn't mean we have to redefine 'murderer' to cover one's existence in the category. I see ridiculous historical accusations of non-belief in the same way. Just because some mad church Deacon in 1643 said 'whosiwhatsit is an atheist since i don't agree with him on how to worship', doesn't mean I have to pander my language to his lunacy. I can simply disagree.
2. If one fails the above criteria and holds belief, in extraordinary seeming existence, but either:
a. the person doesn't not believe in an omni-efficacious ultimate being
or b. their beliefs are not consistent with, or based upon, traditional theologies.
then that person is a supernaturalist.
Notice how a supernaturalist can be or not be a theist, so this is not a problem.
The defining characteristic of a theist is consistency with, or basis in, traditional theology and the belief that, at least one, extraordinary category of being exists in possession of some form of ultimate efficacy.
3. If one is without any conviction regarding any of the above, then I would call them simply agnostic in regard to each or either concept. I think lack of conviction is the most widely understood characteristic of agnosticism and for good reason.
4. One who has conviction regarding the concepts above and in doing so lacks belief in the extraordinary seeming entities is an atheist of some flavour. A strong conviction lacking belief in the entity of ultimate efficacy, is atheist with respect to Gods, otherwise or additionally, strong conviction lacking belief in any agency of extraordinary proportions is an atheist with regard to any such agency.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
@Eloise: Maybe that makes more sense to use 'supernaturalist' for many fringe cases, and avoid either word.
Wouldn't that make you an atheist though? Or are you able to stretch "traditional theological work" to include your 'deity' belief?
I don't think I'd be able to categorize you into your own system based on what you just wrote and what I've seen you write in general.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
When people treat a natural thing as a supernatural entity, then they are ascribing to that thing supernatural traits or powers. In essence, they aren't believing in the thing as it is, but a construction of that thing made out to be supernatural. People who worshiped emperors, for example, believed that they had certain qualities or divine natures.
So, in so far as those people come to believe that person has supernatural powers (like that psychotic Falun gong cult leader), then those people are theists because they have deified that person by ascribing supernatural powers and granting that person worship.
I would say that Scientology is a personality cult, but not a form of theism- though some Scientologists may have deified Hubbard, not all have. Might be a case by case- some of them are just delusional enough to believe his 'theories' and haven't personally revered him as anything more than some kind of 'wise man' who discovered those amazing principles of the universe.
Hubbard himself long claimed that Scientology was compatible with other religions (that is, that somebody could be a Christian and a Scientologist), so Scientology formally rejects any specific Scientology deity- people just bring their own in, or deify Hubbard outside of canon.
It's not as arbitrary as you make it out to be.
In this case, there are ambiguous groups (where people can go either way), but not ambiguous people. Whether somebody is or is not a theist depends on the specific beliefs of the person- not on the opinion of the one doing the labeling.
There's much more wiggle room with "deity" than there is with "Worship"- which is pretty clear.
This thread wasn't any trouble.
Anyway, I pretty much only argue with people academically. I don't usually talk to stupid people... not because I turn my nose up and ignore them, but because those aren't the kind of people I hang out with.
If I'm using the term at all, I'm probably having a very precise discussion.
I can't claim to know for sure whether any of them are atheists or theists, because I don't know their specific beliefs. There's substantial variation within those groups (much more so than among Muslims or Christians, for example)- I'm fairly sure I have met Scientologists who were atheists and those who were theists, and I don't know all of Luminon's practices. I would have to ask him.
I will say I agree with the use and efficacy of the word "supernaturalist".
When I don't know if a person is an atheist or a theist, that's a safe fallback if they obviously believe in the supernatural. Maybe it's a good compromise word
By her own definition, it seems she is a theist- she "believes there exists, in some some extraordinary seeming form, an omni-efficacious ulitmate being"
The latter qualifications are very trivial to satisfy (and almost impossible not to with belief in the former) given the "or"- "and" would be a bit more tricky.
By my definition, anybody who believes in such a thing as she described (which is supernatural) is inherently a theist- note "ultimate", which (if exclusive) any acknowledgment thereof is inherent recognition of difference, which is the most essential part of worship.
I will go further.
People don't have to ascribe supernatural attributes to an object to worship it. I know guys who worship their cars. They buy new toys for them every few months (offerings/sacrifices). They give them luxury wash and wax jobs (special treatment). They spend more time on them than they do with their wives.
The cars are not supernatural objects but they are receiving a form of worship.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Thank goodness, I hope we can drop the larger issue now.
As for Eloise, the:
"a. consistent with
or b. based upon
the tenets of a traditional theological work."
Seems like it would be tough to meet. Well...not tough really, but you'd have to define 'traditional theological work' in a pretty broad way. I'm interested to see her response about what falls under that term, and why.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Yeah, with you there.
[
I think I can fall into one of those two categories as I apply them, which is in a pretty broad sense, yes.
In my view the two ways to become a theist are either to encounter a certain theistic faith and then learn one's beliefs from it (reading texts, attending churches and being generally exhorted by some outside agent) OR to encounter , not in the context of a faith, some cause to concieve that an ultimate being exists and find it in parallel with the conceptions of the same in doctrine.
I fit the latter category, my notion of god is concieved independent of religious exhortation but yet I find some consistency, with various religious stories, in hindsight.
For illustration purposes, another common example of someone in the latter category would be one who claims to have felt or intuited that there was something out there, and consequently imagine that they have found it through religious faith (not me personally, but I often hear this from theists in mainstream religions).
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com