The origin of the term "atheist" is in the Greek roots "a-", meaning without, or not, and "theos", meaning god--literally "without god."  It was originally a derogatory term, as far as I know, with the implication that someone who is "without god" is immoral.  Fortunately, we know better now.

So, a "theist" is then expressing or holding a positive belief, while an "atheist"  lacks that belief.

"Agnostic" is a bit different.  It doesn't have an etymology per se, but was spontaneously coined by Thomas Huxley to denote someone who lacks knowledge, or the means to knowledge, about a particular subject.  Huxley may have invented the word based on Greek or Latin roots, but the ancients didn't use the word.

Perhaps this is slightly off topic, but I was reading in a book, called The Case Against Atheism, that argues that agnosticism is not in fact a middle ground between atheism and agnosticism, but rather a further means of classification.

The idea runs that because theism is the affirmation of 'the belief in god/gods', and atheism is the 'lack of belief in god/gods', that atheism and theism consequently cover all possible modes of belief. Either you affirm your belief in a god, or you lack belief in god.

The book further goes on to say that it is possible to be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist depending on one's specific beliefs. I think that an agnostic atheist is one for whom the existence of god is inheritably unknowable, whilst an agnostic theist is one for who god exists, but believes that the nature of god is inheritably unknowable.

Oh yes, and 'Byhamdamnit' (great name), you are correct about the gnostic thing.

Woops...I kinda screwed the title of the book up in a big way...heh.

It's called The Case for atheism

Yes...like you said the lack of belief in 'wakawikalishion' gets classified as unconscious atheism, under the definition that atheism is a lack of belief in god/gods - by the way, does RR have an official definition of atheism? Because definitions of god and the like obviously have to come from the opposer, but defining atheism seems more like the atheist's job.

As for the conscious atheism, that I have been provided with the alternative to pick god, people have a habit of coming up with the definition 'a belief in the lack of god' rather than a 'lack of belief in god'. However, I hold the latter definition to be more reasonable simply by studying the actual word. As has already been brought up, -a means without.

Again, sorry about the book title, kinda stupid mistake to make

Correct. I believe Huxley was, with tongue in cheek of course, refering to the gnostics when he coined his term, though not intending his invention as a direct etymological descendant of the greek roots. That might provide some vague connection, but it wasn't used before Huxley in any case.





Yes. I think, PP, Hamby has the right angle. I'd say there are two ways to consider agnosticism. One is mere ignorance: "I don't know." ...bland agnosticism (or "weak" agnosticism, as some would call it). Another is the "unknowable" assertion, which undermines its own basis for making the assertion in the first place. This is not to be deprecating to the term, of course; I kind of like it, and it's origin is amusing. It's just that it has some quirks, imo.

I'm still wondering about that book title though... I vaguely remember something titled "The Case for Atheism," but I wonder if you are refering to George H. Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God"?



What you are calling "unconscious atheism," I would say is atheism in its entirety.

Aha! I would highly recommend that you check it out the next time you're there, or buy it; it's really an excellent argument against theism.

That's exactly right. There can be no middle ground in binary; it's either on or it's off, leaving "agnosticism" compatible with either part of the binary.

Yes, the more common distinction is "strong" and "weak" (you'll probably see it used in the forum once or twice), but explicit/implicit, conscious/unconscious, positive/negative, or any number of other similar distinctions are used as well.

This is true; it is an important distinction to understand--i.e. the difference between 1) the meaning of "atheism" and 2) one asserting that "god does not exist." I depart from Smith and many others on the "strong/weak" classification as a viable solution though. I'll get into that later, but I still very much recommend checking out the book.

Precisely. Smith's argument goes even farther than that.

In a nutshell, Hambydammit already went there:

"I cannot ask you to believe in a wakawikalishion before first explaining to you what it is."

If we are given no explanation of what a "wakawikalishion" is, then we are no better off than if we'd never heard the word uttered, in terms of believing that it objectively exists. It would be like explaining what a "dog" objectively exists as, to someone who doesn't already know what one is, by saying "you can train them to sit on command."

Without knowing what a dog is, any talk of it is effectively meaningless; if the theist cannot provide the "what god is" part, then all talk of it is effectively meaningless.

Does Jake the dog do anything extraordinary? Like smiting people, coming back from the dead after three days, or guaranteeing you heaven?

Does Jake the dog have disciples who profess to know his will?

Do you see? The two scenarios don't intermingle very well do they?

 

BTW, stop posting in freethinking anonymous.