I'm ignorant, hence I'm an atheist!!!

[Marisa]

Presumably an experience which they attribute to God?

I suppose.

 

[1robin]

I am certainly not claiming that they have "the same meaning". My claim was merely that they overlap in meaning. The two terms, atheism and agnosticism, according to Merriam Websters still have different meanings. The overlapping, which in no way makes the either of the terms unnecessary, means that one term, agnosticism, can be included in the other term, atheism. But that doesn't mean that they have the same definition. This is the same with Deism and Theism. All Deists are Theists by definition because they hold a belief in the existence of God. I fail to see the problem, so can you illustrate what issue you see more specifically without the erroneous claim that the two terms have the same meaning?

Atheism = lack of belief in the existence of God.
Agnosticism = undecided on whether God does or doesn't exist and, sometimes, that knowledge of this kind is unattainable. (my only point is that Agnostics clearly "lack a belief in God", but the term Agnosticism still certainly does not have the same definition as Atheism; thus, I feel like your claim that one of the terms is redundant is unfounded)

Further, you put words in my mouth in that you claim that I said that Deism and Theism were interchangeable. I certainly did not suggest this. I said, like agnosticism and atheism, Deism is, by definition, a subcategory of theism. Theism, in its general form, simply means "belief in the existence of God". Deism, on the other hand, refers, as you stated, to belief in a non-personal God who does not interfere with our reality. Deists, thus, believe in the existence of God, so they can accurately be considered as a subcategory of Theism. Thus, they are not interchangeable. One term merely includes the other. I not only fail to see an issue with this, but I consider it logically necessary for general terms like "atheism" and "theism" to have subcategories, more specific in nautre, like "agnosticism" and "deism".

I understand that you are using different definitions of the terms in question. I also think that is perfectly fine, as long as that is made clear. But, my point is that your issue with using the definitions found in nearly all reputable dictionaries seems to be unfounded.

1. Ok let me quickly answer your points. It at some point A becomes B would not at least at that point they become redundant and one unnecessary.
2. If a source says deism is a subcategory of theism they are wrong. Deism strictly denies a personal God. Theism definition: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.


@Marisa, @leibowde84, @ImmortalFlame, Since I had no idea that anyone would care about this that much let me use this post to clarify my argument. Instead of arguing about what Dawkins said or Webster states, lets examine which methodology is better. Since I can find "official" definitions which vary widely and since even what Dawkins says is authoritative, lets instead see what definitions are the best.

1. Atheism - The conscious belief that no Gods exist.
2. Gnosticism - That conscious lack of belief that any Gods exist.
3. Monotheism - the conscious belief that a personal personal God exists.
A. Christianity - belief in Yahweh and his revelations in the OT and NT.
B. Judaism - belief in Yahweh and his revelations in the Torah (OT).
C. Islam - belief in Allah and whatever they like in his revelation in the OT, NT, and Quran.
D. ETC.....
4. Deism - The conscious belief in a God or Gods who are not personal.
4. Pantheism - the conscious belief that God and nature are interchangeable.
5. Paganism - The conscious belief in multiple Gods whether personal or impersonal.
6. Anti-theism. The conscious belief there are no God's and the resentment of faith in general.



Now I do not think those definitions over lap, nor do they leave anyone out we have been discussing, nor do they include absurdities like chairs and tables. I also do not think adopting them would cause any significant loss in terms of a discussion, but would clearly define each person without posing any gray areas where misunderstandings would occur. If you look at industrial standards like (ISOs), technical writing, or legal texts you will find the exact same efforts, done for the exact same reasons, and in the same ways. If we cannot adopt something like this then all debates will be wars over which dictionary is the most authoritative. This is the wrong place for 50 shades of grey.

 

[1robin]

I believe you're wrong.

I am agnostic towards your response, or is it soft atheism, maybe defacto communism, etc......

Surprise!

Bewildered

That should tell you something.

Yeah, there are a lot of people with spare time.

For me, it's some . . . person . . . who's yet again trying to tell me what I am instead of just asking me. What's at stake for you?

Clarity in a debate and to kill time.

I defined terms not you.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I defined terms not you.

Are you simply stating that you have defined the terms or are you stating that you have the authority to define the terms that in some way supersedes anyone else?

 

[1robin]

Relevant definitions I think should only apply to relevant targets. A bit of pragmatic scrutiny can easily avoid this.

That sounds smart, what does it mean?

But agnosticism doesn't touch on belief at all. Lack of or having. To simply say that atheists have a belief there is no god betrays the very root of what the word means.

There is no neutral to a fail question. You either have it or lack it. That was the point in the quote I made. Atheism is a faith statement that no God's exist, they have faith, agnosticism is the lack of faith in any God they lack it. Since everyone keeps posting different "authoritative" sources which have different "official" definitions I switched to context to what is the best definition.



Wow, in one hour, one of the most insignificant issues I have ever debated has produced 19 responses to me alone. So many came in at once the page would not reload.

 

[1robin]

Are you simply stating that you have defined the terms or are you stating that you have the authority to define the terms that in some way supersedes anyone else?

Well I started off with the traditional definitions, but then I found conflicting modern authoritative definitions in dictionaries and encyclopedias, and someone even used Dawkins to define terms. So I switched the debate to what definitions would serve a debate the best.

 

[1robin]

But disbelief doesn't mean "x does not exist", disbelief means simply "not believing" or "rejecting belief in x". Gnosticism and agnosticism are something else entirely: they deal with claims of knowledge, not belief.

Atheist = I don't believe there is a God
Agnostic = I don't know there is/isn't a God

This would come down to a war between the dictionaries or scholars. Some say it is a belief that no God's exist, some may say it is a lack of belief. BTW you terms mean the same thing, I do not believe is equal to I don't know. This can't be resolved in this manner. Please see my post #62 where I changed it up a bit.

It's okay, you can be honest. I'm extremely lame.

No, I appreciate humor even if at my own expense.

I never really heard the word used until recently, so you're probably right about it being a new term coined as a reaction against the new wave of atheism. It's not a terrible word, though, it's just yet another sub-division of a subject that already has so much sub-division that I'm pretty sure half of this forum is dedicated to attempting to sift through all the various definition of atheism and theism. See above for an example...

Yeah, it's part of what apologists consider the new atheism.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That sounds smart, what does it mean?

It means that with the smallest amount of realistic thinking one can easily use the term without it becoming meaningless. Is a plant an atheist by broad definition? Yes. Is it meaningful to discuss the plant's lack of belief? No. Are plants agnostic? We fall into the same hole here with your agnostic definition. Yes plants are agnostic. Is it meaningful to say they are or discuss it? No.

So am I an atheist by broad definition? Yes. This is now a meaningful and important point in which we can debate. Can we talk about the concept at large even though it applies to plants? Yes. Can it still be meaningful? Yes.

There is no neutral to a fail question. You either have it or lack it. That was the point in the quote I made. Atheism is a faith statement that no God's exist, they have faith, agnosticism is the lack of faith in any God they lack it. Since everyone keeps posting different "authoritative" sources which have different "official" definitions I switched to context to what is the best definition.

In your biased opinion it is the best definition. I simply do not accept them as "best". How is a word that literally translates from Latin from "lacking a belief in god" now "believing that no god exists" in your mind? Or "agnosticism" which literally translates as "not having or not adhering to Gnosticism" mean "lacking a belief in god" . What of non-Gnostic Christians? Under your definitions they wouldn't believing in god at all! Its Gnosticism or nothing if you are a theist.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well I started off with the traditional definitions, but then I found conflicting modern authoritative definitions in dictionaries and encyclopedias, and someone even used Dawkins to define terms. So I switched the debate to what definitions would serve a debate the best.

It would serve you best you mean. I do not think your definitions best suite the debate as it pushes a definition of atheism that does not apply to nearly every atheist. What if I suddenly changed the definition of Theist to Gnostic. And now everyone who isn't a Gnostic can't believe in god. Would that better suite our debate?

 

[1robin]

Or . . . you could try properly understanding the word. Let's use your chair logic . . . which chairs and tables believe in a god or gods?

You would first have to state what your definition of an atheist and agnostic are again and in detail. I do not think you guys are getting the point of that quote. He was saying the definition your using both exclude and include chairs and so are ill-defined.

 

[1robin]

I actually think this discussion is of monumental importance. Too often I see theists trying to put words into the mouths of Atheists simply because those theists are ignorant of the actual meaning of "atheism". They want to change the meaning in an attempt to paint atheists as making an impossible claim ... to know that the world is Godless, when, in actuality, atheism is merely prudence. Not accepting a belief without sufficient evidence. I think it is important that we don't make atheism into something that it is not. The same goes for theism.

What is the objective definition of atheist? What is it's source?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

1. Ok let me quickly answer your points. It at some point A becomes B would not at least at that point they become redundant and one unnecessary.
2. If a source says deism is a subcategory of theism they are wrong. Deism strictly denies a personal God. Theism definition: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.


@Marisa, @leibowde84, @ImmortalFlame, Since I had no idea that anyone would care about this that much let me use this post to clarify my argument. Instead of arguing about what Dawkins said or Webster states, lets examine which methodology is better. Since I can find "official" definitions which vary widely and since even what Dawkins says is authoritative, lets instead see what definitions are the best.

1. Atheism - The conscious belief that no Gods exist.
2. Gnosticism - That conscious lack of belief that any Gods exist.
3. Monotheism - the conscious belief that a personal personal God exists.
A. Christianity - belief in Yahweh and his revelations in the OT and NT.
B. Judaism - belief in Yahweh and his revelations in the Torah (OT).
C. Islam - belief in Allah and whatever they like in his revelation in the OT, NT, and Quran.
D. ETC.....
4. Deism - The conscious belief in a God or Gods who are not personal.
4. Pantheism - the conscious belief that God and nature are interchangeable.
5. Paganism - The conscious belief in multiple Gods whether personal or impersonal.
6. Anti-theism. The conscious belief there are no God's and the resentment of faith in general.



Now I do not think those definitions over lap, nor do they leave anyone out we have been discussing, nor do they include absurdities like chairs and tables. I also do not think adopting them would cause any significant loss in terms of a discussion, but would clearly define each person without posing any gray areas where misunderstandings would occur. If you look at industrial standards like (ISOs), technical writing, or legal texts you will find the exact same efforts, done for the exact same reasons, and in the same ways. If we cannot adopt something like this then all debates will be wars over which dictionary is the most authoritative. This is the wrong place for 50 shades of grey.

The problem is that there is no good reason for these terms NOT to overlap, or any good reason why "including chairs or tables" makes them absurd. I've asked you to explain why should be an issue. You're basically just asking us to adopt your personal definitions for no good reason whatsoever. The broad definition of atheism is perfectly usable, and I have already outlined the reasons why there is no need to make the term narrower. The only people who turn debates into endless dictionary-bashing are the people who simply refuse to reject the dictionary-given, broader definition of atheism for some personal, indistinguishable reason. It really needn't be that complicated. It's as simple as:

1. Atheism - The absence of belief in the existence of a God.
2, Theism - The belief in the existence of a God.

This is far simpler and perfectly clear. It also frames the debate in the correct way, by identifying the null hypothesis. Courts also do this with the "not guilty" verdict, as I have explained before. Atheism is a vote of "not guilty". Isn't this far simpler than asserting that atheism is a positive assertion, and thus inaccurately framing this as a debate between one belief and another, rather than dealing with the specific claim and those who accept it vs those who do not?

 

[leibowde84]

1. Ok let me quickly answer your points. It at some point A becomes B would not at least at that point they become redundant and one unnecessary.
2. If a source says deism is a subcategory of theism they are wrong. Deism strictly denies a personal God. Theism definition: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.


@Marisa, @leibowde84, @ImmortalFlame, Since I had no idea that anyone would care about this that much let me use this post to clarify my argument. Instead of arguing about what Dawkins said or Webster states, lets examine which methodology is better. Since I can find "official" definitions which vary widely and since even what Dawkins says is authoritative, lets instead see what definitions are the best.

1. Atheism - The conscious belief that no Gods exist.
2. Gnosticism - That conscious lack of belief that any Gods exist.
3. Monotheism - the conscious belief that a personal personal God exists.
A. Christianity - belief in Yahweh and his revelations in the OT and NT.
B. Judaism - belief in Yahweh and his revelations in the Torah (OT).
C. Islam - belief in Allah and whatever they like in his revelation in the OT, NT, and Quran.
D. ETC.....
4. Deism - The conscious belief in a God or Gods who are not personal.
4. Pantheism - the conscious belief that God and nature are interchangeable.
5. Paganism - The conscious belief in multiple Gods whether personal or impersonal.
6. Anti-theism. The conscious belief there are no God's and the resentment of faith in general.



Now I do not think those definitions over lap, nor do they leave anyone out we have been discussing, nor do they include absurdities like chairs and tables. I also do not think adopting them would cause any significant loss in terms of a discussion, but would clearly define each person without posing any gray areas where misunderstandings would occur. If you look at industrial standards like (ISOs), technical writing, or legal texts you will find the exact same efforts, done for the exact same reasons, and in the same ways. If we cannot adopt something like this then all debates will be wars over which dictionary is the most authoritative. This is the wrong place for 50 shades of grey.

I'll take this one point at a time.
1. No, this is where you are getting confused I think. According to the definitions, all agnostics are atheists, BUT NOT ALL ATHEISTS ARE AGNOSTICS. Thus, there is no redundancy. Is "sky blue" or "cayenne" not still considered "blue"? We are talking about subcategories of the general terms "theism" and "atheism".
2. Even the definition you provided for "theism" is general in the same way that mine is. As you state, "theism is the belief in the existence of a God or gods ..." While the added stipulation is there, it is not required by the definition. The word "especially" clearly indicates this. If it were a requirement, the clarifying term "only" would be used. Thus, you have provided the same definition that I am using which only requires a "belief in the existence of God". Further, I am not saying that the term "theism" is often used with the added stipulation, as it commonly is. My argument is that, according to your definition, Deists are still Theists.
3. I agree with all of your definitions apart from that of "atheism". The reason being is that "atheism" is, by necessity, a general term which MUST include some of the other terms. If "theism" is the belief in the existence of God (according even to your definition), and the prefix "a" means "without", "atheism" would necessarily be general and refer to being "without a belief in the exitence of God." Without general terms like "theism" and "atheism", the discussion of belief in the supernatural would be far too deluted to debate.

Finally, the problem lies here. Most atheists DO NOT ACTIVELY BELIEVE THAT GOD DOES NOT OR CANNOT EXIST. If we use your defiinition, it would create a tremendous amount of misclassification, and many would be accused of holding a belief when, in actuality, they merely lack a specific belief.

You said that you can find dictionaries that define these terms in the way you suggest. Can you provide some sources for this claim?

 

[Marisa]

You would first have to state what your definition of an atheist and agnostic are again and in detail. I do not think you guys are getting the point of that quote. He was saying the definition your using both exclude and include chairs and so are ill-defined.

Atheist: a person who lacks belief in god(s). Theist: a person who believes in god(s). All about what you believe, not what you know.

 

[1robin]

I don't really see why. If someone tells me "rocks are atheists", my reaction is "sort-of, technically, but since rocks aren't really capable of being theists or formulating any kind of belief whatsoever, their input in this debate is minimal at best and so I don't see the point of bringing them up". If it helps, just add the word "people" to the definition. It doesn't really make any massive difference either way, the word still has its meaning.

That was only half the point (and btw trying to minimize the confusion does nothing to remove the confusion), the other half was that by the liberal definition that have been given table and chairs are both included and excluded.

But broader words exist, also. Theism, for example, covers a vast array of different beliefs. I don't see why atheism being a broad term (than can be clarified with sub-division quite easily) is a weakness of the term itself. It is very specific: "a lack of belief in a God". It's no different to saying "the defendant is not guilty" as a-posed to "innocent" - "not guilty" is a broader term which allows for the possibility that the accused actually IS guilty, but that the evidence is insufficient to convict. Atheism is almost exactly as precise as that.

I did not say that broad terms do not exist. I said the stricter a thing can be defined the less confusion can result from it, especially since there is no cost to narrowing the definitions in this context.

But agnosticism has nothing to do with belief - it is about lacking knowledge or lacking certainty, not lacking belief.

Again it will be a dictionary war.

Here is Webster:
Agnostic: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not.
Agnostic | Definition of agnostic by Merriam-Webster

Again I refer to post #62 as the better methodology.

 

[leibowde84]

What is the objective definition of atheist? What is it's source?

The prefix "a" merely means "without" or "not". Thus, "atheism" signifies being without "theism". Then we have to define "theism". Even with the definition you provided, all one needs to be considered a "theist" is a belief in the existence of God or gods. Polytheists are theists, monotheists are theists, etc. (this I have to assume you agree with, for if this wasn't true, it would create insurmountable confusion in linguistics). So, "atheism" is being "without" theism or "without a belief in the existence of God." Thus, anyone who is "without a belief in the existence of God" can accurately be described as an "atheist".

Even if we were to use the entirety of your definition for theism including a personal God who interferes with mankind, it would act to include more people under the classification "atheist". This is easy to see because under your definition, since the prefix "a" means without (think "amoral" or "without morals"), "atheism" would include anyone without a belief in a personal God. Thus, deists, under your definition, would then be included under atheism. This, however, is incorrect because of the use of the word "especially" in your definition, signifying that the 2nd clause is unnecessary, but often used.

See how that would cause a huge problem?

 

[1robin]

1. You didn't really answer his question. You just said that if a term is general enough to include inanimate objects, it should be changed. There is most certainly a place for specific terms, but there is also a place for very general, parent terms.

1. Clarity is gained by the way I defined the term in post #62.
2. There is no cost to defining the term as I did in post #62.
3. Clarity is good when it comes at no cost.
Conclusion: my definition should be adopted.

2. Your argument here can be refuted very simply; there are already well-defined specific terms in this realm of conversation. They can and should be used when expressing things about those specific groups. But very general terms like "theism" and "atheism" are a necessity as well. Without them, it would be far more difficult to discuss general groups who hold or lack a belief in the existence of God.

I think this is the claim that my 2nd premise above is wrong. If so how?

 

[leibowde84]

1. Clarity is gained by the way I defined the term in post #62.
2. There is no cost to defining the term as I did in post #62.
3. Clarity is good when it comes at no cost.
Conclusion: my definition should be adopted.

I think this is the claim that my 2nd premise above is wrong. If so how?

General terms like "atheism" and "theism" create the possibility of discussing differing beliefs at their root cause. Sometimes it is difficult to debate when the topic is overly specific. There is value in reducing arguments to their roots. Without general terms like atheism and theism, this would become impossible, or, at least, very difficult. Also, with your definitions, I think that conversations become flawed. It does not create added clarity in any way, but I can see that is more of a subjective stance. Linguistic accuracy has immense importance, and, with your definition, you are completely abandoning the way that the word "atheism" is constructed. The prefix "a" means "without". Atheism means "without theism". It surely does not mean "the opposite of theism".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

BTW you terms mean the same thing, I do not believe is equal to I don't know.

Not quite. Belief and knowledge are two different things: just because you believe something doesn't mean you know it to be true.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That was only half the point (and btw trying to minimize the confusion does nothing to remove the confusion), the other half was that by the liberal definition that have been given table and chairs are both included and excluded.

But the only confusion really occurs when people start asserting that atheism is a belief, in contradiction of the actual definition. There is no confusion as far as I am concerned: atheism is a lack of belief in God. It's that simple.

I did not say that broad terms do not exist. I said the stricter a thing can be defined the less confusion can result from it, especially since there is no cost to narrowing the definitions in this context.

Which is exactly why atheism (like theism) has lots of sub-divisions that clarify more specific positions.

Again it will be a dictionary war.

Here is Webster:
Agnostic: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not.
Agnostic | Definition of agnostic by Merriam-Webster

Again I refer to post #62 as the better methodology.

Beneath it is another definition, specifying agnosticism as addressing knowledge, not belief. People often use agnosticism in the way you have described, but if that is the case the definition simply does not conflict with atheism - it merely becomes a subset of atheism.