Atheism and Agnosticism

[Escéptico]

How can you make the determination that worship is not a constructive human practice without identifying what is the object or ideal of the act of worship?

Simple, because the object of worship is irrelevant to me. It's the nature of worship I question. To love and respect are human, and to obey even has its place. But to worship based on credulity and fear isn't constructive to me. If your worship doesn't work that way, ignore what I said.

This is the funny thing about "atheism", is that the entire perspective is based on theism. Without a theist's proposal of god, atheism has no point. So in a way, to call yourself an atheist, you must already have accepted some concept of god that you are opposing.

Or, as has been said here, you have reason to reject any of the myriad concepts of God that have been offered. And you find the notion of worship inhumane.

I'm an atheist in the sense that I'm not acting a certain way because of my belief or non-belief in God (whatever that is). I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't think I'd act any differently if I believed in God.

 

[Yerda]

This is the funny thing about "atheism", is that the entire perspective is based on theism.

Not that funny given the term...

So that atheists are already in the business of defining "god". They have to be, to be an atheist at all.

While there may be atheists who devote time to clearing the muddy waters pervasive in theology, defining 'god' is not a required activity for an atheist. For the ones who see atheism as a clear and reasoned position all that is necessary is that they use the working definitions of the theist. Which leads me to this;

So in a way, to call yourself an atheist, you must already have accepted some concept of god that you are opposing.

If by 'accepted' you mean that atheists readily use the theists definition in debate, I agree. I do it myself all the time. Then that seems to bugger the quote that preceded this one. To be an atheist it seems we have to both define 'god', and accept other people's definitions. That's contradictory.

However, you could have meant it the other way that appears to follow from the language you've used. That to deny God we have to accept God. Which is nonsense.

What did you mean at all?

All I've ever met were anti-theists. And everyone of them had a very clear idea of the god they were disclaiming.

What would you say is an anti-theist?

 

[Kungfuzed]

I know this has been discussed before, but once again, for the new members here, how do you see the difference between atheism and agnosticism.

It seems to me that many who claim to be atheists based on the lack of evidence for God really are more like agnostics. Atheism, I always thought, was a more principled position that makes the positive claim "there is no God." It's a principled position in the same way someone might say "I am my own person." There's no real evidence to show whether one is their own person or not (what does that even mean?)...unless you live in a vacuum, yet it is a principled view that tells us about one's perspective about their relationship to the world.

Someone like Richard Dawkins for example strikes me as an atheist. The basis for his atheism can't be just that evolution can explain the diversity of species without God. Dawkins chooses not to believe in God on principle, and the ToE is just a kind of side note that says "See, we didn't come from clay like the Bible says." There are lots of theists who accept the ToE and still see it all belonging to God, what we know and what we don't know. Dawkins sees (I am guessing from his passion and the things I'm familiar with him saying) God as a symbol for something that must be eradicated, whether it be ignorance or obedience, or whatever.

So, if you are an atheist, do you have a principled reason for not believing in God, such as "I am my own person," or is it more just that you don't have evidence that you can trust?

I haven't read the whole thread yet so I'll just respond to the OP until I have more time.

I am an Atheist because I reject the existence of all the Gods that I have been presented with so far. I have no reason to speculate or make up "the God who has no name". There are already enough people inventing new Gods. I don't speculate on the possibility of God's existence any more than the possibility of bigfoot or ghosts because it seems self evident to me that every God we know of is a man made figment of imagination. I don't wonder at Christmas time which of all the Santa's I see is the real Santa Clause because Santa is a made up fictional character. We can learn from fiction, be comforted by it, but there is no reason to take it literally.

 

[PureX]

Simple, because the object of worship is irrelevant to me. It's the nature of worship I question. To love and respect are human, and to obey even has its place. But to worship based on credulity and fear isn't constructive to me. If your worship doesn't work that way, ignore what I said.

But you are making yourself the yardstick by which the act of worship is being judged. The result of which should be that you, personally, find no value in it. But that it may well have value to others.

But that's not what you were claiming. You were claiming that the act of worship has no positive value to human beings collectively. At least that's how I understood your post. Yet you were basing that claim on your own personal lack of relevance to any perceived object or ideal that might be worshipped. And the reason you are giving is that you deem such objects and ideals as "based on credulity and fear".

Once again, what I am seeing in your response is that you are objecting to a specific god-concept that you hold in your mind as objectionable, while excluding all the other possible objects and ideals that human beings might choose to 'worship', and then you're using this single objectionable god-concept to create a blanket dismissal of the act of worship. As well as the adoption of any religion of theology.

Seems to me that you have a very clear idea of 'god', so much so that you're using it to object to any and all human deities and/or divine ideals en masse.

Or, as has been said here, you have reason to reject any of the myriad concepts of God that have been offered. And you find the notion of worship inhumane.

To reject what you have not even taken the time to identify is a fool's game. It's called 'prejudice prior to investigation'.

I'm an atheist in the sense that I'm not acting a certain way because of my belief or non-belief in God (whatever that is). I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't think I'd act any differently if I believed in God.

Which concepts of 'god' are you not believing in? Is it just the deities, or is it divinity, itself? And if so, how are you defining the divine?

Like I said. I've never met an atheist. Only anti-theists.

 

[PureX]

What did you mean at all?

I meant that you have to accept a particular definition of 'god' (a religious definition) so that you have something to stand in opposition to. Otherwise, you stand in opposition to either nothing, or to all definitions of god even as yet undefined, which are both irrational positions.

What would you say is an anti-theist?

I'd say an anti-theist is someone who opposes various religious theologies, rather than someone who opposes the existence of 'god'.

 

[blackout]

I meant that you have to accept a particular definition of 'god' (a religious definition) so that you have something to stand in opposition to. Otherwise, you stand in opposition to either nothing, or to all definitions of god even as yet undefined, which are both irrational positions.
I'd say an anti-theist is someone who opposes various religious theologies, rather than someone who opposes the existence of 'god'.

I totally agree with that Purex.
There are so many concepts and understandings of God
that bear no resemblance to mainstream religious ideas of God
it would be impossible to term yourself "athiest"
regarding all of those understandings
which you yourself do not even know.

Athiests oppose various religious concepts of God (ie theologies)
but could never oppose EVERY god concept
(with any intellectual honesty).

 

[Kungfuzed]

One could essentially keep redefining God indefinitely. I know it's a worn out analogy, but how many times would I be able to redefine Santa Clause before you would finally put your foot down and reject him completely? Or would I eventually come up with a definition that would convince you that he is real? Either way it's still just me making stuff up. Is there any reason why a person should take literally the idea of God?

 

[logician]

I totally agree with that Purex.
There are so many concepts and understandings of God
that bear no resemblance to mainstream religious ideas of God
it would be impossible to term yourself "athiest"
regarding all of those understandings
which you yourself do not even know.

Athiests oppose various religious concepts of God (ie theologies)
but could never oppose EVERY god concept
(with any intellectual honesty).

Actually , this is not true, one could put limitations on what can be CONSTRUED to be a god concept, and reject all of those as an atheist. In other words, god cannot be anything that anybody makes up.

 

[gnostic]

I am probably not a true agnostic....if there is any such thing.

In regarding to the existence of a god or gods, I have seen no evidences of divine entity, except from what is written in the scriptures. (The textual evidences, like the Bible, Torah, Qur'an, etc, is not good enough as evidence. There needs to be more tangible physical evidences for me to believe.) Due to this lack of evidence, I supposed that I lean towards the atheistic side. However, I am not 100% certain.

I think that at this point, I think it is not possible to really know. So the "unknowable" factor in my belief, makes me still agnostic.

 

[Escéptico]

To reject what you have not even taken the time to identify is a fool's game. It's called 'prejudice prior to investigation'.

Right. Do I have to hear the details of every conceivable theory of racial supremacy before rejecting the notion of superiority based on race? Do I have to reject each group's claims one by one, or risk being accused of closed-mindedness?

I told you my atheism is based on a criticism not of each and every object of worship, but on my rejection of the idea of worship itself. Credulity and fear seem to be the operative factors, not the actual object of these emotions.

 

[Magic Man]

One could essentially keep redefining God indefinitely. I know it's a worn out analogy, but how many times would I be able to redefine Santa Clause before you would finally put your foot down and reject him completely? Or would I eventually come up with a definition that would convince you that he is real? Either way it's still just me making stuff up. Is there any reason why a person should take literally the idea of God?

Exactly. I'm an atheist because I don't think that an intelligent being outside of our known universe created everything we know. If your idea of God differs from that, then its probably not a concept I refer to as "God".

 

[blackout]

Actually , this is not true, one could put limitations on what can be CONSTRUED to be a god concept, and reject all of those as an atheist. In other words, god cannot be anything that anybody makes up.

Ok, so sure.

God constructors can remove boundaries and redefine God concepts endlessly/(as they please)...

and

Non God constructors can put up and move around limitations endlessly/(as they please).

So what does it really all prove?

 

[blackout]

Exactly. I'm an atheist because I don't think that an intelligent being outside of our known universe created everything we know. If your idea of God differs from that, then its probably not a concept I refer to as "God".

In light of my construct of God,
yours may very well not be a concept I refer to as "atheism".

 

[Mister_T]

***MOD POST***​

We're seeing a few posts in this thread that are getting a little personal. Just a reminder to keep the debate civil, please.​

 

[gnomon]

There's a wonderful little logical fallacy regarding this notion of constantly redefining a term. It's a fallacy usually enacted to catch someone and say "Aha!" and neener neener.

I think in my post I provided adequate reasoning to avoid this equivocation of the word God.

We can play the same game with the term agnostic. Without knowledge. The only other position is take one in which one holds knowledge of God. Let's repeat that. Holds knowledge in that which one freely cannot prove to exist. Hardly a qualitative philosophical position. Unless we change the meaning of an agnostic to one who merely shrugs their shoulders and says I don't know.

It's not even worth discussion at that point. Considering the term refers to people who developed a position on "God" after the vast human tradition had pretty much accepted such a concept it is not a very defensible position to state that atheists hold an untenable position by asserting the definition of God. This is no more than an end run attempt to, as stated above, to equivocate and reduce the argument to a "gotcha" level.

That, also, is hardly worthy of discussion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know this has been discussed before, but once again, for the new members here, how do you see the difference between atheism and agnosticism.

It seems to me that many who claim to be atheists based on the lack of evidence for God really are more like agnostics. Atheism, I always thought, was a more principled position that makes the positive claim "there is no God." It's a principled position in the same way someone might say "I am my own person." There's no real evidence to show whether one is their own person or not (what does that even mean?)...unless you live in a vacuum, yet it is a principled view that tells us about one's perspective about their relationship to the world.

Someone like Richard Dawkins for example strikes me as an atheist. The basis for his atheism can't be just that evolution can explain the diversity of species without God. Dawkins chooses not to believe in God on principle, and the ToE is just a kind of side note that says "See, we didn't come from clay like the Bible says." There are lots of theists who accept the ToE and still see it all belonging to God, what we know and what we don't know. Dawkins sees (I am guessing from his passion and the things I'm familiar with him saying) God as a symbol for something that must be eradicated, whether it be ignorance or obedience, or whatever.

So, if you are an atheist, do you have a principled reason for not believing in God, such as "I am my own person," or is it more just that you don't have evidence that you can trust?

Personally, I use the label "atheist" because it seems to me to be a more accurate representation of how I approach things than "agnostic" would be.

For me, I suppose you could say that I'm agnostic if you were to define atheism as absolute, unequivocable certainty that no deities exist. I don't know for certain that God doesn't exist, much in the same way that there's no such thing as absolute certainty in anything.

I am much less certain that, for example, the grocery store will still be standing when I go to buy bread than I am that God likely does not exist, but I don't say, "Honey, I'll probably pick up some bread on the way home, assuming the grocery store is still there." I say "I will pick up bread on the way home"... with certainty, despite knowing of at least one local plaza that was destroyed by a natural gas explosion and one mall in the region that collapsed due to heavy snow loads within my lifetime.

I treat the fact that my local grocery store is still standing as a practical certainty, despite knowing that there is a definite non-zero chance that I am wrong. Why should I do differently for the existence of God, when the chance that I am wrong is undefined, but strongly suspected by me to be very, very small if not actually zero?

While I recognize that there are limitations to the certainty of knowledge, I also recognize that in all practical terms, I treat some things as if they are certain. I don't consider myself an "agnostic" when it comes to the existence of my local grocery store, so I think it's consistent for me not to consider myself an agnostic when it comes to the existence of God.

 

[Escéptico]

I treat the fact that my local grocery store is still standing as a practical certainty, despite knowing that there is a definite non-zero chance that I am wrong. Why should I do differently for the existence of God, when the chance that I am wrong is undefined, but strongly suspected by me to be very, very small if not actually zero?

Is it any wonder that innumeracy and religious belief seem to go hand in hand? It's like someone who constantly plays the lottery because, even though his chances of winning are as close to zero as you can get, he still asserts that someone has to win.

You're right, atheists readily admit that there's a chance we could be wrong. But how many times in life do we need to weigh odds in some sane manner, as opposed to the amount of times we benefit by having faith that the impossible could happen?

 

[Halcyon]

I meant that you have to accept a particular definition of 'god' (a religious definition) so that you have something to stand in opposition to. Otherwise, you stand in opposition to either nothing, or to all definitions of god even as yet undefined, which are both irrational positions.

No, I don't think so. Atheism as you are certainly aware means "without God", so all someone has to do to be an atheist is not have a belief in a God. An atheist can comprehend as many god concepts as they chose, but so long as they don't accept one of them as valid and incorporate belief in that God into their lives, they are atheist - without a god.

I'd say an anti-theist is someone who opposes various religious theologies, rather than someone who opposes the existence of 'god'.

An anti-theist is someone who not only lacks theistic belief in their life, but actively opposes the belief in gods which would be definition include an opposition to the existence of those gods.

 

[lunamoth]

Atheism, I've always thought, means the positive claim there is no God. Agnosticism I think covers the area "we can't know if there is a God; therefore, God is irrelevant/it is reasonable to live my life as if there is no God." I think agnosticism is the only stance that is purely rational, but I also don't think that pure rationality is all there is to our lives. Principles are not always purely rational, although I think they should be reasonable. They are a judgement call.

I agree with PureX that at least some atheists seem more like anti-theists, or more accurately anti-religionists. That's reasonable in my book...it's a principled stance. I'm 'anti' some religions I know...those that I view to cause harm to the practitioners or others.

I'm not getting the whole conversation about how atheism depends on defining God. I would think that if there is any God-concept out there a person accepts, they would not consider themself an atheist. Unless of course they are taking a principled stance against a God concept they consider harmful, in which case I think the atheist probably should define that.

 

[Halcyon]

Atheism, I've always thought, means the positive claim there is no God.

No, just the lack of belief in one. How can someone know there is no God? That would be a riduculous claim IMO, but the lack of belief in God based on the lack of evidence for the existence of God is quite rational I think.

Agnosticism I think covers the area "we can't know if there is a God; therefore, God is irrelevant/it is reasonable to live my life as if there is no God."

That's why I agree with someone else in the thread that the line between atheism and agnosticism is subtle, they're the same thing in practice.

I think agnosticism is the only stance that is purely rational, but I also don't think that pure rationality is all there is to our lives. Principles are not always purely rational, although I think they should be reasonable. They are a judgement call.

I agree that agnosticism is the most rational "belief" system.