• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Oppression of the science behind doxastic attitudes

benrubixcubed

New Member
I don’t reject the science behind doxastic attitudes like I don’t reject the science behind evolution.

It’s sad because it’s getting harder to find comprehensive definitions of words like belief, disbelief, agnosticism, atheism, and other words that expose atheism as a belief.

This is detrimental to our advancements in these fields.

The fact is atheism, monotheism, and polytheism are all just guesses and beliefs in how many gods are in theism.

I’m agnostic. You may call me a heathen, but don’t call me an atheist! I’ll admit to BS when I see it, but I won’t pretend to see things that are not there!

Atheism is not lack of belief. It is disbelief. Historically it was lack of belief, but that usage is a slur and implies a need for a belief.

Lack of belief doesn’t even mean the absence of belief. It means inadequate belief for the proposition. Lack of belief also implies a need. I don’t lack things I don’t have a need for at least in comparison.

Yes I’m agnostic.

I dont believe.

I also don’t disbelieve..

This means I have even less belief as disbelief is a stronger form of belief in a falseness.

I’m not lacking a pile of dog poop on my shoe every time I don’t step in it‍.

Lack of belief would need a quantifier like total lack of belief to even loosely mean the absence of belief. And this still implies a need for said belief in comparison.

Christian’s called pagans atheist for their lack of belief. Romans called Christian’s atheist for their lack of belief.

Everyone has a lack of belief from the view of an opposing god..

There are 3 doxastic attitudes one can have to the question do gods exist and 1 non-doxastic attitude.


Atheism disbelief (stronger belief in a falsehood)

Theism belief (holding to a truth)

Agnosticism the suspension of belief/judgment (intentional conscious unbelief)
And the only non-doxastic attitude of Implicit negative atheism or the absence of belief(unintentional unconscious unbelief)

Absent of both atheism and theism
(n)(a)theism

(babies the mentally incapable and the isolated from religious concepts)

Modern Western atheism is disbelief in all supernatural. Modern atheists are not gnostic. Gnosticism is a form of Christianity. That is like saying everyone is a form of Catholicism. Agnosticism comes from the Greek word gnostos meaning known and Gnosticism comes the Greek word gnosis meaning divine mystical esoteric knowledge. They are opposites but not on the same spectrum. There is no such thing as a gnostic atheist as no atheist claimed divine mystical esoteric knowledge beyond scientific understanding (supernatural)
To say you are an agnostic atheist is redundant because you are already claiming to know in some form that gods do not exist. The same goes for an agnostic theist. They already claim to know in some form that gods exist. Gnostic theism would refer back to gnosticism which hasn’t been practiced since the 2nd century.

Modern western contemporary atheism is disbelief. Disbelief is the distinct doxastic attitude that holds firmer to a negation or falseness than belief alone. Disbelief is a stronger form of belief.
No disbelief doesn’t mean lack of belief..

Disbelief is a doxastic attitude.

Lack of belief doesn’t even mean the absence of belief.
It means insufficient belief. Implying some form of belief but not sufficient for the proposition. It also implies a need. You would need a quantifier Like total lack of belief to even loosely mean the absence of belief. This still implies a need. I don’t lack things I don’t need..
Lack of belief is only when one religion uses it as a slur against another. Everyone is a atheist by that definition from the view of an opposing god.

For instance Christian’s were called atheists by pagans for their lack of belief in the sanctioned gods of Rome.

Christian’s call Buddhists/Taoist/Confucianists/Janists…ect… atheist for their lack of belief in deities but belief in other supernatural mystical powers and an afterlife.
Now modern atheists are in the position to call agnostics in their own right atheist for their lack of disbelief or “fence sitting”…
Lack of belief itself doesn’t mean the absence of belief or atheism would simply be defined as that..
An example of this would be… If it took 7 beliefs/gods to get into heaven and I only had 6 beliefs/gods… Do I have the absence of beliefs or do I have lack of belief?

I don’t think your beliefs are lacking anything.
I don’t think my beliefs are lacking anything.
I don’t think your beliefs are missing anything.

I don’t think your beliefs are deficient, insufficient, inadequate, or anything that would insinuate that I have made a judgment on it in anyway.

I am agnostic. My doxastic attitude is the suspension of judgment. I do not wish to place a judgement on your beliefs.

Babies, the mentally incapable, and the isolated from modern religions are what is called a negative atheist (implicit)

They are not adherents to atheism.
They are negative of or (without) atheism or theism.

Negative of atheism which is not theism.



(n)(a)theism



Negative atheism is unconscious unbelief while agnosticism is conscious unbelief.



Both disbelief and unbelief are forms of non-belief, but disbelief is not unbelief.



Like how tortoises are distinct from turtles but all tortoises are turtles.



A tortoise is both a non-turtle and a turtle depending on the classification.



Disbelief is only a form of non-belief because it is distinct from belief. Disbelief addresses a falseness while belief addresses a truth. Disbelief is also a stronger form of belief. It holds firmer to a negation or falseness than belief alone.



For instance if you opened your bank account and seen that someone deposited a million dollars you would be in disbelief and believe firmer that isn’t accurate or right.



For example If I disagree with you I don’t have the absence of agreement. I agree with something else more firmly that you don’t agree with.



Same with disbelief.. Disbelievers don’t have the absence of belief they believe in a negation more firmly……



The problem is that certain atheist are wrongly trying to convince people that a colloquial use and psychological sense definition of the word atheism should be used instead of a more appropriately and scientifically well placed definition accepted by academia, the science of linguistics, etymology, and understood doxastic attitudes.



This is like demanding that biology accept a guy dressed as a rat for his psychological sense definition and colloquial usage.. instead of a small mammal that is in the rodent family..



Asking science for scientific evidence of the existence of a supernatural god is an oxymoron as the definition of supernatural is beyond scientific understanding.



Atheism is a claim and appeal to the natural world that rejects any supernatural.



Atheism and religion are closed systems based on proof not evidence.



Science is a open belief system that is based on evidence not proof.



Science deals with nature as it exists and it’s currency is evidence.



Proof only exists in closed systems like math, logic, and religion. These are axiomatic systems not scientific. As science is used to discover and these systems are completed.



Disbelief is a stronger more distinct form of belief in a negation or falseness.



If I disagree with you I do not have the absence of agreement or lack agreement. I agree with another proposition MORE firmly than the one presented.



If something is disassembled it is actually assembled in a different state. For instance in a pile, scattered across the room, or neatly in a box. Unassembled is never having been assembled or prepared to be assembled.



Even as an agnostic I have the suspension of belief and that is just actually the belief that nothing is known or can be known..
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
From Oxford Languages

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

That is the current accepted definition, nothing more, nothing less

If you are not happy with the definition then feel free to discuss you view with the compilers of Oxford Languages
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
From Oxford Languages

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

That is the current accepted definition, nothing more, nothing less

If you are not happy with the definition then feel free to discuss you view with the compilers of Oxford Languages
Haven't you noticed that we live in a post dictionary age?
"Socialism", "capitalism", "atheism", & so many other terms
are so full of "nuance" that they mean whatever is wanted.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
@benrubixcubed as you can see, logic will get you nowhere on this subject.

Some people really despise religion. And in the blindness of their loathing they cannot seem to differentiate between religion and theism. It's all the same enemy, to them. And as a result of this, they call themselves "atheists" because in their minds being anti-religion is the same as being anti-theism, i.e., a-theist.

And they define atheism as a "lack" because they don't want to have to try and defend it according to the same demands that they insist theists must defend their theism. By claiming atheism is a "lack", they can claim that they have nothing to defend.

In the end it's all just a form of anti-religious bigotry masquerading as a "non position" so it can attack theism (that it equates with religion) with impunity.

And the folks engaged in this habit are quite addicted to it. So nothing you or I say will have any effect on their intention to continue, as you can already see from the responses to your post.
 

Viker

Häxan
Disbelief is a stronger more distinct form of belief in a negation or falseness
That makes absolutely no sense. Maybe a new word should be invented. I'll call it dysbelief. The strong belief that not believing is a belief. I made it up to better resemble your belief. You can have it. I've had enough contradiction, paradox or cognitive dissonance for 8 lifetimes.
 

Viker

Häxan
Theism belief (holding to a truth
No. Not at all. Theism is a belief in divine agency.

Atheism is the lack thereof. When people start ascribing that atheism is a belief system, they are only building a convenient straw man or placing up a target so close they believe they can not miss the bullseye.
 

Ella S.

Dispassionate Goth
I don’t reject the science behind doxastic attitudes like I don’t reject the science behind evolution.

It’s sad because it’s getting harder to find comprehensive definitions of words like belief, disbelief, agnosticism, atheism, and other words that expose atheism as a belief.

This is detrimental to our advancements in these fields.

The fact is atheism, monotheism, and polytheism are all just guesses and beliefs in how many gods are in theism.

I’m agnostic. You may call me a heathen, but don’t call me an atheist! I’ll admit to BS when I see it, but I won’t pretend to see things that are not there!

Atheism is not lack of belief. It is disbelief. Historically it was lack of belief, but that usage is a slur and implies a need for a belief.

Lack of belief doesn’t even mean the absence of belief. It means inadequate belief for the proposition. Lack of belief also implies a need. I don’t lack things I don’t have a need for at least in comparison.

Yes I’m agnostic.

I dont believe.

I also don’t disbelieve..

This means I have even less belief as disbelief is a stronger form of belief in a falseness.

I’m not lacking a pile of dog poop on my shoe every time I don’t step in it‍.

Lack of belief would need a quantifier like total lack of belief to even loosely mean the absence of belief. And this still implies a need for said belief in comparison.

Christian’s called pagans atheist for their lack of belief. Romans called Christian’s atheist for their lack of belief.

Everyone has a lack of belief from the view of an opposing god..

There are 3 doxastic attitudes one can have to the question do gods exist and 1 non-doxastic attitude.


Atheism disbelief (stronger belief in a falsehood)

Theism belief (holding to a truth)

Agnosticism the suspension of belief/judgment (intentional conscious unbelief)
And the only non-doxastic attitude of Implicit negative atheism or the absence of belief(unintentional unconscious unbelief)

Absent of both atheism and theism
(n)(a)theism

(babies the mentally incapable and the isolated from religious concepts)
I honestly agree with you here.

"Atheism" used to refer to a specific position or teaching in either the non-existence of gods generally or that classical theism specifically is false. It was a good descriptive word for an important theological position.

It was intentionally designed to be a positive assertion for a wide range of nuanced and useful philosophical reasons, especially when it comes to academic debates on the topic.

These days, what was once called atheism is now qualified as "strong atheism" or "gnostic atheism" depending on who you ask. I am a strong/gnostic atheist in that I claim to know that God does not exist.

The existence of "agnostic atheists" using the word "atheism" does not really bother me too much. There are agnostic theists, too, after all. Both are people that tend towards a certain belief but would not positively claim to know that their belief is true. In that case, it makes sense that agnostic atheists would say that they merely lack a belief in gods but live as if they do not exist.

I do think it is a bit strange that agnostic atheism has come to define atheism entirely when a lack of belief in gods is traditionally associated with nontheism, not atheism. My attempts to get agnostic atheists to identify as nontheists has proven fruitless so far, though.
Modern Western atheism is disbelief in all supernatural. Modern atheists are not gnostic.
I know what you mean here. However, plenty of atheists in the West do believe in the supernatural and some of them are gnostic.
Gnosticism is a form of Christianity. That is like saying everyone is a form of Catholicism. Agnosticism comes from the Greek word gnostos meaning known and Gnosticism comes the Greek word gnosis meaning divine mystical esoteric knowledge. They are opposites but not on the same spectrum. There is no such thing as a gnostic atheist as no atheist claimed divine mystical esoteric knowledge beyond scientific understanding (supernatural)
Maybe I do not know what you mean. "Gnosticism" is a form of Christianity. It is true that many Gnostic Christians are gnostic Christians, but there are also agnostic Gnostics. I know, it's confusing. There is a difference between capital "G" Gnosticism, which is an umbrella term for a variety of religious sects, and small "g" gnostic, which just means having knowledge.

Gnosis does not necessarily mean divine mystical esoteric knowledge. "Gnosis" is used in Gnosticism (and Eastern Orthodox Christian monasticism) to refer to a particular kind of epiphanic spiritual insight but it was also used to refer to knowledge in general.
To say you are an agnostic atheist is redundant because you are already claiming to know in some form that gods do not exist. The same goes for an agnostic theist. They already claim to know in some form that gods exist. Gnostic theism would refer back to gnosticism which hasn’t been practiced since the 2nd century.
There are still Gnostics to this day. I used to be one. I actually wrote a book about it. I was involved with Gnostic churches and chat groups. There is even a Gnostic Mass that you can attend, although the degree to which that counts as genuinely Gnostic is debatable.
Modern western contemporary atheism is disbelief. Disbelief is the distinct doxastic attitude that holds firmer to a negation or falseness than belief alone. Disbelief is a stronger form of belief.
No disbelief doesn’t mean lack of belief..

Disbelief is a doxastic attitude.

Lack of belief doesn’t even mean the absence of belief.
It means insufficient belief. Implying some form of belief but not sufficient for the proposition. It also implies a need. You would need a quantifier Like total lack of belief to even loosely mean the absence of belief. This still implies a need. I don’t lack things I don’t need..
I agree that "agnostic" does not necessarily mean that a belief is completely absent. I do not really know why you are involving needs, though.
Lack of belief is only when one religion uses it as a slur against another. Everyone is a atheist by that definition from the view of an opposing god.

For instance Christian’s were called atheists by pagans for their lack of belief in the sanctioned gods of Rome.

Christian’s call Buddhists/Taoist/Confucianists/Janists…ect… atheist for their lack of belief in deities but belief in other supernatural mystical powers and an afterlife.
I don't think Christians call Taoists and Jainists atheists, by and large, given that Taoism and Jainism are not atheist religions. They mostly use the word to refer to people who do not believe in God, from what I've seen, or people who "pretend that God doesn't exist."

Edit: Continued in post 2. This is a first for me. I knew I was loquacious but I never thought I would hit the character limit.
 

Ella S.

Dispassionate Goth
I honestly agree with you here.

"Atheism" used to refer to a specific position or teaching in either the non-existence of gods generally or that classical theism specifically is false. It was a good descriptive word for an important theological position.

It was intentionally designed to be a positive assertion for a wide range of nuanced and useful philosophical reasons, especially when it comes to academic debates on the topic.

These days, what was once called atheism is now qualified as "strong atheism" or "gnostic atheism" depending on who you ask. I am a strong/gnostic atheist in that I claim to know that God does not exist.

The existence of "agnostic atheists" using the word "atheism" does not really bother me too much. There are agnostic theists, too, after all. Both are people that tend towards a certain belief but would not positively claim to know that their belief is true. In that case, it makes sense that agnostic atheists would say that they merely lack a belief in gods but live as if they do not exist.

I do think it is a bit strange that agnostic atheism has come to define atheism entirely when a lack of belief in gods is traditionally associated with nontheism, not atheism. My attempts to get agnostic atheists to identify as nontheists has proven fruitless so far, though.

I know what you mean here. However, plenty of atheists in the West do believe in the supernatural and some of them are gnostic.

Maybe I do not know what you mean. "Gnosticism" is a form of Christianity. It is true that many Gnostic Christians are gnostic Christians, but there are also agnostic Gnostics. I know, it's confusing. There is a difference between capital "G" Gnosticism, which is an umbrella term for a variety of religious sects, and small "g" gnostic, which just means having knowledge.

Gnosis does not necessarily mean divine mystical esoteric knowledge. "Gnosis" is used in Gnosticism (and Eastern Orthodox Christian monasticism) to refer to a particular kind of epiphanic spiritual insight but it was also used to refer to knowledge in general.

There are still Gnostics to this day. I used to be one. I actually wrote a book about it. I was involved with Gnostic churches and chat groups. There is even a Gnostic Mass that you can attend, although the degree to which that counts as genuinely Gnostic is debatable.

I agree that "agnostic" does not necessarily mean that a belief is completely absent. I do not really know why you are involving needs, though.

I don't think Christians call Taoists and Jainists atheists, by and large, given that Taoism and Jainism are not atheist religions. They mostly use the word to refer to people who do not believe in God, from what I've seen, or people who "pretend that God doesn't exist."
Now modern atheists are in the position to call agnostics in their own right atheist for their lack of disbelief or “fence sitting”…
Lack of belief itself doesn’t mean the absence of belief or atheism would simply be defined as that..
An example of this would be… If it took 7 beliefs/gods to get into heaven and I only had 6 beliefs/gods… Do I have the absence of beliefs or do I have lack of belief?

I don’t think your beliefs are lacking anything.
I don’t think my beliefs are lacking anything.
I don’t think your beliefs are missing anything.

I don’t think your beliefs are deficient, insufficient, inadequate, or anything that would insinuate that I have made a judgment on it in anyway.

I am agnostic. My doxastic attitude is the suspension of judgment. I do not wish to place a judgement on your beliefs.

Babies, the mentally incapable, and the isolated from modern religions are what is called a negative atheist (implicit)

They are not adherents to atheism.
They are negative of or (without) atheism or theism.

Negative of atheism which is not theism.



(n)(a)theism



Negative atheism is unconscious unbelief while agnosticism is conscious unbelief.



Both disbelief and unbelief are forms of non-belief, but disbelief is not unbelief.



Like how tortoises are distinct from turtles but all tortoises are turtles.



A tortoise is both a non-turtle and a turtle depending on the classification.



Disbelief is only a form of non-belief because it is distinct from belief. Disbelief addresses a falseness while belief addresses a truth. Disbelief is also a stronger form of belief. It holds firmer to a negation or falseness than belief alone.



For instance if you opened your bank account and seen that someone deposited a million dollars you would be in disbelief and believe firmer that isn’t accurate or right.



For example If I disagree with you I don’t have the absence of agreement. I agree with something else more firmly that you don’t agree with.



Same with disbelief.. Disbelievers don’t have the absence of belief they believe in a negation more firmly……



The problem is that certain atheist are wrongly trying to convince people that a colloquial use and psychological sense definition of the word atheism should be used instead of a more appropriately and scientifically well placed definition accepted by academia, the science of linguistics, etymology, and understood doxastic attitudes.
I think I'm mostly in agreement with all of this.
This is like demanding that biology accept a guy dressed as a rat for his psychological sense definition and colloquial usage.. instead of a small mammal that is in the rodent family..



Asking science for scientific evidence of the existence of a supernatural god is an oxymoron as the definition of supernatural is beyond scientific understanding.
Well, not really. If the supernatural existed, it would be a subset of the natural.

If parapsychologists discovered evidence of ESP or paranormal investigators discovered evidence of ghosts, then these would become scientifically accepted. They would also still be supernatural.

There have also been attempts in Anthroposophy and Jungian psychology to scientifically prove the existence of gods, the efficacy of magic, etc. The CIA did experiments on remote viewing and chaos magick.

Any of these could have provided evidence of the supernatural.
Atheism is a claim and appeal to the natural world that rejects any supernatural.
Not necessarily. As I mentioned, some atheists do believe in the supernatural. Some also reject the existence of the natural world due to adhering to Advaita Vedanta, Zen metaphysics, solipsism, etc.
Atheism and religion are closed systems based on proof not evidence.



Science is a open belief system that is based on evidence not proof.



Science deals with nature as it exists and it’s currency is evidence.



Proof only exists in closed systems like math, logic, and religion. These are axiomatic systems not scientific. As science is used to discover and these systems are completed.
Yeah, I agree. Atheism and theism are mostly for analytical philosophy and logic, which deals with deduction based on defined axioms.

I would say that there are many inductive arguments for both atheism and theism, too, but those also tend to be non-scientific. It does get a bit blurry when we discuss philosophical arguments made from the perspective of empiricism, critical rationalism, or naturalism, though, because these are all key features of philosophy of science. Are these philosophical arguments scientific or not?

For example, the atheist Argument from Parsimony has been set forward by epistemic empiricists and metaphysical naturalists, but it is ultimately derived from mountains of statistical data. It does not meet the requirements of a theoretic model, though, because it does not set forward any specific hypotheses, although it is broadly falsifiable.

I can accept, for the sake of argument, that this is a philosophical argument rather than a scientific one. I do think it is worth noting that the line between the two can sometimes blur. There are places where physics is still referred to as "natural philosophy" and most scientists have Philosophy Doctorates (PhD), for instance.
Disbelief is a stronger more distinct form of belief in a negation or falseness.



If I disagree with you I do not have the absence of agreement or lack agreement. I agree with another proposition MORE firmly than the one presented.



If something is disassembled it is actually assembled in a different state. For instance in a pile, scattered across the room, or neatly in a box. Unassembled is never having been assembled or prepared to be assembled.



Even as an agnostic I have the suspension of belief and that is just actually the belief that nothing is known or can be known..
I do think it is a little rude to tell agnostics that they are actually atheists, depending on the context. I think we should mostly try to respect what other people label themselves as.

I also think there is some distinction to be made between agnostics and atheists. I think many agnostics, not necessarily you in particular, feel rather uncertain about what they think. Sometimes their beliefs are genuinely there but vague and undefined. I do not think they should be shoehorned into the "atheist" team so readily, given that so many atheists tend to confidently live as if gods do not exist and might not even wrestle with the idea too often.
 
Top