Decided to make this it's own thread. Question for theists. Would you even be willing to consider the possibility that there was no God out there, and all the things you attribute to God just stem from your own imagination/ignorance? If not then why wouldn't you?
For those who would, what (if anything) do you think would change in your life if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a being didn't exist? How would your behavior change? Would you strive to do more in the here and now? Where would you seek answers to your questions?
Just to be fair, atheists. Same question but reversed, would you be willing to consider that there was a God out there, and you just never recognized the signs? Again, if not then why?
The above part could be any deity, but for this part I will use the Abrahamic God for the hypothetical. How would things change for you if such a being was proven to exist, if anything? Would you behave any differently then you already do? How would it effect you emotionally? Would you be fearful and try and get back on his good side, or would you rebel against him even if it did likely mean eternal suffering?
I'll wait for Mage's response before going any further, but the tl;dr version is: "I'd like to keep the current definitions of atheism as it is, because I think it'd be deletrious to change the academically fundamental premises of the definitions for the sake of a political movement." The corollary is "Some people who call themselves atheists should really be calling themselves agnostic."
Atheism means "without Gods". That's it. Agnosticism deals with another idea entirely, and that is knowledge of the supernatural/metaphysical. You can believe or not believe regardless of whether you think you may or may not know. I am personally a bit fed up with people misrepresenting the atheist position, or using agnosticism to define atheism. They are not the same. You can be an agnostic or gnostic of any faith, or lack thereof.
Alright alright, I think we all need to be a bit more careful with exactly what words we're using here. I'm not exempt from this either, so let's see how this can be cleared up:
Agnosticism deals with another idea entirely, and that is knowledge of the supernatural/metaphysical. You can believe or not believe regardless of whether you think you may or may not know.
Emphasis mine because this is what is causing confusion. The ideas are not entirely separate. However I acknowledge the difference between knowledge and belief but prior to this was keen to emphasise that while not equivalent, they are certainly related!
What I have not mentioned up to now (because I didn't think I'd be getting to this detail, but there you go), is that the position I'm coming from is that of strong agnosticism. I acknowledge that the positions of agnostic atheism and agnostic theism exist, but strong agnosticism is the ultimate fence-sitting, in that it is a position in which one does not either believe or not believe in a god, which is what I've been keen to impart to magegraywolf.
I'm also personally fed up with being called misrepresented, by being called atheist when my position does not entail anything such.
Strong Agnosticism is not at all fence-sitting in regards to a religious philosophy. Strong Agnosticism simply means that you firmly believe that the knowledge of deities is unknowable. It says nothing at all about your belief in deities of any sort.
This applies to the realms of science and evidence, not the realms of faith or belief. You can be a theist and be a strong agnostic, just like you can be an atheist and be a strong gnostic. The theist positions and gnostic positions are not in any way exclusive or encompassing of eachother. The terms are used together so often that much confusion arises, which makes discussion on the topics difficult because there are so many misconceptions regarding the terms.
Strong Agnosticism simply means that you firmly believe that the knowledge of deities is unknowable. It says nothing at all about your belief in deities of any sort.
!
You're right, I should review that. I see what magegraywolf meant on the previous page also, thank you for spelling this out.
To signpost the discussion: still at contention is the definition. I'm still yet to be convinced that the definition "doctrine rejecting the existence of a deity/deities" should be changed. Also, I'm still keen to assert the difference between "lack of belief in a deity/deities" and "belief in the lack of a deity/deities".
Let's put it simply. Have you ever come up to a poll which has a Yes/No answer, and you want to punch the pollmaker in the face because they left out "Undecided"?
Pulling back a few pages to respond to something that was originally written after I made a statement...
Agnostic atheist: I don't know if there is are god or gods.
Gnostic atheist: I know there are no god or gods.
Agnostic atheism is disbelieving that a deity exist but not claiming to know that it doesn't, right? I fall a lot closer to being an agnostic theist, actually. I do believe there is something, be it nothing more than a flow of energy through all things in the world - I just don't know, and I wouldn't claim to either.
So, what am I supposed to label myself in discussions like this if not agnostic? I'm not religious and do not commit to any specific faith or set of beliefs, but I do believe there is something in the world along the lines of something that could maybe somehow be called a deity.
On a side-note, I have found the last few pages interesting to read through, although a bit "words - -*" inducing. Did I add to the general "no, you're using that word wrong" with this post?
1. A person who is aware of the concept of god. He rejects this concept and believes that there is no god.
2. A person who never even considered the possibility of a god/higher being or an afterlife. He does not believe that there is no god, because he doesn't know what a god is.
1. A person believes there is no god. (Can also be said they lack belief in god)
2. A person who lacks belief in god. (Can't be said to believe there is no god, because they would have to first understand the concept of god)
Both do not believe in god, but only one believes there is no god (you must know the concept of God to believe there isn't one). So there is a difference between the two. It follows the pattern that a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square.
Now, if it's impossible to believe there is no god, and it is only possible to lack the belief, then I shall reject such an unfathomable notion. I firmly believe that it is possible to believe that there is no god.
I watched the Misrepresenting Atheism.
If you are atheist
If you agree with the video
And if you ever spoke the words "God does not exist" or "God is not real"
Then you are contradicting yourself. If you believe what you say, if you believe God does not exist, then you believe that there is no god.
In regards to the definition, a good explanation can be found here.
The misconception I hear a lot is that atheism is a firm stance against theist. This is typically not the case, although there are some 'firm atheists' out there who simply deny the existence of any deity off hand and are not open to the possibility.
However for me, and for most atheist that I know, that stance is just as ignorant and misguided as the firm stance that there is a god and no matter what you can't change that person's mind.
Realistically we don't know. We may never know. So in my opinion, to take one hard stance or another is closing your mind to possibilities. Most of us atheists simply choose not to believe until we see evidence, whereas most theists choose to believe even though they don't have evidence.
Again, it really boils down to a matter of choice, however just like any stance you are going to run into extremists on both sides. I simply don't like being lumped into a narrow minded interpretation simply because of a few hard line atheists. Just as I'm sure any theist would not want to be defined by the minority of hard line zealots within their own faith.
I hope that analogy makes it clearer to you religious folks out there why so many atheists get a bit defensive or indignant when conversation turns down that road.
Here is a quick little exercise for those of you who are still unsure of what the theist and gnostic terms encompass.
Ask yourself these questions: 1. Do I believe in a deity? (question of theism) 2. Do I think that we can ever have absolute knowledge of this deity, if it exists? (question of gnosticism)
If you say yes to number one, you are a theist. Any other answer and you are an atheist.
If you say yes to number two then you are a gnostic. Any other answer and you are an agnostic.
The misconception I hear a lot is that atheism is a firm stance against theist.
I blame the Darwin bandwagoners xD
Changes I will make to my discussion practice following this discussion:
* I will not place atheism, agnostic, or theism on the same spectrum. * I will only offer to people that atheism is a negative ontological commitment, though it would be helpful if somebody were to convince me of how this might not be the case.
I will only offer to people that atheism is a negative ontological commitment, though it would be helpful if somebody were to convince me of how this might not be the case.
Realistically theism is the only true hard line stance. If you believe in a deity, then you are a theist. Any other thoughts regarding deities which do not end up in absolute belief in a deity, and you are not a theist, hence an atheist.
Atheism is truly the default position for anyone who isn't sure that there is a god. Obviously because of that there are varying degrees of atheism, but because theism is an affirmation of something, there can be no varying degrees of theism.
