Atheism is DEAD!

[cybercoma]

You guys all crack me up with your absurdities.

[cybercoma]

The differences between Atheism and Agnosticism have been contested for as long as I can remember, but have come to a head with the recent publications by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris. Agnosticism, as has been properly defined, is not knowing either way whether there is a God or not. Atheism, I would contest is not necessarily a strong belief that there is absolutely, incontestably no God, although there are some who believe that and would be properly defined as such. Rather, Atheism is simply an absence of belief. By being defined by what it's not Atheism becomes confusing. Try describing anything to someone by what it's not. "What is Christmas?" Well, it's not Easter, it's Halloween, it's not Canada's Day. Those definitions only get us part of the way to a full understanding to what Atheism is.

I can only tell you what Atheism is in practical terms for myself. Since it is defined by what it's not, Atheism literally has as many different forms as people who claim to be Atheists--as opposed to saying they believe in Atheism, which is patently ridiculous because you don't believe in not believing, you simply just don't believe. Personally, I offer the probability that there may be a God; however, I believe that probability is so highly improbable that I don't concern myself with God or religion in my everyday life. In a technical sense, I suppose that's agnosticism, but in my own opinion Agnosticism is a label used by people who don't want to be associated with narrow-minded Atheistic "evangelical" types (see: Hitchens).

The problem is that it's not black and white, unless you're faithful. Atheism comes in degrees, yet belief is always an all or nothing proposition. Richard Dawkins discussed this in The God Delusion, so I won't speak of it at length here because many of you have already read it. Suffice it to say that if you live your life not caring whether or not there is a God because either you can't be sure, or you just don't believe it's very likely, or you believe that there absolutely is no divinity, then you're an Atheist.

The problem with defining Communist leaders as doing things in the name of Atheists is that it simply doesn't make sense. Anti-religious is something quite different from not believing in religion. It's an aggressive, positive (I don't mean 'positive' as 'good' here) assertion to be anti-religious. You can't define what supposed Atheists like Stalin did as an act of Atheism because the reality is that it wasn't. They were acts of a bastard form of Communism, highly divorced from what Marx had originally intended. It was an attempt to force people into a political state. When Protestants attacked Catholic Churches through history, or when Muslims attack Synagogues, or when Jews attack Mosques, we don't say it's an act of Atheism. They're acts of a positive belief in something bumping up against the positive belief in something else. Communism like all the others is a positive belief, an assertion, that demands an amount of faith, which is the suspense of reason. Atheism has no tenets because it is by definition not a belief. It is a label given to someone who does not believe. We do not define Stalin and Hitler's action by other labels you could give them, for example: Moustaches cause political leaders to commit horrible atrocities.

The point I'm trying to make here is that to make any sweeping generalizations about the nature of Atheism is impossible. It is a label applied to people to show that they're not devotedly religious. It's fairly safe to say that Atheists, and Agnostics for that matter (since, I prefer to call them weak Atheists), reject the suspension of reason to a dogmatic end. That includes the rejection of Stalinist Communism and other dogmas. Unfortunately, certain Atheisms make a bad name for Atheists as a whole because people have the misconception that ALL Atheists believe in Atheism. That is not the case. Atheists simply do not believe in dogma and the dogmatic Atheists are not really Atheists at all.

[Shwa]

atheism predates all religions hands down...

How so? I mean, what are you basing your comment on?

[Shwa]

Rather, Atheism is simply an absence of belief.

If you hold this to be true, then wouldn't that make it a tenet and therefore contradictory to you stating that "Atheism has no tenets...?" Furthermore, since "Atheism literally has as many different forms as people who claim to be Atheists" wouldn't that make an Atheist who follows atheistic tenets just as valid an athiest as you?

Personally, I offer the probability that there may be a God; however, I believe that probability is so highly improbable...

That's agnosticism by the commonly accepted definition of the word. Heck even Pascal faced that question.

...that I don't concern myself with God or religion in my everyday life.

But you did today. And I would wager you have on other days here on this forum or in your real life especially on days when your positive atheistic beliefs bump up against other's postive, but contrary, beliefs of God or religion.

Atheism comes in degrees, yet belief is always an all or nothing proposition.

Doesn't sound like you are sure. Could you illustrate with another "all or nothing" proposition that "comes in degrees" please?

The point I'm trying to make here is that to make any sweeping generalizations about the nature of Atheism is impossible.

+

Unfortunately, certain Atheisms make a bad name for Atheists as a whole because people have the misconception that ALL Atheists believe in Atheism.

"as a whole" Is that a sign of a sweeping generali... nevermind. I am going for the tylenol now.

[Michael Hardner]

Islam is a bloodyminded religion.

That assertion has been made on these forums many times, and as is always pointed out - the bible includes similar prescriptions to violence.

[Michael Hardner]

The point I'm trying to make here is that to make any sweeping generalizations about the nature of Atheism is impossible. It is a label applied to people to show that they're not devotedly religious. It's fairly safe to say that Atheists, and Agnostics for that matter (since, I prefer to call them weak Atheists), reject the suspension of reason to a dogmatic end. That includes the rejection of Stalinist Communism and other dogmas. Unfortunately, certain Atheisms make a bad name for Atheists as a whole because people have the misconception that ALL Atheists believe in Atheism. That is not the case. Atheists simply do not believe in dogma and the dogmatic Atheists are not really Atheists at all.

I agree that you can't make a sweeping generalization, however there is the matter of the inexactitude of the definition. You've done a good job of explaining it here.

I'm an Agnostic who, as you indicated, doesn't refer to himself as an Atheist because he doesn't want to be thought of as an evangelical/dogmatic Atheist.

[cybercoma]

If you hold this to be true, then wouldn't that make it a tenet and therefore contradictory to you stating that "Atheism has no tenets...?" Furthermore, since "Atheism literally has as many different forms as people who claim to be Atheists" wouldn't that make an Atheist who follows atheistic tenets just as valid an athiest as you?

There's no valid and invalid Atheists. That's the problem. It's a label applied to the person. I really wish people would stop adopting it because it's confusing and ridiculous. Saying, "I don't follow any religion" is lumped together with those that say, "F*** RELIGION! GOD IS DEAD!" There are no atheistic tenets proper because it is not a system of belief, it is a description given to someone that doesn't follow religious systems.

That's agnosticism by the commonly accepted definition of the word. Heck even Pascal faced that question.

Agnostics are atheists because they don't subscribe to a religious system of beliefs. Instead, they withhold belief until there's compelling evidence to believe. That's an atheist.

But you did today. And I would wager you have on other days here on this forum or in your real life especially on days when your positive atheistic beliefs bump up against other's postive, but contrary, beliefs of God or religion.

Atheistic beliefs don't bump up against other's positive, but contrary, beliefs because there are no "atheistic beliefs". Rational thought bumps up against irrational faith in dogmatic tenets. That's something very different.

Doesn't sound like you are sure. Could you illustrate with another "all or nothing" proposition that "comes in degrees" please?

Faith is all or nothing. You'll have to read Dawkins's book for a full explanation, but I'll give you a brief one here. If belief in God is put on a scale from 1-10, with 1 being absolutely certain there is no God and 10 being absolutely certain there is a God, those that are religious will almost always fall on 10, while the rest are not so sure there is a God. Atheists almost never fall on 1. Those people are atheists by definition; however, they're just as dogmatic as the people who fall on 10. The problem being that everyone that falls from 2-9 (especially those from 2-5, which ought to be considered atheists) are lumped together with the 1s. My point in the previous post is that atheism cannot be defined by what it is because it is not anything. One of the biggest arguments internet atheists make is that those who are religious are atheists with regards to all the other possible gods that may or may not exist. Christians don't believe in Thor, yet for some odd reason they're not defined as atheists, even though they are. The tagline is that religious people are atheists too, but atheists take it one god further.

"as a whole" Is that a sign of a sweeping generali... nevermind. I am going for the tylenol now.

No, "as a whole" was a bad choice of words because perhaps I'm not as eloquent or educated as you are, or maybe I wasn't taking the time to polish my arguments. Regardless, I should not have said "as a whole". Instead, I should have said "for other atheist individuals that don't believe but make no assertions about the existence of God" or something else along those lines which would require much further qualification. The point is that atheists are not a cohesive unit. You can't describe all people who don't believe in Islam by a single quality, other than that they don't believe in Islam. In that group, you have people who are fiercely bigoted towards Muslims; however, that doesn't mean that all people who don't believe in Islam are bigots.

[cybercoma]

I agree that you can't make a sweeping generalization, however there is the matter of the inexactitude of the definition. You've done a good job of explaining it here.

I'm an Agnostic who, as you indicated, doesn't refer to himself as an Atheist because he doesn't want to be thought of as an evangelical/dogmatic Atheist.

You're right, there is an inexactitude of definition because you're trying to say what someone is based on what they're not. It doesn't work.

As an agnostic, you probably live your life as though religion doesn't exist or is unnecessary to a moral life. Some agnostics make it sound as though every day of their life is a struggle to define the existence of God, when in reality that's not the case at all. Most agnostics probably live their life as atheists, having no belief either way about God, which I contest makes them atheists. Like I said, and your anecdote supports, most agnostics avoid the atheist label for no other reason than the negative perception it has in the minds of others.

[Shwa]

First of all, there is a lack of precision as to what an atheist is. We can all go by your defintion (or Dawkins or whomever else) but that is not very economical. Thus, "people" generally turn to a dictionary to sort out the meaning of the word in the English language.

Merriam-Webster - "one who believes that there is no deity"

Cambridge - "someone who believes that God or gods do not exist"

Oxford - "the belief that God does not exist."

By the defintion of the word using the suffix "-ist" that indicates someone who adheres or advocates something, i.e. "believes" in something where "-ism" is adherence to a class of principles or doctrine of some sort ("believes" in them).

So lets throw out what you think it means, because it is confusing and ridiculous. Let's go by defintions that have been commonly used for quite a bit of time and have a well defined meaning in the English language. This is called 'common ground.' (And while we are at it, lets get rid of this notion that atheism and agnosticism are the same thing because clearly they are not.)

So if we put your beliefs within the context of the accepted language resources, what does it tell us? It tells us that you are agnostic. Now why do you resist that? I dunno. Nothing wrong with being agnostic and it keeps the door open for any further data about the existence or non-existence of God, gods, deities. In fact, agnosticism would seem to me to be more of a scientific view that atheism, or at least a lot more open minded.

So blah, blah, blah having written all that, a question for you:

Was Fred Nietzsche a believer, agnostic or atheist?

[cybercoma]

Nietzsche was a believer in the sense that he held God was a creation of humanity. The quote "God is dead" was a lament for that human invention that was no longer necessary after the Enlightenment. He believed in God, but not in the same sense as devote Christian that thinks God is an actual entity existing in reality somewhere.

The definitions you pulled up are contestable and you fail to acknowledge the prefix to the a- for the absence of -ism. Amorphous comes from the word "morph" which means form. Therefore, amorphous must mean there's some sort of form. Wrong. A is the negation of the root; it is the absence of form. Atheist is nothing more than the "ABSENCE OF BELIEF in God or gods". I don't care what your inadequate dictionary definition claim is the definition. Oxford's definition is disingenuous considering their definition of theism is the BELIEF in Gods, while they say atheism is the belief that there is NO God. They're conflating the absence of belief in god, with the belief that there is no God. Two different meanings and if you want to stick to the proper definition of theism and the proper use of the prefix a-, my definition stands.

[cybercoma]

Moreover, if you would rather label my personal beliefs as agnostic, go right ahead. I don't care so much about the label. Instead, I'm trying to offer an explanation to the confusion between the two. In my opinion agnosticism is a front for atheism. Agnostics don't believe in God either, nor do they believe that God doesn't exist. By the more adequate and proper definition of atheism, being an absence in belief in God or gods, the agnostic is an atheist.

[Guest TrueMetis]

First of all, there is a lack of precision as to what an atheist is. We can all go by your defintion (or Dawkins or whomever else) but that is not very economical. Thus, "people" generally turn to a dictionary to sort out the meaning of the word in the English language.

Merriam-Webster - "one who believes that there is no deity"

Cambridge - "someone who believes that God or gods do not exist"

Oxford - "the belief that God does not exist."

By the defintion of the word using the suffix "-ist" that indicates someone who adheres or advocates something, i.e. "believes" in something where "-ism" is adherence to a class of principles or doctrine of some sort ("believes" in them).

To which I reply

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheism :a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism :Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]

This is no universally accepted definition of atheism so don't even try to act like there is.

cybercoma

Agnostics are atheists because they don't subscribe to a religious system of beliefs. Instead, they withhold belief until there's compelling evidence to believe. That's an atheist.

If their was evidence of God most athiests wouldn't then "believe" in God they would accept God. I don't know what agnostics would do.

[cybercoma]

If their was evidence of God most athiests wouldn't then "believe" in God they would accept God. I don't know what agnostics would do.

We're mixing definition of "believing". I can believe in someone by putting faith into them, and I can believe in someone in the sense that I think they exist. We're talking about existence belief here, rather than the former. So atheists would "believe" in the existence of God but not necessarily believe in God. Same with agnostics, you can't determine what someone will believe. I think I agree with the idea of what you're saying though.

[GostHacked]

I don't think so. Without a common belief in a deity their can be no Atheism as you'd have nothing to not believe in. It's impossible to not believe in something that hasn't yet been defined.

It's also impossible to believe in something that has not yet been defined.

So if you want to keep your train of thought that it's possible to have a non belief in a deity that hasn't been defined go ahead. My point is that a belief is needed first in order to hold a non belief of it.

All Aboard the fail train!!

charter.rights

That's because either you are wrong most of the time, or have not provided sufficient cites to back up your statements.

I recall you being one that poo poo'd the idea of backing up your claims. Seems like you have done a 180.

Cybercoma

Agnostics are atheists because they don't subscribe to a religious system of beliefs. Instead, they withhold belief until there's compelling evidence to believe. That's an atheist.

Agnostics are not atheists. Agnostics are in the 'i don't know either way, or either way is simply unknowable. Atheists believe there is no god. You have agnostics that are on the fence, the faithful believe in a god, atheists believe there is no god.

[ToadBrother]

The differences between Atheism and Agnosticism have been contested for as long as I can remember, but have come to a head with the recent publications by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris. Agnosticism, as has been properly defined, is not knowing either way whether there is a God or not. Atheism, I would contest is not necessarily a strong belief that there is absolutely, incontestably no God, although there are some who believe that and would be properly defined as such. Rather, Atheism is simply an absence of belief. By being defined by what it's not Atheism becomes confusing. Try describing anything to someone by what it's not. "What is Christmas?" Well, it's not Easter, it's Halloween, it's not Canada's Day. Those definitions only get us part of the way to a full understanding to what Atheism is.

Atheism is generally defined as a lack of belief in God. Agnosticism is generally defined as the existence of God being unknowable. They are two different positions.

[ToadBrother]

First of all, there is a lack of precision as to what an atheist is. We can all go by your defintion (or Dawkins or whomever else) but that is not very economical. Thus, "people" generally turn to a dictionary to sort out the meaning of the word in the English language.

Merriam-Webster - "one who believes that there is no deity"

Cambridge - "someone who believes that God or gods do not exist"

Oxford - "the belief that God does not exist."

By the defintion of the word using the suffix "-ist" that indicates someone who adheres or advocates something, i.e. "believes" in something where "-ism" is adherence to a class of principles or doctrine of some sort ("believes" in them).

So lets throw out what you think it means, because it is confusing and ridiculous. Let's go by defintions that have been commonly used for quite a bit of time and have a well defined meaning in the English language. This is called 'common ground.' (And while we are at it, lets get rid of this notion that atheism and agnosticism are the same thing because clearly they are not.)

So if we put your beliefs within the context of the accepted language resources, what does it tell us? It tells us that you are agnostic. Now why do you resist that? I dunno. Nothing wrong with being agnostic and it keeps the door open for any further data about the existence or non-existence of God, gods, deities. In fact, agnosticism would seem to me to be more of a scientific view that atheism, or at least a lot more open minded.

So blah, blah, blah having written all that, a question for you:

Was Fred Nietzsche a believer, agnostic or atheist?

Dictionaries give but cursory definitions. One does not attempt, if one has any interested in understanding a concept, to wrap it up into a single sentence phrase of Mirriam-Websters. That's what they call argumentum ad dictionarum.

I don't disbelieve in God, which is a rather active statement, but rather I lack belief in God. The two are considerably different in connotation.

[cybercoma]

Atheism is generally defined as a lack of belief in God. Agnosticism is generally defined as the existence of God being unknowable. They are two different positions.

Yes or no, do agnostics believe in God? Allow me to answer for you. No.

Agnostics are atheists, but atheists are not necessarily agnostics. They're not entirely different positions.

[GostHacked]

Yes or no, do agnostics believe in God? Allow me to answer for you. No.

Wrong. They are simply undecided. Because they will say 'I don't know!'.

By your statement, anyone who polls as undecided (agnostic in a sense) is not really undecided.

Agnostics are atheists, but atheists are not necessarily agnostics. They're not entirely different positions.

There is a difference, but you seem to want to ignore it.

[M.Dancer]

Yes or no, do agnostics believe in God? Allow me to answer for you. No.

you are incorrect. Agnostics may indeed not believe in a god, but concede that gods or God may exist. Furthermore, some agnostics believe in a god(s), or God, but deny that precise knowledge of God, or god(s) is possible. Others even, believe that there is something, may be a god, may be the collective consciousness manifest in nirvana...they don't know but feel it might be...

Atheists believe that precice knowledge of god(s) or God is irrelevant, cause there is no God or god(s) to be knowledgeable about.

Edited December 15, 2009 by M.Dancer

[ToadBrother]

Yes or no, do agnostics believe in God? Allow me to answer for you. No.

Agnostics are atheists, but atheists are not necessarily agnostics. They're not entirely different positions.

Huh? That's ludicrous. Agnostics state that the existence of God is unknowable. Atheists lack belief in God. Those are two entirely different positions.

[cybercoma]

So agnostics believe in God then. I see. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Mr.Canada]

Wrong. They are simply undecided. Because they will say 'I don't know!'.

By your statement, anyone who polls as undecided (agnostic in a sense) is not really undecided.

There is a difference, but you seem to want to ignore it.

In the eyes of God saying "you don't know" is already making a choice.

The voice of God and Satan is inside of us all. Some people like to call those little voices consciousness or their gut feeling, womens intuition and a host of other names. Those are the voices of good and evil, God and Satan. If people would come to terms with that their would be more believers but instead people deny this fact and simply explain these voices away as I've mentioned earlier.

Listen to Gods voice. It's inside each and every one of us as is Satans.

Edited December 15, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[cybercoma]

The fact is agnostics do not believe in god for whatever reason, but they also do not believe that god does not exist. If atheism is the absence of belief in god, then they are de facto atheists regardless of whatever spin you want to put on it.

[ToadBrother]

The fact is agnostics do not believe in god for whatever reason, but they also do not believe that god does not exist. If atheism is the absence of belief in god, then they are de facto atheists regardless of whatever spin you want to put on it.

Do you have some sort of comprehension problem? Agnostics claim that the existence and nature of God are unknowable. They do not state God does not exist. They state that you can't know whether God exists or not.

[M.Dancer]

So agnostics believe in God then. I see. Thanks for clearing that up.

As the Data Processing folks use to say, GI/GO.

You are making a false assumption. Some do believe in the possibility of God, some believe in an undefined God...

Better to say, agnostics do not believe there is no god while atheists are convinced there is no god.

ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)

n.

1.

a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

a·the·ist (th-st)

n.

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.