Agnosticism, Atheism, Theism...

[Michael Hardner]

What do they mean ? Which do you believe in ? Why ?

[Michael Hardner]

Some have asserted that atheism is "no belief in gods" which to me is close to agnosticism. I thought atheism was "belief in no gods" which is, at core, a belief.

[Michael Hardner]

I suppose agnosticism may also imply that it can "never be known"... or does it ?

[Smallc]

Agnosticism is simply uncertainty. Atheism is certainty, but it doesn't need to form a belief. No belief in God of belief in no god are simply different ways of looking at the subject. As I said, the way that Christopher Hitchens defines himself, as an anti theist, would probably be a belief.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Smallc

[Shady]

I suppose agnosticism may also imply that it can "never be known"... or does it ?

I don't think it implies that it can never be known, but agnostic is probably what I would consider myself.

[BubberMiley]

I don't think it implies that it can never be known, but agnostic is probably what I would consider myself.

Thanks for sharing.

[M.Dancer]

I suppose agnosticism may also imply that it can "never be known"... or does it ?

Exactly. The word means literally "without knowledge".

It supposes that rational knowledge of the supernatural cannot be gleaned, so that statements such as God Exists, or There is no god cannot rationally be proven.

Edited March 30, 2010 by M.Dancer

[Michael Hardner]

Agnosticism is simply uncertainty. Atheism is certainty, but it doesn't need to form a belief. No belief in God of belief in no god are simply different ways of looking at the subject. As I said, the way that Christopher Hitchens defines himself, as an anti theist, would probably be a belief.

Certainty based on no facts is a belief. What else would it be ? And there is no way to prove either way.

[ToadBrother]

What do they mean ? Which do you believe in ? Why ?

First of all, there are often no clear dividing lines. Theism generally means belief in god(s), but you have some strains of Buddhism and Taoism which effectively do not have gods, and yet are normally put in the theistic category (I suppose they'd be better described as philosophies, but there are certainly ritualistic aspects). The big problem is the definition of the word "religion" itself. Would it be legitimate to call a Deist a religious man, when his view of God is radically different from the general view of deities found in most religions?

Agnosticism is best defined as the view that the existence and/or nature of God is unknowable.

Atheism, in its purist form is simply a lack of belief in gods. There are indeed atheists who make a positive statement "There is no god", but I'm not in that crowd. I suppose a weak atheist like myself is one step away from agnosticism.

But calling agnosticism or atheism, or even Deism, religious beliefs seems extraordinarily absurd. It makes it so overly broad that it describes nothing.

I have no church. I don't accept the leadership of any other atheist. I have no rituals. I simply lack the belief in gods. I could, hypothetically at least, even be convinced that such beings exist, given sufficient evidence. By the same token, I do not believe that my lack of belief can be supported by science. I believe my lack of belief is rational, but know full well that the existence of God is not something that can be empirically falsified, and that even an application of logic can entirely eliminate the existence of such a being.

Edited March 30, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Mr.Canada]

Atheism is in and of itself a relgion of its own.

[ToadBrother]

Atheism is in and of itself a relgion of its own.

So you will happily provide your definition of the word "religion" right? How precisely am I religious. Be specific here.

[M.Dancer]

Atheism is in and of itself a relgion of its own.

It does not neet the definition of religion. An absence of belief does not make something a religion.

Do athiests have a common set of rituals? A common value system?

No of course they don't.

[Michael Hardner]

But calling agnosticism or atheism, or even Deism, religious beliefs seems extraordinarily absurd. It makes it so overly broad that it describes nothing.

Atheism as in "belief in no god" is belief in something without having knowledge. It's faith, but when applied to cosmic-level philosophies it's religion.

[Michael Hardner]

Agnosticism is best defined as the view that the existence and/or nature of God is unknowable.

Atheism, in its purist form is simply a lack of belief in gods.

By that definition, you are atheist, I am agnostic.

Your views are hereby approved for use by Michael Hardner.

[ToadBrother]

Atheism as in "belief in no god" is belief in something without having knowledge.

Do you think disbelief in Leprechauns is a statement of faith?

It's faith, but when applied to cosmic-level philosophies it's religion.

This sentence doesn't even make sense. Could I please have your operating definition of the word "religion". It seems pretty critical at this juncture that I know what exactly I'm debating, so you can't just keep shifting the goalposts.

[M.Dancer]

Atheism as in "belief in no god" is belief in something without having knowledge. It's faith, but when applied to cosmic-level philosophies it's religion.

Ummm....no.

Some things require no proof one way or another to be a belief (as in a set of beliefs)

You may dismiss out of hand that unicorns or winged horses do not exist, believeing they do not exist does not constitute a "belief".

Similiarly, anything that you choose not to believe in that exists outside of the rational world is not a belief, unless of course you wish to call rationalism a belief.

[ToadBrother]

You may dismiss out of hand that unicorns or winged horses do not exist, believeing they do not exist does not constitute a "belief".

This is my chief problem with people calling atheism a religion or a statement of faith (though I think strong atheism, as in "There is no god", is pretty much a statement of faith").

If I asserted that a thousand massless invisible faeries lived in your sock drawer, would your incredulity, or even your outright rejection of the notion in fact be a statement of faith?

Like I said previously. I have a hard time even calling Deism a religion. It's certainly theistic, but Deists almost universally have no common creed, no rituals, no organization or common statement of ideals. By the same token, a religion doesn't even have to have gods per se. Some strains of Buddhism have no gods, and yet clearly fit within the framework of religious beleifs.

[M.Dancer]

By the same token, a religion doesn't even have to have gods per se. Some strains of Buddhism have no gods, and yet clearly fit within the framework of religious beleifs.

I think once the belief system allows for a supernatural (in the case of buddhism)like reincarnation, transmigration of souls etc etc....they are clearly in the religion camp.

In this case I would put spiritualists, rosicruceans homeopaths and the whole new age universe along with them.

[Michael Hardner]

Do you think disbelief in Leprechauns is a statement of faith?

I suppose it is.

This sentence doesn't even make sense. Could I please have your operating definition of the word "religion". It seems pretty critical at this juncture that I know what exactly I'm debating, so you can't just keep shifting the goalposts.

Faith when applied to cosmic-level philosophies is religion IMO. So that would include Buddhism, Atheism and the rest.

[Michael Hardner]

Ummm....no.

Some things require no proof one way or another to be a belief (as in a set of beliefs)

You may dismiss out of hand that unicorns or winged horses do not exist, believeing they do not exist does not constitute a "belief".

It does, on a small scale level. At least IMO it does.

[ToadBrother]

I suppose it is.

How strange. So is my belief that chocolate ice cream the best flavor a religious claim too?

Faith when applied to cosmic-level philosophies is religion IMO. So that would include Buddhism, Atheism and the rest.

I'm still not quite sure what you mean by a cosmic-level philosophy. Atheism is not a philosophical statement in and of itself.

Your definition of religion appears so insanely broad that it almost has no descriptive power at all.

Edited March 30, 2010 by ToadBrother

[GostHacked]

I don't think it implies that it can never be known, but agnostic is probably what I would consider myself.

I consider myself agnostic. The answer is unknowable until you die, and when you do find out, there is no way to share your new knowledge with anyone else.

[Michael Hardner]

How strange. So is my belief that chocolate ice cream the best flavor a religious claim too?

I guess if you don't trust that your own opinions are their own, then sure.

I personally take my own word as to whether I like things such as ice cream, sex, board games, James Taylor...

I'm still not quite sure what you mean by a cosmic-level philosophy. Atheism is not a philosophical statement in and of itself.

Atheism is part of a philosophy about the universe, and what have you, isn't it ?

Your definition of religion appears so insanely broad that it almost has no descriptive power at all.

Except that it rightly scorns people who say "I KNOW there's no God because... I just know it !!!".

Those people are religious nuts, IMO, and hypocrites too in that you'll often find them debating with religious fundamentalists, which they themselves are.

So, far from whether belief in no elves is faith, or where faith meets philosophy... this argument is for me about me personally not liking hard core argumentative "believe in no god" atheists. Let's call a spade a spade. We're pretty much on the same page except for that.

[Michael Hardner]

I consider myself agnostic. The answer is unknowable until you die, and when you do find out, there is no way to share your new knowledge with anyone else.

"When you find out..." ? That assumes an afterlife, you silly boy...

[Michael Hardner]

Ummm....no.

Some things require no proof one way or another to be a belief (as in a set of beliefs)

You may dismiss out of hand that unicorns or winged horses do not exist, believeing they do not exist does not constitute a "belief".

Ok, sure. I don't think it impacts the big picture view that much though.

Similiarly, anything that you choose not to believe in that exists outside of the rational world is not a belief, unless of course you wish to call rationalism a belief.

"Choosing not to believe..." - agreed. "Believe that it is not...." - I disagree.