An Interesting Conversation About Atheism W/other Atheists

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

So, I had an interesting conversation today where a large group of folks, including a few I trust, decided I should be considered an agnostic. I found this laughable, and figure it is a confusion of the definition of atheism and the philosophy behind atheism.

 

As a definition, I say I do not believe in any type of god/gods. Further than that, I make it clear this definition has nothing to do with proving god/gods exist or not. It is simply a lack of belief. Gods could very well be real, but that doesn't matter because I don't believe. Period.

 

This immediately sent a flurry of "You're an agnostic then", "You are saying you don't know if god/gods are real or not so therefore you are agnostic".

 

What am I missing here?  They insist that because I do not address the issue of proof in the definition, it makes me agnostic class?

 

I would disagree. My attitude is that philosophically, the concept of god is long dead. There can never be such a being again because we are too advanced as a society to accept that anymore. As many on here know, and as I told the others I was talking with, my attitude is any superhuman being can show up, meet the definitions of every deity ever thought of, but I won't see it as a deity. Those don't exist. This being would be alien to me, therefore I would need to understand how it gets its abilities. Biologically? Mechanically? Who knows? Let's dissect it and find out!

 

With this layout of my philosophy on the matter, I get derision like none other. From my own peers? "You believe in aliens?"  For fuck sake, do people understand what the word alien means??? They think little green men from outer space. This super being could be from our world, but if it is alien to me (unknown) then find out what makes it tick. Still, then I get labeled an agnostic atheist.

 

WTF?? Am I missing here?

[florduh]

Even those who don't believe in magic seem compelled to leave the door open a crack to allow for the possibility. We seem to resist putting that last nail in the coffin of credibility. We want magic to exist, and that's probably unavoidable and not necessarily a bad thing.

 

I always go back to probability being the relevant thing, not the possibility. An atheist who realizes they can't absolutely prove that gods don't exist is not therefore agnostic, but many can't handle that atheist label for themselves or anyone else.

[RankStranger]

Lots of people really like to quibble about the definitions of words like atheist and agnostic... weak atheist, strong atheist, deist, anti-theist, etc... as if there are hard, fast, and universally accepted definitions of these words. And as if each of our individual (non)beliefs will neatly fit those definitions. IMO it demonstrates a lack of intuition, tolerance for ambiguity, etc. The way I see it, language is a tool - and a crude one at that.

 

Language is not a law, and it doesn't define reality. It's just a crude approximation that allows us to (imperfectly) convey ideas.

[miekko]

This seems more to be an argument about semantics - that is, "which term is applicable to what" - than a substantive argument about anything.

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

This seems more to be an argument about semantics - that is, "which term is applicable to what" - than a substantive argument about anything.

Exactly, but they were too hung up on me saying atheism, as a definition, is not about proof of no gods or not, but just lack of belief.

[florduh]

Everyone loves to use labels, but there's no consensus on what those labels mean. Since there are so many people who believe in gods, there's a word for one who doesn't believe. I don't know why that's so hard for some people. Nothing could be simpler; an atheist is not a theist, no more, no less.

[miekko]

 

This seems more to be an argument about semantics - that is, "which term is applicable to what" - than a substantive argument about anything.

Exactly, but they were too hung up on me saying atheism, as a definition, is not about proof of no gods or not, but just lack of belief.

 

That is exactly what I am saying - they are using the label 'atheist' differently than you are - and there's no objective eternal authority which we can ask to guide us in defining what it means! Thus, if enough people agree with them and you want to be understood correctly, you better line up with their use. 

 

Myself I prefer your definition - lack of belief - but I recognize the need for a term for the hard unbelief - the belief in unexistence. Also, whatwith lack of belief, that also comes close to agnosticism in one way - lack of belief in the existence of X is not significantly different from lack of certainty regarding whether X exists. In a way, those two can overlap, and people tend to dislike terms that overlap in these kinds of issues - overlap makes it difficult to categorize people. 

[mymistake]

 In a way, those two can overlap, and people tend to dislike terms that overlap in these kinds of issues - overlap makes it difficult to categorize people. 

 

 

Quit being so gray when I'm trying to mentally sort you into black and white.  

 

 

 

 

.

[Ravenstar]

hmmm.... I'm sort of in the same position. It seems to me that people think that being an atheist means making a positive statement that god/gods don't exist. (a positive statement about a negative - which is odd to begin with) I didn't get that understanding from the dictionary and linguistic definition though.

 

Atheism and agnosticism are not on a continuum, one speaks to belief, and one speaks to knowledge. Therefore, I guess I am an agnostic atheist... I don't know - actually I'm not sure one CAN know... and I don't believe. I ponder the possibility in a philosophical way, but that's an intellectual exercise - not a 'belief'.

 

Actually I'm not even sure what a 'belief' is anymore. I have trust in certain things but I am finding it difficult to say I 'believe' in anything... the farther down the road of atheism I go the less I understand 'belief' at all. A lot of things I would have called beliefs even a year ago I now see are opinions based on either facts and interpretations, or wishful thinking. I am less influenced by wishful thinking than I used to be... and that's okay. I thought it might bring a depressing outlook but it actually hasn't... just more trust in my own bullshit meter  LOL

 

Most people, from what I am observing now are very uncomfortable with a lack of belief in others... and seem to want to define others by their own standards (Oprah, I'm looking at YOU). This seems to apply across the board.. it's not even a SPECIFIC belief that's required, just a general one.

 

Example; I have an acquaintance who is muslim.. we have had some very heated discussions about religion, and he was VERY upset that I called myself an atheist... until, just to soothe him, I stated that 'maybe the entire universe is god'... weirdly this seemed to do the trick.  ya, I don't get it. It was a very vague definition of pantheism - which you would think would be WORSE than atheism as it is actually a form of idolatry to a judeo-christian religion, but no... (?) There's nothing in the 10 commandments that says "thou shalt BELIEVE'.. it says' thou shalt not worship OTHER gods before me' (I guess after Yahweh is okay though  lol). This is a distinction that seems to elude the minds of the judeo-christian believers.

 

I am an apostate, not a heretic.

 

Ya, I don't get the discomfort this raises in others... does it affect them in the least? Not really.

[Guest MadameX]

Language is not a law, and it doesn't define reality. It's just a crude approximation that allows us to (imperfectly) convey ideas.

 

Well said

[florduh]

As imprecise as language may be, there ARE accepted definitions for certain words but people still feel free to twist it to their purpose. "Atheist" is a glaring example: THEIST = god(s) exist . . . ATHEIST = not a theist.

 

There seems to be an effort to redefine the "atheist" as part of a monolith that is certain God doesn't exist, that denies the existence of God, that has rejected God, that holds the belief that God doesn't exist. Subtle inferences, perhaps, but the devil is in the details.

 

"Atheist" is a label that should be quite clear in its meaning but actually requires explanation for most people. I will not explain my reasoning, conclusions and general philosophy to most people on most occasions, so I just say I'm a Scientologist or Satanist and they go away. Of course they don't really know what those labels really mean either, but they fear them.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

This is one reason I often refer to myself as an "apatheist".  People can say that I'm not an atheist for any number of reasons; but nobody who knows me can deny how indifferent I am to the existence of god(s).

[miekko]

As imprecise as language may be, there ARE accepted definitions for certain words but people still feel free to twist it to their purpose. "Atheist" is a glaring example: THEIST = god(s) exist . . . ATHEIST = not a theist.

 

There seems to be an effort to redefine the "atheist" as part of a monolith that is certain God doesn't exist, that denies the existence of God, that has rejected God, that holds the belief that God doesn't exist. Subtle inferences, perhaps, but the devil is in the details.

 

"Atheist" is a label that should be quite clear in its meaning but actually requires explanation for most people. I will not explain my reasoning, conclusions and general philosophy to most people on most occasions, so I just say I'm a Scientologist or Satanist and they go away. Of course they don't really know what those labels really mean either, but they fear them.

... No, that's not necessarily how a- works. A- can basically negate any part of it, it can be [a-the]-ist or a-[the-ist]. "a-" lacks rules of precedence, as do "theo" and "ist". The only difference here, really, is what rules of precedence you assume.

 

It is not a glaring example even if you want to think it is.

[florduh]

It is not a glaring example even if you want to think it is.

 

 

I rest my case.

 

Of course "rest" doesn't necessarily mean "conclude" and a "case" can be a valise. Maybe I meant I set my suitcase down.

[SquareOne]

 

It is not a glaring example even if you want to think it is.

 

 

I rest my case.

 

Of course "rest" doesn't necessarily mean "conclude" and a "case" can be a valise. Maybe I meant I set my suitcase down.

 

 

I said something smarmy then changed my mind because I was wrong.  Je m'escuse.

[miekko]

 

It is not a glaring example even if you want to think it is.

 

 

I rest my case.

 

Of course "rest" doesn't necessarily mean "conclude" and a "case" can be a valise. Maybe I meant I set my suitcase down.

 

... you really are rather obtuse, aren't you. Try coming up with a proper argument. Learn what the 'etymological fallacy' consists of, because you're the one assuming etymology is all there is to meaning.

[Guest MadameX]

I've noticed this kind of fuzzy lack of clarity from many theists and feel like the definition of god to these types is the problem. If god  to them is defined as Everything That Is Good, Spirit Of Life, God is Truth, God is Beauty, God is the Wonder of Nature, etc etc the assumption seems to be that an atheist by definition is not awed by the wonders of nature, or does not feel joy and delight in life, etc etc

[florduh]

... you really are rather obtuse, aren't you.

 

I'm as obtuse as fuck, since I'm between 90 and 180 degrees. 

[Deva]

Ha Ha Florduh.  Thanks for the laugh! I needed it today.

[BrotherJosh]

I've noticed this kind of fuzzy lack of clarity from many theists and feel like the definition of god to these types is the problem. If god  to them is defined as Everything That Is Good, Spirit Of Life, God is Truth, God is Beauty, God is the Wonder of Nature, etc etc the assumption seems to be that an atheist by definition is not awed by the wonders of nature, or does not feel joy and delight in life, etc etc

 

That's where it gets messy. Oprah God becomes this fast and loose definition that people use to desperately try to pin you down with "hey, you believe in G/god!" 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

As imprecise as language may be, there ARE accepted definitions for certain words but people still feel free to twist it to their purpose. "Atheist" is a glaring example: THEIST = god(s) exist . . . ATHEIST = not a theist.

 

There seems to be an effort to redefine the "atheist" as part of a monolith that is certain God doesn't exist, that denies the existence of God, that has rejected God, that holds the belief that God doesn't exist. Subtle inferences, perhaps, but the devil is in the details.

 

No, Florduh, Atheists are just people who are angry at god.  Everybody knows that.  Hell, there wouldn't even be any atheists if god didn't exist for them to be mad at.

[ShackledNoMore]

So, I had an interesting conversation today where a large group of folks, including a few I trust, decided I should be considered an agnostic. I found this laughable, and figure it is a confusion of the definition of atheism and the philosophy behind atheism.

 

As a definition, I say I do not believe in any type of god/gods. Further than that, I make it clear this definition has nothing to do with proving god/gods exist or not. It is simply a lack of belief. Gods could very well be real, but that doesn't matter because I don't believe. Period.

 

This immediately sent a flurry of "You're an agnostic then", "You are saying you don't know if god/gods are real or not so therefore you are agnostic".

 

What am I missing here?  They insist that because I do not address the issue of proof in the definition, it makes me agnostic class?

 

 

I agree with you.  It's interesting that if you replace god with an invisible leprechaun in your garage that suddenly people don't seem to have this quibble.  The truth is, you can't make a positive assertion that there is no invisible leprechaun in your garage, yet I've never heard anyone try to belabor a point that a person is agnostic with respect to invisible garage leprechauns and not an a-invisible-garage-leprechaun-ist.

[kolaida]

People really are up in arms about how you define yourself. What's the big deal, either way? It's not up to them. Based off a couple sentences, they are trying to define-- why are they trying to define this even.  Oh, well, maybe they are just teasing you because they like you. 

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

People really are up in arms about how you define yourself. What's the big deal, either way? It's not up to them. Based off a couple sentences, they are trying to define-- why are they trying to define this even.  Oh, well, maybe they are just teasing you because they like you. 

No, it isn't because they like me. I think they are a bit rabid in their own lack of belief in anything. Well and they didn't like my broader tolerance than most that religion shouldn't be outlawed. I was also labeled a "liberal".

 

LOL, you know, if they met our founding fathers they probably would've been just as rude.

[Fweethawt]

You atheists can never agree on anything! And you all get your knowledge from (mostly) the same books! Its no wonder you have so many factions that spread hate, lies, bigotry and prejudice about each other! Its no wonder you are continuously at war, killing one another -- especially those who dont agree with your particular brand of atheism!!!!

 

You're a disgrace to humanity!!!

 

 

 

 

 

Hey, wait a minute... I think I got mixed up and I'm in the wrong thread. Sorry.

 

Carry on…