Who are "no religion" people?

[sdelsolray]

The word "atheist" has gained much baggage, so much so that use of the term, without further discussion, will often result in poor communication.

 

I think use of the 4-way chart (see above in mymistake's post) is the better way to do it.  Yes, it requires use of a modifier, but so what?

 

gnostic theist

agnostic theist

agnostic atheist

gnostic atheist

 

If a person doesn't understand what I mean by stating, "I am an agnostic atheist", I can explain the meaning as being a statement of my claimed knowledge and a statement of my claimed belief, put together.  I've done this many times with theists, and most get it.  As a followup, it is natural to ask them, "Are you a gnostic theist or agnostic theist?"  Many have never thought about this before and have difficulty answering it for their own account.  And it doesn't really matter which they choose.

[Joshpantera]

9 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

If a person doesn't understand what I mean by stating, "I am an agnostic atheist", I can explain the meaning as being a statement of my claimed knowledge and a statement of my claimed belief, put together.  I've done this many times with theists, and most get it.  As a followup, it is natural to ask them, "Are you a gnostic theist or agnostic theist?"  Many have never thought about this before and have difficulty answering it for their own account.  And it doesn't really matter which they choose.

 

LF recently posted a good debate where the apologist was backed into a corner about his agnostic theism. He didn't want to own it. And quickly changed the subject. It was pretty funny. And it sort of leveled the playing the field further because it was a debate between an agnostic theist and an agnostic atheist. The discourse was more or less very civil. 

 

I would think that most people who identify as agnostics here at ex-C, and abroad, are actually agnostic atheist's when you really get down to it and place knowledge and belief in their own categories and properly define the terminology. 

[TABA]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I would think that most people who identify as agnostics here at ex-C, and abroad, are actually agnostic atheist's when you really get down to it and place knowledge and belief in their own categories and properly define the terminology.

 

 

I would agree with this as far as members here at ex-C are concerned but I suspect that a lot of people in the wider world who call themselves ‘agnostics’ just haven’t thought about it very much and are hedging, or just don’t care that much.  Declaring yourself an ex-Christian, on the other hand, is not something you do lightly.  In an ideal world, everybody would know what they believe - and why they believe it. 

[mymistake]

11 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

 gnostic theist

agnostic theist

agnostic atheist

gnostic atheist

 

If a person doesn't understand what I mean by stating, "I am an agnostic atheist", I can explain the meaning as being a statement of my claimed knowledge and a statement of my claimed belief, put together.  I've done this many times with theists, and most get it.  As a followup, it is natural to ask them, "Are you a gnostic theist or agnostic theist?"  Many have never thought about this before and have difficulty answering it for their own account.  And it doesn't really matter which they choose.

 

Well said.  We want to raise awareness and increase understanding for all involved.  I'm going to do my best to use the two word descriptions from now on.  I'm wondering if agnostic secular/gnostic secular works.  It doesn't seem to flow right because secular is an adjective while atheist is a noun.  Hmmm . . . grammar is not my cup of tea.  Any suggestions?

[sdelsolray]

1 hour ago, mymistake said:

 

Well said.  We want to raise awareness and increase understanding for all involved.  I'm going to do my best to use the two word descriptions from now on.  I'm wondering if agnostic secular/gnostic secular works.  It doesn't seem to flow right because secular is an adjective while atheist is a noun.  Hmmm . . . grammar is not my cup of tea.  Any suggestions?

 

I think using "agnostic secular" or "agnostic secularist" would be confusing to many folks.  Secular is a noun.  It is another word that is misunderstood, particularly by many theists.  Secularist is an adjective but with a narrow meaning, at least in the dictionary.  Agnostic can be a noun or an adjective, depending on context.

 

I think the 4-way designation works well and using it has the best chance at good communication:

 

gnostic theist

agnostic theist

agnostic atheist

gnostic atheist

 

There's a current discussion on this topic here, beginning at Post #23:

 

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?13096-The-Solution-To-Theism/page3

 

 

[ContraBardus]

17 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Let's look at the most popular definitions now, to check your assertion. 

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism 

 

noun

1.

the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

2.

disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

 

Definition of atheism

1a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

2archaic : godlessness especially in conduct : ungodliness, wickedness

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism

 

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheism

 

a·the·ism

  (ā′thē-ĭz′əm)

n.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

http://www.yourdictionary.com/atheist

 

noun

The definition of an atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of any kind of God or higher power.

atheist

a person who believes that there is no God

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Let's not go any further without making sure to first look at how atheism is currently defined on large scale. 

 

It's defined right now by conflating both agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism for the sake of making a single definition for the word atheism. Most dictionaries online include the root meaning of a simple lack of belief in the existence of gods, the soft definition. But they also add the hard definition to cover both bases. This gives the impression of conflating both the soft and hard definitions into the generic term, "atheism," as our current state of affairs. 

 

There's currently both a negative and positive assertion roped in together to define atheism in most dictionaries. 

 

By negative I mean a simple lack of belief in gods. 

 

And by positive I mean a belief that gods do not exist.

 

I tend to think that even in the case of gnostic atheist's, knowing gods do not exist, they too are blanketed by agnostic atheism by necessity and so it's all consuming across the board in atheism in that way. 

 

Why? 

 

Because it's impossible to know anything with certainty out to beyond our range of perception out to infinity. Literally no one can know anything beyond a certain point. We can know all sorts of things about how religious traditional gods are man made and evolved. But at some point we loose all knowledge. So agnostic atheism over rides and consumes gnostic atheism (1), has the traditional usage of the soft defintion (2), and is in accord with the root meaning of the word itself, meaning simply, "not-god belief" (3). 

 

So the argument from the atheist organizations is a sound argument. They've obviously thought this through and understand their position taking. I'm not sure if their efforts are the reason we find dual definitions of both soft and hard atheism on just about every dictionary today or what. But they have been campaigning that way so it may be.  

 

 

 

I don't agree, and let's not. I already covered and rebutted these exact points already earlier in the thread anyway. More than once actually.

 

Quote

This did get a little out of hand around the end of page three.

We usually confine this sort of stuff to ToT, but semantics or not, I still say it's on topic, even if only barely. If only because it's hashing out the terminology related to the original post regarding the people the question was about.

I think it's probably run its course though and that we did indeed overdo it a bit. There's nothing to be gained by continuing at this point, so I'm done arguing the grammar and definition of the term Atheist.

 

[Joshpantera]

11 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

 

I think using "agnostic secular" or "agnostic secularist" would be confusing to many folks.  Secular is a noun.  It is another word that is misunderstood, particularly by many theists.  Secularist is an adjective but with a narrow meaning, at least in the dictionary.  Agnostic can be a noun or an adjective, depending on context.

 

I think the 4-way designation works well and using it has the best chance at good communication:

 

gnostic theist

agnostic theist

agnostic atheist

gnostic atheist

 

There's a current discussion on this topic here, beginning at Post #23:

 

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?13096-The-Solution-To-Theism/page3

 

 

 

I've gone through the link. 

 

The idealized atheist progression of logic purportedly flows from because we have no empiracically reliable evidence, we therefore remain without a belief that there is a God. The truth, however, more likely flows for many in the other direction. We are told there is a God and tend to believe what we're told but after questioning the belief tend to have a diminished belief. The reason for the lack of belief is not exactly the lack of evidence first but rather lack of evidence second. These atheists (true atheists) are ones that have actually come to hold a belief opposite of theists. Their justification for their belief is something they think is lacking--lack of empiracle evidence.

 

When I think back on how I lost belief in god, it could be described as an abrupt lack of belief. Empirical evidence wasn't a big thing at the time. It was probably part of it. But it was more of a realization, a sort of personal revelation that hit me quickly and all at once. Saying a prayer one night before bed and having the reality that I was merely talking to myself, in my own mind, set in real up front and surreal right then. It was emotional, to be honest. I had this wave of shame, embarrassment, and humiliation come over me all at once. It wasn't a very good feeling. It's like I shinned a stage light on that personal delusion and was caught red handed, by myself. 

 

But I was very anti-religion and against theistic belief, too. 

 

Like a hard and soft atheist rolled into one, in different ways. I still am, really. I sympathize with the gnostic atheist position, but understand that it can only be applied to a certain range of circumstances. As far as knowing goes, I feel like I know enough to place my bet on their being no gods out there. There's a problem with defining what exactly a god is, and then who's definition of god. This is all gnostic atheist content. I see how one could take the position of knowing gods do not exist until proven otherwise. But technically we can't very well get away with claiming to know that 100%

 

For the sake of deconverts, not being able to say 100% gives the impression that maybe gods could exist then. To doubt, doubt, in a way. 

 

But the sort of god that this clause addresses is no different than anything else I could assert existing out there. Like the celestial Blue Marlin. That's not very practical or substantial for the case of the existence of a god. It may as well not exist, just as anything else clearly made up may as well be taken to not exist as well. Finally, I decided that taking a bit of a gnostic stance is probably for the best. Simply because taking the wishy washy aspect away is probably for the best. For all intensive purposes, gods don't exist.

 

So if this is what the dictionaries want, to conflate gnostic and agnostic, hard and soft definition atheists, then why don't we just conflate the two as they wish and pack the full punch of them both? 

 

Gnostic to the extent of where knowledge claims can be taken, agnostic the rest of the way. 

 

Having said that, I wonder if that more or less covers where a lot of people these days are at with it. Because of the internet and information availability age, we can know just about everything there is to know, not withstanding knowing that ultimately we do not know. I'm sure that describes a shit load of atheists. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mymistake]

10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Like a hard and soft atheist rolled into one, in different ways. I still am, really. I sympathize with the gnostic atheist position, but understand that it can only be applied to a certain range of circumstances. As far as knowing goes, I feel like I know enough to place my bet on their being no gods out there. There's a problem with defining what exactly a god is, and then who's definition of god. This is all gnostic atheist content. I see how one could take the position of knowing gods do not exist until proven otherwise. But technically we can't very well get away with claiming to know that 100%

 

For the sake of deconverts, not being able to say 100% gives the impression that maybe gods could exist then. To doubt, doubt, in a way. 

 

But the sort of god that this clause addresses is no different than anything else I could assert existing out there. Like the celestial Blue Marlin. That's not very practical or substantial for the case of the existence of a god. It may as well not exist, just as anything else clearly made up may as well be taken to not exist as well. Finally, I decided that taking a bit of a gnostic stance is probably for the best. Simply because taking the wishy washy aspect away is probably for the best. For all intensive purposes, gods don't exist.

 

So if this is what the dictionaries want, to conflate gnostic and agnostic, hard and soft definition atheists, then why don't we just conflate the two as they wish and pack the full punch of them both? 

 

Gnostic to the extent of where knowledge claims can be taken, agnostic the rest of the way. 

 

Having said that, I wonder if that more or less covers where a lot of people these days are at with it. Because of the internet and information availability age, we can know just about everything there is to know, not withstanding knowing that ultimately we do not know. I'm sure that describes a shit load of atheists. 

 

 

I think it's a common struggle.  On top of all of that, people have emotional certainty that has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with how long one has held an idea.  It can be hard to go against your own emotional certainty.