Brother Daniel

This sounds like the sort of thing that (I would guess) would have been hashed over before. If so, would someone kindly point me to an old thread?

Rusting Car Bumper

Definitions are decided by usage. As for "atheist" there is no single definition that properly encompases all people who are atheists.

Most of these discussions that argue about the atheist vs. agnostic difference tend to take the approach that there is a single definition for each of these terms.

If I had to pick a single "litmus test" it would be that "an atheist is someone who is not convinced of the existence of gods." This encompases people who positively believe that gods don't (or can't) exist and people who claim a "lack of belief." It's not meant to be a definition but simply a test to see if one might be an atheist.

The "hard" and "soft" dichotomy is particularly misleading. It leads people to believe that atheists are.. well.. a dichotomy when in fact that actual beliefs regarding gods are more complex than these two categories.

DC

[ October 27, 2002: Message edited by: DigitalChicken ]</p>

galiel

What other possible categories are there?

Philosoft

If we're talking strictly about self-reported strength of belief, it might be more accurately called a continuum.

galiel

I disagree. There are two ways of exploring this:

1) through the lens of one's theoretical opinion, in the abstract, about one's belief in the existence of god;

2) Judging by the way one acts in the world as a result of #1. That is, the conclusions one draws from one's belief in the existence or non-existence of god.

#1 Has, as far as I can tell, only three (and a half) mutually exclusive possibilities:

A) there is significant evidence to prove the existence of god(theism), or

B)there is significant evidence to conclude that there is no god (strong atheists)--or at least to conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support believe in a god(since if one follows the scientific method, one cannot absolutely prove a negative), or

C)there is no evidence either way, in which case one may chose:
__C1)to act as if there is a god (Pascal's Wagerites, who are for all intents and purposes theists), or
__C2)to act as if there isn't (weak atheists).

There are also deists, who believe in a god (akin to theists), but only in the sense of an original creator, not in the sense of an entity whose current existence dictates one's behavior in any way (akin to strong or weak atheists).

Now, as for
#2, how one actually lives one's life, as opposed to utterly theoretical philosophical discussions, it seems to me that there are only two mutually exclusive possibilities:

A) Those who act as if god cares (theists and Pascal's Wagerites), and

B) Those who act as if there is no god to care (strong and weak atheists and deists).

By the way, I think #2 matters a hell of a lot more than #1, because #1 is only in your own head, and #2 effects the rest of the world.

I fail to see how one can have a "continuum" of disbelief in god, or a gradient of belief in god. one may draw a wide gamut of conclusions from this fundamental belief as far as how one acts, but one can no more be "kind of" a believer or "kind of" an atheist than one can be "kind of" pregnant.

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Janaya

Existential claims are not provable and therefore irrelevant.

Theists have God-claims.

Atheists do not accept said God-claims.

Agnostics are in reality...everyone. (See my first statement above)

Peace,
Janaya

galiel

I know this is a foreign concept to a theist,Janaya, but how about letting everyone define themselves, rather than saying that "everyone" is an agnostic.

We are trying to achieve clarity here, not to tell people what they are.

Philosoft

I don't disagree. I was talking about the things people say about their own beliefs. People have many different ways of talking about how "strongly" they believe or disbelieve.

Janaya

galiel,

What gave you the impression that I am a theist?

I do let people define themselves. If a person says that they are agnostic (or whatever) I certainly do not argue with them. (The only time I might disagree with them would be if the sharp line between atheism/theism is not respected.) If a precise definition of their position is relevant then I simply ask them to clarify their stance. I believe my post was an accurate assessment.

I think that to do more than what I posted needlessly confuses the issue.

But aren't you?

Peace,
Janaya

P.S. I get the impression that I am not welcome to post in this thread. Please let me know if I am in error. I would not want to misunderstand.

galiel

A misunderstanding, apparently. Do you believe in supernatural forces, or are you an atheist?

I certainly don't think I am. I merely responded to your assertion that
which, to me, implied that you were overriding what people call themselves and telling them they are agnostics, no matter what they say. My post, to which you responded, was focused on definitions, not telling people that they don't believe what they say they believe. I may think that theists are deluded, but I don't doubt their firm belief in god.

Since I am merely an ordinary iidb member just like you, I cannot speak for anyone else. I have certainly not meant to imply, in any way, shape or form, that you or anyone else does not have the same right that I do to post in this thread or any other.