Look guys, if you go back and read all my posts here, you will see that I NEVER told you you couldn't use your definition of atheism. I only came back repeatedly when you would revert back to your definition as the only one. I see this conversation as going round and round because you two and others like Olympus Mons would come in after we had basically amicably settled the whole spectrum of atheisms thing and revive it by (once again) asserting that your weak, "agnostic atheism" was the correct way to use the term.

As JM has graciously conceded, those people who form clubs (as well as proselytize, agitate, write controversial books etc.) are nearly always of the strong variety. This is pretty much my entire point in a few posts. If you self-identify as an atheist, you may not be ready to join an association of atheists, but you are certainly not simply the guy who has less than certain belief, acknowledges the possibility but finds there to be not enough evidence... and certainly not someone with a total lack of any belief.

We are not dealing with people being classified by others, but people who call themselves something.

Sure, those of us who are familiar with these terms might offer a classification for someone or choose to debate a classification that someone applies when it seems there is a better (more specific) term available. Theology and Philosophy (to the dismay of many) ARE in fact academic subjects and follow the same rules of logic and rationality as most sciences. Thus, it is nearly always preferable to use the most specific term you can in describing something. This is no different than physics.

I acknowledge your right to use broad versions of terms that I feel would be better left narrow, especially when there are other words that already describe said usage of the term. But I will still stick to terms that describe more accurately what I am talking about. I find that, by and large, self proclaimed atheists nearly always disbelieve in gods... often with some equivocation about not being able to be 100% sure, but still 99.99999% certain that gods don't exist any more than Santa or the Easter Bunny.

However, when they smell a debate in the air, a lot of them are sharp enough to realize that you can not successfully debate the strong atheist position, so they revert to a weak stance for the purpose of argument as it places them on more solid ground. It is rather disingenuous IMO, and I think that if you want to defend agnosticism defend agnosticism... Only, no one ever debates against agnosticism. If you have no belief, or believe you can't know, people tend to accept that as a rational position and move on.

Atheists nearly always fall back on this ludicrous "burden of proof" argument. As if they are sitting in a hall of learning and some theists just rushed in with wild new claims. Fact is, that belief in gods goes back to before there was written history. There has never actually been a human civilization that was devoid of theism... and most of them were actually centered around theism.

Atheism is actually the newcomer on the block. And yet, theists generally don't try to shift the burden of proof onto the atheist. Why? Because theists are comfortable with the idea that these things are not provable. They have faith for the most part (something I don't ascribe to at all BTW). The fact of the matter is that most theists are ALSO agnostics. Therefore conducting a debate between theism and atheism and then attempting to corner agnosticism for the atheists is a clumsy and unhelpful debate technique. I would say 90% of the theists in the world do not hold certain beliefs in the existence of deities either.

I don't find that anyone steps into a theological debate wanting to debate whether or not it is rational to not accept other people's unfounded claims about deities. The lines of debate are generally "Are there such things as G*d and/or gods?" "Is it rational to be 'gnostic' one way or another on this subject?" etc. Someone with no belief whatsoever is generally not asked to debate that subject.

So in the end, the burden of proof doesn't exist in theological debates. You could apply it to Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons who come knocking at your door trying to convert or evangelize to you. In fact, when debating RELIGION, I find no issue with asking people to prove to you why you should buy their BS. Philosophical debates about theism are not religious though, and simply try to identify more precisely exactly what people really think about the idea of divinity or superhuman entities.

In truth, as you both have said, the semantics don't matter in practice. You are what you are, the Universe is what it is, and your beliefs on this stuff will likely change no matter what they start out being.


You asked for some links...
Here is Atheism.net http://www.atheist.net/article/article_352.html "God's Don't Exist."

Here is Penn Jillete going beyond atheism to anti-theism (something I have heard both Hitchens and Dawkins say about themselves) http://www.npr.org/templ...tory.php?storyId=5015557

This is only logical. If you are going to go on TV to promote something... it is basically always a belief you believe strongly in and want to convince others to adopt. Why would any weak atheist (agnostic) go on TV trumpeting their un-sureness?

Here is a kind of weak debate between a strong atheist and a Christian Apologetic. http://carm.org/atheist-says-he-knows-there-no-god It is mostly only interesting as they discuss the difference between strong and weak... agree that weak is actually agnosticism and that only agnosticism makes sense... and yet both still decide to take sides as irrational as they may be. This is generally the case with this stuff.

Here is a rant about the legions of people who promote Atheism. http://articles.latimes....ay/17/opinion/oe-allen17 In this Charlotte Allen attempts to point out the lazy philosophy involved in the Hitchens, Dawkins & especially Sam Harris stances on atheism, and points to a ton of websites and forums where atheists by and large make fun of "stupid" religious people, and assert vehemently both that G*d absolutely doesn't exist AND that if he did he would be an evil, misogynistic, homophobic psychopath. These are certainly not weak atheists. Read the arrogant quotes from Hitchens & Dawkins for a clear example of what a "real" published atheist has to say.

I could point you to reams of books, videos, interviews and texts... but I have other things to do. Google any theological debate on atheism going back to the middle ages. I think you will find that weak atheism is merely a fallback position for atheists or an attempt to define agnostics as atheists for the most part. Those people who stand up and claim to be atheists nearly always have a strong belief that there are no gods.

Perhaps you could point me to the plethora of websites, journals, books and forums which promote a purely agnostic view of atheism?

Theism is a model of conceptualization and admits to having insufficient evidence to convince skeptics. So is Atheism.

RELIGION, is something else entirely. It is a cultural, historical and social construct that often has very little to do with theism. Most people in any church, mosque or synagogue would classify as agnostics... and the ones who don't are often dangerous.

Still, this changes nothing. The atheism v. theism debate is not a debate about religion. Ancient Aliens Theory is a form of theism, for example, but clearly not any sort of religion.


This.

Agnosticism is the only rationally defensible stance here... though I am not an agnostic, I concede this wholeheartedly (once again).

This is my position as well...however I extend it to possibilianism and other modes of engaging with this that operate within the "traditionally" agnostic space.

I continue to assert that "agnostic" does not fit in between atheist and theist... but I don't say my way is the only way of looking at it, actually I've conceded a couple of times that I don't view it as important, but I keep going back to it because you insist that it is not a legitimate way of viewing things by saying things like...



Don't you see the hypocrisy of accusing us of being rigid with our definitions and then claiming you know the "true" meaning? Like I said, I've conceded a couple of times that I think words are malleable and that I don't think it's of great importance.

The odd thing to me is that you recognize weak atheism and strong atheism, but for some reason there is a disconnect and you tell yourself that weak atheism isn't atheism.



Again you claim to have some kind of certainty about what someone who identifies as an atheist is saying about themselves. I definitely AM a guy who has less than certain belief. I DO acknowledge the possibility but find no evidence. Granted I don't have a total lack of belief with regards to claims made by people... but in regards to the "vague abstraction that is "god"" I have no belief because I don't know what that means. I don't see how you people find it so hard to understand that my brain just doesn't assign a truth value to some abstract concept that I don't have any experience of and that doesn't manifest in reality (and if it does it is indistinguishable to me from something that doesn't)



Right but why is it you feel they should be left narrow? You claim things like you are using "theological definitions", could you show those to me? You claim philosophy is on your side, I can't really comment on that since most of the philosophy I have read uses the same definition of atheist as me, so I guess I could say philosophy is on my side too. You say history is on your side, well the word agnostic doesn't date back very long at all... unlike the atheist vs theist debate. You seem to have failed to acknowledge that.

I do disbelieve in gods, I disbelieve in the Abrahamic god... but I don't disbelieve in the concept of god outright. Again, I just don't understand why you find that so difficult to grasp. The gods that have been presented, to me, are not backed up by anything substantial and are internally contradictory in their teachings. So I disbelieve. The abstract notion of some entity outside our universe who had some kind of hand in creating our universe is NOT something I have any way of knowing one way or the other, and I have no way of even assessing the probability in any meaningful way... so why would I hold a belief on it? Or rather, how could I hold a belief on it? If you mean just go on gut feeling, I have no gut feeling about it. Same as if someone asked me who was going to win in a football match between two teams I had never heard of, I would have no gut feeling. In this instance the two teams are "there are some kind of god/s" and "there are no kind of god/s", I have no knowledge of anything outside my universe, so for all intents and purposes these two teams are equally matched (when it is the nondescript god without a bunch of specific characteristics).



I think you are just hearing what you want to hear in these debates. My position is always fairly consistent I think, and the majority of debates I have watched are the same.



So truth is determined by age? The fact that a claim was made by people thousands of years ago, with a lot less understanding of their surroundings than we have, means it has some weight in terms of validity? That seems counter-intuitive at best.

This ludicrous "burden of proof" argument is really very simple. If someone asserts something, they must provide evidence of their assertion. Otherwise I have no reason to take them seriously. That is why atheists reject the specific claims made by religions, and it doesn't matter if you think people don't need to provide evidence for their claims... people like me will still require it anyway

You hold a position on it, but you hold it based on subjective experience and you don't seem to expect others to share your belief, you admit it is based on subjective experience. That's fine, you don't need to prove your own experiences to me... but your experiences do not dictate reality. You could be right, you could be wrong. If you tell me you are right and I am wrong, that is a claim that is either true or false and has a burden of proof on your part, which if you do not meet I will dismiss your claim... not assert that you are wrong, just not accept your claim.



I think we are watching different debates, lol. I always see theists shifting the burden of proof. I also see many theists attempting to prove god with logic, or makinf claims about the contents of certain books proving that those books are accurate. There probably are many theists who are comfortable with the idea that these things are not provable, but there are also barrel loads of theists who believe they have proof and that we should all believe them. Philosophical debates are all well and good, but they really don't seem to get us any closer to the truth. I have never seen a convincing philosophical argument for the existence of a god, or really for the non-existence of god either (as in, the abstract, non-specific god... I've seen plenty of convincing arguments for the non-existence of specific gods).



Some random atheist who happens to be a strong atheist. Ok great, so we have established that there are strong atheists in the world. I can live with that

Penn jillette... another strong atheist, for sure. Also an anti-theist, a position I don't necessarily hold but I can certainly understand it.

The next one is a debate Matt Slick, I have watched a full unedited debate between him and Matt Dillahunty on youtube, Matt Slick is a joke and is incredibly dishonest. I'm not even inclined to accept that conversation as something that definitely happened, I think it is entirely likely Matt Slick just made that whole thing up. But that is irrelevant, it could just as easily be true and that would be an example of a gnostic atheist with a rather heavy burden of proof to meet. I rare thing indeed.

The next one is a mainstream american media piece written by the author of "The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus".

So in response to my asking you to present some atheists backing up your definition of atheism you have presented me with a nobody, a magician and two christians. I should probably have been more specific. I'm looking for things that back up your position that strong atheism is the true atheism and weak atheism is not atheism, backed up by well known atheists... one's who have written books, or taken part in serious theological debates. I could just as easily find some internet nobody who would make any number of claims about the meaning of the word "theism". If you like you could just show me the "theological definitions" you are using, since "theological definitions" is not a term i had heard before you used it.



I agree they can sometimes be quite arrogant, but they definitely agree with my view of the word atheism. As i've said, Dawkins has identified himself as an atheist, an agnostic and an agnostic atheist on several occasions. I actually don't really like the way Hitchens and Dawkins are. I do believe they feel they are certain, although they would not admit such a thing in a debate. I'm not convinced you have done any serious reading from either of them though.



In the middle ages the term agnostic did not exist, and I don't doubt there were plenty of strong atheists back then as well as plenty of weak atheists. But the mere fact that you keep invoking centuries old history seems to just make your position of atheism - agnosticism - theism even harder to hold to, since back then it was just atheism - theism, with theism being believing in a god and atheism being not believing in a god. The word agnostic was only introduced in the late 1800's.

Again you say that people who claim to be atheists nearly always have a strong belief that there are no gods... seriously? Which atheists are you talking to, and are you actually listening to them? No atheist in this thread has taken that position, so it is certainly not true of most atheists in this thread. Most of the atheists I have spoken to, and ALL of the atheists I know in real life (almost all, if not all of my friends are atheist) do not hold a strong belief that there are no gods.



I am not going to point you to a plethora of books, journals and sites that promote a purely agnostic view of atheism, since I am not asserting that there is no such thing as strong (or even gnostic) atheism. If you just mean point you to writings etc by people who hold an agnostic atheist position, I will just point you to every popular atheist of the day. The "strong belief" part (if that is what you insist on calling it) is when specific claims are made about specific gods and specific books, which not only fail to meet their burden of proof but also give a multitude of reasons to think they are false.

As much as i am enjoying this HF, I don't think I have the energy to keep doing it. You keep saying one thing, I keep saying the other. No doubt your response will just be a re-hashing of what has already been said (same as this one by me more or less was) and then my next response would just be the same. I am happy to keep going round and round, and probably whatever response you give me I will be compelled to answer But really I'm quite happy to just agree to disagree, if you will stop asserting that you are "correct" and I am "incorrect" and that the definition of atheism I am using is flawed where yours is not flawed. I am not saying you are completely wrong, I'm just saying that my view (a view held by the majority of atheists i have spoken to, on and offline and also in this thread) is at least as valid

Well the definition of atheism you are using is flawed. Whether you agree with that or not. We have actual definitions of words and we should use them.

Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
Agnostic: a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic
Theist: belief in the existence of a god or gods

Atheist ---- Agnostic --- Theist.

As was early pointed out it is a continuum.


Having largely stayed out of this thread I'm sincerely curious about one primary question.

Why do people cling to labels? What does it matter if the word agnostic more correctly describes your view than atheist? Your view is your view. Isn't that all that matters?

Discuss your views. Ignore your labels. All in my most humble opinion.

Peace

You evidently haven't read this thread or you would see that the "actual definitions" are not as simple as you just pulling the first definition that you get when you type "define atheism" into google and then claiming that is the correct definition.

Oxford English Dictionary:

Definition of atheism
noun
[mass noun]
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

That continuum has been pointed out, as has this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...ism#Types_of_agnosticism (note the picture, which is different from your continuum)

I agree completely with your last part. I identify as atheist because that is the word that I find best describes my position. It is other people (now you) who are saying I should label myself what they believe is the correct label, I have stated again and again that I don't think the labels are important. it is what the label points to, the underlying position, that is important.

No offence, but all you done there was basically say "I am right and here is my correct view of things". Just out of curiosity, where did you pull your one and only correct definition of atheism from? If it was a dictionary, then that won't hold well with Hyperspace Fool, who says that using a dictionary definition of a word is an argument from authority

Peace right back at ya It's hard to discuss these things without it appearing confrontational.

Hahaha

I am genuinely happy to have read your reply. It was fun.

I don't disagree with you nearly as much as you suppose I do.

In essence, our debate is now reduced to:

Is the weak, broad and implicit definition of Atheism

1) as valid as the traditional strong definition?

perhaps


2) useful?

unsure. as we all know... the weak atheism is already covered by the term

AGNOSTIC

3) a fair picture of the majority of self-described atheists?

Well, this is the big one.

If you look at major websites for atheism, international organizations for atheists, and so on.... I submit that active, vocal atheists are not generally of the weak variety.


I don't actually care what you call yourself. I have been having fun with this because I am weird like that.

But in essence, we all know that LUCY IN THE SKY WITH DIAMONDS is the only deity that ever can or will exist in all dimensions of Wonderland.



If Cher introducing Elton John singing about LSD on TV doesn't prove that there is a G*d then nothing will...

Well actually I've been following this thread for awhile now. I have read every post several times. So rest assured I'm not just jumping in to take a side.

Also, you obviously have the right to label yourself as you see fit, but your label is confusing (even if supported by a dictionary definition). It tries to support a binary system of Atheist vs Theist when there is a third category needed to describe the person who sits on the fence. Hear me out..

The reason we need the third category is because the words Atheist and Theist are opposites. Ignore any dictionary definitions for a minute.

Theism means "Belief that god exists" I think everyone agrees on that...at least roughly agrees.
The A prefix, in Atheist, essentially means a negation (without or not).

All this confusion is arising from the point of negation IMHO.

Take this pair of statements.

1) I believe God does not exists
2) I believe God does exist.

vs.

1) I do not believe God exists.
2) I do believe God exists.

Notice the difference? The differences is at the point of negation.
The first pair deal with the negation of God's existence while the second pair deal with the negation of belief.

Since the words theism deals with a specific belief about God then negation should be placed on the word God and not on the word belief. IMHO. Also as I noted earlier, a person can't not have a belief on this subject.

I guess I'll come out and say it. The oxford english definition is insufficient to describe the plethora of views we humans have on this issue. They also only provide ONE definition when other dictionaries provide multiple. I know Oxford English dictionary is one of the bigger ones, but that does not make them right.... and no I'm not really going to try and argue against the dictionary, but I am going to politely disagree with it's definitions because there are other dictionary definitions that are more descriptive and ultimately cause less confusion on the subject.

Because of this we need a third category. Some people BELIEVE that they can't know. They are open to the possibility of God, but don't proclaim to believe he is a certainty.

The reason it's a continuum is because even though people call themselves agnostic, they still have some belief, or hint of belief that tips them in either direction. It's not possible to actually not have a belief. Before you disagree with me ponder that statement. If you have an opinion or a view you have a belief. How could you have a view or opinion without a belief? So an agnostic's belief is that he doesn't know.

Me. I'm an agnostic-theist. I believe it can't be known with human reason, but I still believe there is a god of sorts. Though the bearded sky buddy model is no longer an option for me.

Anyway I am really not going to stay in this rabbit hole with ya'll. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter what the label is. It's your belief or view that defines you...unless of course you insist on using a label that others assign other meanings to.

I think for the sake of all this, maybe agreeing to generalize would speed things up.

Labels do have some importance btw. The point of a label is to announce your stand point without hving to explain it. This way the debate can take the proper direction so one can argue there points. An athiest and an athiest would have many different things to argue about than: athiest/theist, agnostic/athiest ect.

HF, I don't really see the importance on specific labels. I think general labels are precise enough for a forum thread like this one and the specifics can be explained in your arguments. I'm not targeting just you. I don't see the relevance in debating over specifics of definitions. Not only that but I think it becomes ridiculous when we start coming up with new branches of atheism.

You either believe there is a god, don't, or am not sure. That's why their are those 3 labels. To keep it simple and that's all it should be.

HF -

It seems we have reached some kind of agreement, or at least an agreeable disagreement

It's always interesting going through these things. It seems like most of the time the people involved (myself included) will come out of it with very similar views to what they started with. But it is worthwhile anyway since any time I enter into one of these conversations I am given a little bit more to think about. In this case I haven't been given anything extra to think about in regards to "god", but in terms of how I view language and how I decide which definition of a word I use it has been an interesting exchange

One more small point, you say weak atheism is covered by agnostic. So an agnostic (weak atheist) is someone who doesn't believe in a god but doesn't hold the definite position that there are no gods. What would you call a weak theist? Someone who does hold god beliefs, but doesn't think they are necessarily correct? Would you just call them an agnostic as well? Because this would certainly confuse the situation in my opinion, and would make me more inclined to favour the agnostic/gnostic - theism/atheism model.


Joedirt -

You realize you're not arguing against me at all. You just identified yourself as an agnostic theist, and I have said I am an agnostic atheist. but the term "agnostic" on it's own doesn't tell you anything, it doesn't even tell you what is being discussed. You can be agnostic about any topic (check your own stated "correct" definition for confirmation of that). By identifying as an agnostic theist, and not just a theist, you are using the same model as me. You are a theist, and I am an atheist... but in regards to claimed knowledge, we are both agnostic in our beliefs.

WEAK THEISM should be a band.

If it is not, let's start it.

I purport that most theists are weak. But then, I am a mystic, and I like my theism direct and in your face. My brood are the "extreme sports" version of theologians. EnTHEOgenic Mystics FTW!

PanOmniEntheism is my theological flavor du jour.

Mysticism is not something I really know anything about, but if this... (from wikipedia)

Mysticism ( pronunciation (help·info); from the Greek μυστικός, mystikos, meaning 'an initiate' is the knowledge of, and especially the personal experience of, states of consciousness, or levels of being, or aspects of reality, beyond normal human perception, sometimes including experience of and even communion with a supreme being.

...is what you mean by being a mystic, I think pretty much everyone on this forum (including me) would fall into that category

I think most of us experience states of consciousness and aspects of reality that are pretty far removed from what would be considered "normal human perception". I've certainly communicated with what may well have been a supreme being, I just don't think subjective experience under the influence of powerful psychedelics is enough for me to build a belief around.

Yes spiritual belief is a model of conceptualization, my point is that that spiritualism does a much better job of describing the human experience than does science.

Also I am going to have to agree with joe dirt that the debate should be mainly centered on actual veiws and less on semantical combat.

I believe the human beings tendency to label in excess can be an unhealthy one.
Our "labels" solidify an illusionary concept of the world IMO. For example most of us here realize that a tree is a mysterious and mystical thing in many ways, whether you believe in God or not.....

However our label of a tree as a tree confines us into thinking a tree is a mundane inanimate object when in fact it is a thing of unspeakable beauty. The label can be expanded to describe the tree better saying it's a pine tree or a spruce tree, however no matter how many labels you put on a tree in will never convey the infinite beauty and mystery of that tree.

No I'm arguing against the definitions you are using. Your stance I'm not disagreeing with at all.

All this confusion is arising from the point of negation IMHO.

Take this pair of statements.

1) I believe God does not exists
2) I believe God does exist.

vs.

1) I do not believe God exists.
2) I do believe God exists.

Notice the difference? The differences is at the point of negation.
The first pair deal with the negation of God's existence while the second pair deal with the negation of belief.

I don't understand what gives people so much faith in "sober reality" This world is FILLED with people who have never taken a psycedelic in their life and yet these people are more dellusional than any one of us....

Have you not noticed that psychedelics actually work to shatter dellusion??? Look at most political figures and conservative church people for example...they are bat sh*t crazy!!!!!
and they have never taken a psychedelic and never will....(examples: Sarah Palin, Jack Van Impe, Pat Robertson)

The ego structure of humans is so powerful that it just builds delusion after delusion. Look around you at others who do not take psychedelics and tell me again that you trust your sober mind to accurately portray reality to you.


Also you said...




They are necessary but the tendency for human beings is to lose themselves n the label to the point where the label is indestinguishable with their identity...No human should label their own identity IMO. Labeling onseself just serves to make that person less of who they really are...infinite.

I agree with you here. The label "tree" really doesn't capture the reality of it. It also convinces us that things are separate, the tree is separate from the ground and the ground is separate from us and so on, when in reality that is not the case. Everything is connected. And, even looking at it from a purely materialistic viewpoint, it boils down to earth (and the universe) being just a massive cloud of interconnected energy. Even our perception of "solid" is just an illusion. The closer humanity has looked at our surroundings the more we are realising that what we perceive as reality is just a comfortable construct of our consciousness and really isn't an accurate representation of what reality is. I really don't know enough about quantum theory to be able to understand anything more than just having a vague awareness that all is not what it seems, and drugs like DMT certainly seem to back that notion up, lol.

But labels are necessary, life would be an unbelievably tedious thing if we didn't label things. It's easier to say "lets meet at that tree" than to try to explain all the characteristics of that particular part of the intricate cloud of energy in which we find ourselves

"You either believe there is a god, don't, or am not sure."

Bit too linear for my liking but w/e floats your boat.

Agreed. And that ignores the fact that humans are really a system of processes, and that these processes are changing and conflicting all the time. People can easily hold conflicting views, or feel they believe something one moment and then feel they believe the opposite the next. A good example is someone who is a manic depressive who one day thinks the world is the most wonderful place and everyone loves them, then the next day thinking the world is a dark pit and everyone hates them.

Here is further proof that God exists, also, this video clearly supports my theory God is an Extra-terrestial being who's creation of the multiverse gave rise to an extremely advanced ultra-tech race of quasi-physical beings that in turn created humans...