re Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma - Are "Agnostic Atheists" Really Atheists?

Navigator said:
...
It is not a case of changing the language, but making sure that the language is not changed to suit those who might get an unnecessary advantage re their position.
Click to expand...

This seeming fear of allowing anyone an "unnecessary advantage" makes you sound like you feel a bit embattled. A tactic of denying one's opponent the means to express their argument clearly for fear of losing the argument smacks of desperation. Language changes when people need ways to accurately express what they mean and if people find a neologism useful and helpful it will catch on. Otherwise it will disappear.

For example, if an anti-theist sees no advantage in explaining to the reader that they are not practicing antitheism because they are atheists, but only and actually because they are anti theism, then they will not only keep that to themselves, but will even promote the confusion, by making arguments along the same line as you have done in writing "Changing the language to reflect these differences must be unnecessary or it would have already happened." which itself is an unsupported statement.
.
Click to expand...

This strays close to the tiresome "they're not really atheists, they just hate God" line. It's not at all unreasonable to suggest that if people had a need to describe a difference, they would eventually come up with a handy way to express it. There's nothing mischievous or confusing about that.
 
Navigator said:
Developing a lack of belief in gods appears to have no advantage or particular purpose.
Click to expand...

Disagree strongly. A belief in gods inevitably implies some sort of effort to understand the nature, requirements and preferences of said gods, and the best way to retain their favour, which almost inevitably leads to the immense cultural baggage associated with religion. Relieving oneself of the burden, in time, resources and intellectual effort, of placating gods who don't exist, is a clear advantage in terms of personal resources.

Dave
 
Yep, as someone said here long ago - the answer "GodDidIt" closes doors to further inquiry and takes you nowhere. Sweep that non-answer away and you have genetics, climate science, medicine, astronomy and on and on.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Disagree strongly. A belief in gods inevitably implies some sort of effort to understand the nature, requirements and preferences of said gods, and the best way to retain their favour, which almost inevitably leads to the immense cultural baggage associated with religion. Relieving oneself of the burden, in time, resources and intellectual effort, of placating gods who don't exist, is a clear advantage in terms of personal resources.
Click to expand...

It's a balance. Conversely there's the advantage of social cohesion and control exerted by having people imagine that a divine authority is enforcing the rules. That social control advantage is possibly how a propensity toward religiosity evolved in the first place.

We're perhaps fortunate to live in comparatively peaceful and stable times when societies built with secular rather than theocratic control don't break down just because large numbers of people come round to the idea that there's nobody really in charge.
 
Wudang said:
I think some people are using the word "believe" differently from me. I don't need a lot of knowledge to believe something. If people quietly believe in their god(s) and it helps them cope, fine. Private belief - no problem. But when someone brings their belief into the public domain (and often that means the pubic domain as a swiftly corrected typo implied) then we have a problem. They bring the subject up as something for other people to adhere to, then expect to be corrected, criticised, and if appropriate mocked. As someone said, "You're entitled to your own beliefs, you're not entitled to your own facts".
I'd also add that my contempt is strongest for those who claim to be proclaiming the truth but knowingly lie in doing so. If you have the truth (or Truth) you don't need lies.
Click to expand...
My definition:

Belief is where you hold something true under the following conditions:
1) You have insuuficient evidence to make a knowledge judgement,
2) You have no evidence,
or 3) The evidence says you're wrong.

To illustrate, I'll tell people that I don't believe in the chair I'm sitting in.
 
Navigator said:
My own position on the question, is Agnostic Neutral and therefore I do not have any beliefs re such things as ghosts and spirits, astrology, reincarnation, or think that some people have magical powers, that the article says atheist's can and do have belief in.
Click to expand...

That article is a facile fluff piece. But the more relevant fact is that nowhere does that article refer to "agnostic atheists". It consistently refers to "agnostics and atheists" as though they are two separate positions. The article has nothing to do with your claims regarding "agnostic atheists", because it never even acknowledges that there is such a thing.

If those referred to in the article who self-identified as "agnostic" define the term to mean "neutral", as you do, meaning that they are equally disposed toward the existence/nonexistence of gods, then it's no surprise that they would be more inclined toward superstitious beliefs than those identifying as "atheist". And it doesn't take a Ph.D. in evolutionary psychology to understand that belief in supernatural agencies is an artifact of our evolution as a social species whose survival is greatly dependent on being able to infer the needs/desires of others so that we can better coordinate our efforts at survival, and that this ability to form a theory of mind regarding others has been so heavily selected for in our evolution that we have a tendency to apply it even to things and phenomena without any agency of their own, but which affect our survival. Thus the tendency to approach, say, a drought as, "What do the rains want? How can we modify our behavior to motivate the rains to give us what we need?". This is how animism and gods came to be encoded in our genes. And this tendency toward irrationallity is why we have the scientific method, after all.

But the article provides nothing to support any argument you might want to make against the people who self-identify as "agnostic atheist" here on this forum.
 
Navigator, I think I’m closer to understanding your point but I’m still not getting some of these basic ideas you are bringing up. Repeatedly you seem to think we have said or agreed that a person isn’t really an atheist if they beleive in ghosts. But when we say one hasn’t got anything to do with the other, we aren’t saying it’s exclusionary. They are both positions a person can hold at the same time without contradiction.

‘A person who believes in ghosts doesn’t do so because of their atheism’ means no more or less than ‘a person who believes in luck doesn’t do so because of their athleticism’ like… the situation might be that most serious athletes think results are about lots of hard work and dedication rather than luck, but believing in luck wouldn’t make you not a real athlete.

Atheism doesn’t ‘really’ mean ‘lacking belief in all supernatural concepts’ it just and only means lacking belief in gods. And ‘gods’ doesn’t really mean ‘creators’ even though several gods are creation figures.
 
There's a quote about how when people stop believing in god they start believing in anything [googles: oh it was the Belgian playwright and poet Emile Cammaerts apparently: “The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything” (The Laughing Prophets, Page 211, 1937).] I'd say there's a grain of truth in it, in that people who lose their religion often seem to feel the need to fill the hole with something else they can still believe in. Hence the "I'm not religious but I'm very spiritual" type comments you often hear, and a willingness to "open their minds" (by which they usually mean look at the evidence for it whilst completely ignoring the evidence against it) to everything from ghosts to cosmic intelligences.

I guess for some people facing up to the knowledge that they're nothing special is just too much, they still want to believe their existence is more than a random accident even if they can no longer swallow the manifest pottiness of any of the major religions.

In the immortal words of Holly: "As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
 
Still one of the cutest twists ever, in the book the setting turns out to be a closed paradox where Lister creates the universe.

Since Lister is certainly not a god (unless you’re a practicing Cat) he’s a great example of someone you could beleive created the universe while still being an atheist.
 
Some years ago, I read a statement,* "i hope I don't believe in anything."

That startled me, even shocked me a little, until I realized what "to believe" means in all but the most colloquial sense. To believe means to accept something as true in the absence of evidence. At once, I realized that I too hoped I didn't believe in anything. Who would or could want to be that daffy?

*Wish i knew who said that. Googling it sure doesn't help.
 
Susheel said:
How about those who think that gods need not be recognized or worshipped even if they are proven to exist.
Click to expand...

Based upon the definition of atheism [lacking belief in the existence of gods], whether they recognized or worshiped such gods which were proven to exist, such couldn't - strictly speaking - refer to themselves as atheists.


I think that they could still refer to as themselves anti-theists.
 
Developing a lack of belief in gods appears to have no advantage or particular purpose.

For example, the baby grows out of its atheism and tries out a number of theist positions, and at some point decides that theism - the belief in god/gods - has no advantage over having a lack of belief in gods, and thus returns to lacking belief in gods...but wants to let the world know why he/she has reverted and has rejected theism and returned to atheism.

And proceeds to do so...

...the doing so, is not in and of itself an expression of atheism.

This is because the returnee has not returned to the lack of belief in gods, but has gone to the position of rejecting the belief in gods, which is not atheism, strictly speaking.

Dave Rogers said:
Disagree strongly. A belief in gods inevitably implies some sort of effort to understand the nature, requirements and preferences of said gods, and the best way to retain their favour, which almost inevitably leads to the immense cultural baggage associated with religion. Relieving oneself of the burden, in time, resources and intellectual effort, of placating gods who don't exist, is a clear advantage in terms of personal resources.

Dave
Click to expand...

Not sure how your comment addresses my own here Dave.

A clear advantage in terms of personal resources has what to do with lacking belief in the existence of gods [atheism]?

I see how it would have a practical use for those practicing anti-theism, but there are those who argue [example] that climate change will make a mockery out of any "clear advantage in terms of personal resources" which means any advantage one thinks they have in those, is illusionary - regardless of whether one is pro or anti theism.

So exchanging one set of baggage for another, does nothing for either position.
 
Navigator said:
Based upon the definition of atheism [lacking belief in the existence of gods], whether they recognized or worshiped such gods which were proven to exist, such couldn't - strictly speaking - refer to themselves as atheists.


I think that they could still refer to as themselves anti-theists.
Click to expand...

Some might be anti-theists.

We might want to be able to distinguish between those who are opposed to worshiping any God which was found to exist (those might be considered anti-theist) and those who are merely indifferent to such worship, considering it would serve no purpose.

Surely they could be atheists pending the discovery of any Gods. If they're right and those Gods don't exist then that evidence will certainly never come.
 
Navigator said:
Not sure how your comment addresses my own here Dave.

A clear advantage in terms of personal resources has what to do with lacking belief in the existence of gods [atheism]?
Click to expand...

I explained that in the passage you quoted. I suggest you read it again, as it's quite clearly stated. But to simplify it, believing that there are no gods means that one doesn't have to bother worshipping them, and can spend the time and resources on something more rewarding.

Navigator said:
I see how it would have a practical use for those practicing anti-theism, but there are those who argue [example] that climate change will make a mockery out of any "clear advantage in terms of personal resources" which means any advantage one thinks they have in those, is illusionary - regardless of whether one is pro or anti theism.

So exchanging one set of baggage for another, does nothing for either position.
Click to expand...

This is a non sequitur. Climate change is unrelated to atheism; additional obligations imposed by the need to maintain a steadier climate do not by themselves negate those assumed by the practice of religion. Put more simply, the religious need to insulate their houses and pray; I just need to insulate my house.

Dave
 
Navigator said:
Developing a lack of belief in gods appears to have no advantage or particular purpose.
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head, it would have saved the time, cost and effort of raising medieval cathedrals. It would have removed the motive for slaughtering very large numbers of heretics.
 
Navigator said:
For example, the baby grows out of its atheism and tries out a number of theist positions, and at some point decides that theism - the belief in god/gods - has no advantage over having a lack of belief in gods, and thus returns to lacking belief in gods...
Click to expand...

You said that before. Is that what you think happens, that people who lose their religious belief do so because they measure up their options and decide it has no advantage? What do you base that view on?
 
Foster Zygote said:
That article is a facile fluff piece.
Click to expand...

I agree. One doesn't have to read to far into it, to come to that conclusion.


But the more relevant fact is that nowhere does that article refer to "agnostic atheists".
Click to expand...

Indeed. Why would it? The article is ignoring the true complexities of positions which can be held re the question of gods and existing within a created thing. The article is superficial.

It consistently refers to "agnostics and atheists" as though they are two separate positions.
Click to expand...

I did notice that the article appeared to do that, but not to the point where it was arguing anything more than two different types of atheists, which itself is a fallacy.

As far as positions go, atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. Agnosticism is something different from that, and anti-theism is also something different from that, as is Agnostic Neutralism.

All these positions share the common 'lack belief in gods' but - are obviously not the same positions.


The article has nothing to do with your claims regarding "agnostic atheists", because it never even acknowledges that there is such a thing.
Click to expand...

I was given the link to the article by someone identifying their position as "agnostic atheist" who thought that it was somehow evidence that atheists could hold belief in something beyond the natural world [such as ghosts et al.] whereas my argument is that - based on the strict definition of atheism as the lack of belief in gods or deities, - if someone holds a belief in something beyond the natural world, they would no longer be considered as strictly speaking, an atheist.

If those referred to in the article who self-identified as "agnostic" define the term to mean "neutral", as you do, meaning that they are equally disposed toward the existence/nonexistence of gods, then it's no surprise that they would be more inclined toward superstitious beliefs than those identifying as "atheist".
Click to expand...

You appear to be arguing here that an agnostic is less inclined to hold belief in things beyond the natural world, whereas someone who was an agnostic neutral would be more inclined to hold such beliefs.
I may be misunderstanding you there, but if that is what you are arguing, you will need to support your argument in a way that makes it clear.


But the article provides nothing to support any argument you might want to make against the people who self-identify as "agnostic atheist" here on this forum.
Click to expand...

I am simply asking a question and presenting argument that conflating Agnostics and Atheist, or Atheist and Antitheists just muddies the waters...and only shows that folk are generally confused if they find some kind of accord in the conflation.

Smartcooky has it somewhat right that the conflation is simply straw. [Post #5] but even so, still conflates being an atheist' with being - in his/her case - an anti-theist.

Call a spade a shovel and it is still a shovel. Make a spade into a shovel, and it is no longer a spade.
 
Lithrael said:
Navigator, I think I’m closer to understanding your point but I’m still not getting some of these basic ideas you are bringing up. Repeatedly you seem to think we have said or agreed that a person isn’t really an atheist if they beleive in ghosts. But when we say one hasn’t got anything to do with the other, we aren’t saying it’s exclusionary. They are both positions a person can hold at the same time without contradiction.
Click to expand...

Okay...

‘A person who believes in ghosts doesn’t do so because of their atheism’ means no more or less than ‘a person who believes in luck doesn’t do so because of their athleticism’ like… the situation might be that most serious athletes think results are about lots of hard work and dedication rather than luck, but believing in luck wouldn’t make you not a real athlete.
Click to expand...

Not sure that you analogy is helpful here Lithrael

Atheism doesn’t ‘really’ mean ‘lacking belief in all supernatural concepts’
Click to expand...

I have not argued that it does, Lithrael. Indeed, I have argued that it doesn't.

it just and only means lacking belief in gods.
Click to expand...

Yes. That is what I am arguing too.

And ‘gods’ doesn’t really mean ‘creators’ even though several gods are creation figures.
Click to expand...

This too is correct, and I have argued that even should we exist within a created thing, - while it implies creator/creators - this does not mean said creator/creators would be 'gods' as this would depend entirely on what 'gods' are defined as being.
 
How about those who think that gods need not be recognized or worshipped even if they are proven to exist.
Click to expand...

Based upon the definition of atheism [lacking belief in the existence of gods], whether they recognized or worshiped such gods which were proven to exist, such couldn't - strictly speaking - refer to themselves as atheists.


I think that they could still refer to as themselves anti-theists.
Click to expand...

Jack by the hedge said:
Some might be anti-theists.

Surely they could be atheists pending the discovery of any Gods. If they're right and those Gods don't exist then that evidence will certainly never come.
Click to expand...

In the scenario I commented on, has it that the gods were 'proven to exist'. Therefore, they have been discovered.
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
You said that before. Is that what you think happens, that people who lose their religious belief do so because they measure up their options and decide it has no advantage? What do you base that view on?
Click to expand...

What I said, in context was:

For example, the baby grows out of its atheism and tries out a number of theist positions, and at some point decides that theism - the belief in god/gods - has no advantage over having a lack of belief in gods, and thus returns to lacking belief in gods...but wants to let the world know why he/she has reverted and has rejected theism and returned to atheism.

And proceeds to do so...

...the doing so, is not in and of itself an expression of atheism.

This is because the returnee has not returned to the lack of belief in gods, but has gone to the position of rejecting the belief in gods, which is not atheism, strictly speaking.
Click to expand...

There are a variety of ways in which people who lose their religion decide on adopting.

Some may even return to being atheists and simply lack belief in gods again, but most seem to prefer engaging in something else. For me it is engaging with Agnostic Neutralism - perhaps because it suits my nature - and for others it is Agnosticism, and for others it is Antitheism
 
I see how it would have a practical use for those practicing anti-theism, but there are those who argue [example] that climate change will make a mockery out of any "clear advantage in terms of personal resources" which means any advantage one thinks they have in those, is illusionary - regardless of whether one is pro or anti theism.

So exchanging one set of baggage for another, does nothing for either position.
Click to expand...
Dave Rogers said:
This is a non sequitur. Climate change is unrelated to atheism;
Click to expand...

"clear advantage in terms of personal resources" is also unrelated to atheism then.
 
When folk think that agnosticism is a subset of atheism [or theism] the waters are muddied and confusion ensures.

In reality, the positions are stand alone and should be regarded as such.

Atheism. Agnosticism [Neutrality] Antitheism and Theism.

Conflating the positions is fallacy. Fallacy muddies the waters/causes confusion and has folk arguing that one can be an atheist AND believe in things beyond the natural world
 
Last edited:
Navigator said:
"clear advantage in terms of personal resources" is also unrelated to atheism then.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't become unrelated just because you say so. The religious need to devote time and effort to prayer. Atheists don't. Atheists can therefore devote more time and energy to other things than praying.

I'm not going to bother repeating that a third time. I've made my point and you're free to choose not to understand it.

Another non sequitur you're propagating: in what sense does a baby "grow out of its atheism"? If nobody tries to persuade a child that gods exist, why would the child spontaneously acquire theism as a part of its biological development? I wasn't, and I didn't.

Dave
 
Navigator said:
... has gone to the position of rejecting the belief in gods, which is not atheism, strictly speaking.
Click to expand...

Beg your pardon? I thought atheism is exactly the rejection of the assertion that there are gods (as opposed to a belief system).
 
wea said:
Beg your pardon? I thought atheism is exactly the rejection of the assertion that there are gods (as opposed to a belief system).
Click to expand...

No. I addressed this already. What you think there, is a confusion caused by conflating positions.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods, NOT the rejection of the belief in the existence of gods.

Rejection of the belief in the existence of gods is mostly asserted by Antitheism, which is a position which stands alone, as the all really do.

Conflating the positions as being sub-category's of each other, is the cause of the confusion, because to do so is fallacy.
 
Navigator said:
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods, NOT the rejection of the belief in the existence of gods.

Rejection of the belief in the existence of gods is mostly asserted by Antitheism, which is a position which stands alone, as the all really do.
Click to expand...

If someone rejects belief in the existence of gods, that person does not therefore believe in gods, and is therefore an atheist. Antitheism is therefore a subset of atheism.

Navigator, your grasp of elementary logic appears very poor from the fact that you are unable to draw these very obvious conclusions.

Dave
 
Navigator said:
...
As far as positions go, atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. Agnosticism is something different from that, and anti-theism is also something different from that, as is Agnostic Neutralism.

All these positions share the common 'lack belief in gods' but - are obviously not the same positions...
Click to expand...

Surely only one of those positions is a lack of belief in Gods. The first one is undecided and the third one might or might not involve a lack of belief.
 
Navigator said:
In the scenario I commented on, has it that the gods were 'proven to exist'. Therefore, they have been discovered.
Click to expand...

I took Susheel's point to be about the views of people currently considering a hypothetical rather than in a future where they're considering an established fact.
 
Navigator said:
...
There are a variety of ways in which people who lose their religion decide on adopting.

Some may even return to being atheists and simply lack belief in gods again, but most seem to prefer engaging in something else. For me it is engaging with Agnostic Neutralism - perhaps because it suits my nature - and for others it is Agnosticism, and for others it is Antitheism
Click to expand...

How did you establish this?
 
Dave Rogers said:
No, it doesn't become unrelated just because you say so.
Click to expand...

Correct. It doesn't become unrelated at all, because it isn't related to any other position than its own. My 'saying so' is nothing more than pointing out the reality against the fallacy.

The religious need to devote time and effort to prayer.
Click to expand...

Religious theists and what they do, is besides the point. It has nothing to do with the atheist position 'lacking belief in the existence of gods.'

Atheists don't. Atheists can therefore devote more time and energy to other things than praying.
Click to expand...

No. Folk calling themselves atheists can do those things, but the reality is, they are not doing those things BECAUSE they are atheists. They are doing those things because they are antitheists or Agnostic Neutrals.

I'm not going to bother repeating that a third time. I've made my point and you're free to choose not to understand it.
Click to expand...

But clearly I do understand your point and am arguing that your point is based in fallacy. [see my prior post for more about that.]

Another non sequitur you're propagating: in what sense does a baby "grow out of its atheism"?
Click to expand...

They develop knowledge. Developing knowledge is a known thing rather than a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

If nobody tries to persuade a child that gods exist, why would the child spontaneously acquire theism as a part of its biological development? I wasn't, and I didn't.
Click to expand...

Some do and some don't. We cannot make conclusions based solely on the one or the other.
 
Last edited:
There are a variety of ways in which people who lose their religion decide on adopting.

Some may even return to being atheists and simply lack belief in gods again, but most seem to prefer engaging in something else. For me it is engaging with Agnostic Neutralism - perhaps because it suits my nature - and for others it is Agnosticism, and for others it is Antitheism
Click to expand...

Jack by the hedge said:
How did you establish this?
Click to expand...

Through observation that babies develop knowledge and knowledge influences choices...
 
Navigator said:
Rejection of the belief in the existence of gods is mostly asserted by Antitheism, which is a position which stands alone, as the all really do.
Click to expand...
You seem a little fixated on antitheism.

Is my rejection of a belief in dragons usefully described as an assertion of my antidragonism? Sure I reject any belief in their really existing, but I don't have any antipathy to dragons, I just recognise they're only make-believe.
 
Navigator said:
Through observation that babies develop knowledge and knowledge influences choices...
Click to expand...

Perhaps your reading device didn't show my highlighting. I tried to ask how you established that "most seem to prefer engaging in something else".
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Perhaps your reading device didn't show my highlighting. I tried to ask how you established that "most seem to prefer engaging in something else".
Click to expand...

Navigator is only interested in participating in a scripted discussion that he's already rehearsed with the straw men in his head. Any attempts by atheists to describe what they actually think that don't fit into his desired responses will be ignored, and he will continue making things up as he goes along, like "agnostic neutralism", which doesn't describe anything that's been presented by the atheists he's not really interested in debating.
 
Navigator said:
Based upon the definition of atheism [lacking belief in the existence of gods], whether they recognized or worshiped such gods which were proven to exist, such couldn't - strictly speaking - refer to themselves as atheists.


I think that they could still refer to as themselves anti-theists.
Click to expand...
Are we talking about D&D now? Because if we're talking about D&D, I can totally be there with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom