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

[Navigator]

There is an argument along the lines that "Atheists can believe in ghosts et al, without believing in "GOD(s)" {SOURCE ARTICLE}.

However, when examining the source article what we find is that the study is done with individuals "Self Declaring to being atheists" and that "agnostic atheists" appear to be most affected by the "irrational thinking of the religious"
_________________________________________

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

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.

[Jim_MDP]

WTF man?

Theists can believe in any or all of those things as well.
"Atheism" (in this context) solely concerns belief in a god or gods.
Quit trying to strawman everything.

[Tommok]

It is not very easy to discern the core of your question, but it appears to be something along the lines of "but if you don't know, you can't be an atheist, can you? Checkmate!"

Well, yes, you can. Knowledge and belief are actually distinct things, while it could be argued that knowledge is a subset of belief.

So if you know something to be true, it is the case that you also believe it, while belief does, on the other hand, not require knowledge.

So, you could tenatively, based on evidence or arguments presented to you, accept or not accept the proposition that a god exists. The former would make you a theist, the latter an atheist.

The proposition "a god does not exist" would be a very different proposition, which you could also accept or reject. While the former would put you in the "atheist" category (not limited to those who accept it), the latter would not necessarily make you a theist. You might still be an atheist, which is difficult to grasp for many people.

Neither of these address knowledge, so you could be an agnostic theist or a gnostic atheist or vice versa for all I care. For propositions regarding the existence of a god, most people (quite sensibly) discuss belief rather than limiting the scope to knowledge.

[Norman Alexander]

There is an argument along the lines that "Atheists can believe in ghosts et al, without believing in "GOD(s)" - Yes.

There is an argument along the lines that "Atheists don't believe in ghosts et al, and also do not believe in "GOD(s)" - Yes.

Dude, it's in the name: A (not) theist (belief in god(s)). By "gods" that usually means any supernatural nonsensical creature.

Don't smoke round all that straw.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

There is an argument along the lines that "Atheists can believe in ghosts et al, without believing in "GOD(s)" - Yes.

There is an argument along the lines that "Atheists don't believe in ghosts et al, and also do not believe in "GOD(s)" - Yes.

Dude, it's in the name: A (not) theist (belief in god(s)). By "gods" that usually means any supernatural nonsensical creature.

Don't smoke round all that straw.

Well, just to chuck a match among all his straw, I'm not just an atheist, I'm an anti-theist, that is I don't just passively disbelieve in the existence of gods, I actively believe that NO gods exist anywhere, or ever have, at any time, ever.

I also do not believe in the existence of ghosts, spirits (except those I drink) or the soul. I believe UFOs do exist* but I don't believe they are aliens or from alien origins. All these kinds of phenomena have rational explanation, its just that we haven't yet found some of them yet.


* I have seen two... one I was able to easily explain, one not!

[sackett]

Yes we can get you the money by Friday and then you could go ahead of me time to do it for a couple weeks or not and it would at the same way to make an effort in a good cause to do with it was that you were

[arthwollipot]

Oh boy! This thread again!

[Robin]

Agnostic atheist? Is tha someone who doesn't know if they are an atheist or not?

[Carrot Flower King]

Aaaah, yes, but is it Protestant atheists or Catholic atheists we're talking about?

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Robin

Agnostic atheist? Is tha someone who doesn't know if they are an atheist or not?

They way I look at the phrase "agnostic atheist" is that it is somebody who doesn't believe in the existence of gods, but has insufficient evidence to be certain. For myself if you're talking about a generic god, I would call myself agnostic atheist, simply because I have insufficient information. But when you name a god my atheism is gnostic, because I do have sufficient information to be certain.

Similarly most believers themselves are agnostic, because they cannot provide sufficient evidence to believe.

[Susheel]

How about those who think that gods need not be recognized or worshipped even if they are proven to exist.

[Wudang]

Originally Posted by Susheel

How about those who think that gods need not be recognized or worshipped even if they are proven to exist.

A number of Buddhist schools (especially older ones) fall into this category.

I'll quote Bertrand Russell as usual "Technically I am agnostic but practically I am an atheist". I can't prove beyond all doubt that "something" that matches somebody's idea of a god doesn't exist but all attempts to define such a thing seem to tend quickly to the incoherent.

[Georg]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

They way I look at the phrase "agnostic atheist" is that it is somebody who doesn't believe in the existence of gods, but has insufficient evidence to be certain. For myself if you're talking about a generic god, I would call myself agnostic atheist, simply because I have insufficient information. But when you name a god my atheism is gnostic, because I do have sufficient information to be certain.

Similarly most believers themselves are agnostic, because they cannot provide sufficient evidence to believe.

I guess you meant to write know there?


For Robin:

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

They way I look at the phrase "agnostic atheist" is that it is somebody who doesn't believe in the existence of gods, but has insufficient evidence to be certain. For myself if you're talking about a generic god, I would call myself agnostic atheist, simply because I have insufficient information. But when you name a god my atheism is gnostic, because I do have sufficient information to be certain.

Similarly most believers themselves are agnostic, because they cannot provide sufficient evidence to believe.

I tend to use Ignostic, for similar reasons:

Quote:

Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition.

[Wudang]

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.

[Navigator]

Is being 'technically atheist' really being atheist? According to the source-article, they are irrational thinkers...conflating the two positions has brought with it, confusion as to what being atheist actually is. The article does not refer to these as just being atheist...what position is referring to these as 'irrational thinkers'? What is/are the positions of the person/persons who devised the study and interpreted the data the study produced that they base their findings on what they think of as 'rational thinking'?

It is heavily bias re that. Where is the bias coming from? The atheist position or one of the other related positions?

Re the 'strictly speaking' of being "technically atheist" a baby technically qualifies as being an atheist.

So does an AI.

Even me, albeit that my position is Agnostic Neutral I can be referred to as an "atheist".

Therefore, in order to avoid confusion and disingenuity, I think that the following is appropriate.


Strict definitions and labels may be used to describe a particular phenomenon, but it's important to understand that these labels are often not absolute and can vary depending on context, interpretation, and personal beliefs. In the case of a baby and adult being labeled as "atheist", the label may apply differently to each, as a baby lacks the capacity for forming beliefs while an adult has developed their own views on the existence of gods or deities. It is important to acknowledge and respect the complexities and nuances of labels and definitions, rather than assuming a strict or absolute interpretation. ...

...and regarding folk who call themselves atheists but believe in ghost et al, again in order to avoid confusion and disingenuity, I think that the following is appropriate.

If someone begins to believe in supernatural phenomena like ghosts, they are no longer strictly an atheist, as they now hold a belief in something beyond the natural world. 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. They would be considered as being in the domain of theistic thinking, rather than atheistic thinking.

[Lithrael]

I don’t know about that. Theism/atheism is about god/s, which are a subset of supernatural phenomena. In the Venn diagram, the big circle is ‘supernatural phenomena’ and ‘god/s’ is a little circle positioned entirely inside it. Not the other way around.

[Georg]

Originally Posted by Navigator

If someone begins to believe in supernatural phenomena like ghosts, they are no longer strictly an atheist, as they now hold a belief in something beyond the natural world. 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. They would be considered as being in the domain of theistic thinking, rather than atheistic thinking.

Lolwut?

Atheist is defined as not believing in god(s), and not defined as "not believing in anything supernatural/irrational".
So strictly speaking ()I can believe in fairies, ghosts and whatever other nonsense, as long as I do not hold a belief in god(s), I'm an atheist.
End of story.

And of course a baby is an atheist, since it does not hold a belief in god(s) either.
The reason for the nonbelief does not matter.
There is no requirement of a certain thought process, or any thought process at all for being a nonbeliever to meet the definition..

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by Georg

Lolwut?

Atheist is defined as not believing in god(s), and not defined as "not believing in anything supernatural/irrational".
So strictly speaking ()I can believe in fairies, ghosts and whatever other nonsense, as long as I do not hold a belief in god(s), I'm an atheist.
End of story.

And of course a baby is an atheist, since it does not hold a belief in god(s) either.
The reason for the nonbelief does not matter.
There is no requirement of a certain thought process, or any thought process at all for being a nonbeliever to meet the definition..

Haven't you seen the Crow, Mother is the word for god in the hearts of all babies or some such.

I mostly agree with everyone else in this thread. Atheist is a non belief in god or gods, that does not include all possible super natural entities.

Agnostic is a position that there really is no way to actually know if some version of god exists.

I am an atheist and an agnostic. I believe there is no god or gods but I could be wrong. Not likely but I could be.

[Georg]

Originally Posted by ahhell

Haven't you seen the Crow, Mother is the word for god in the hearts of all babies or some such.

Close, but no cigar :

"Mother is the name for God on the lips and hearts of all children."

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

I don’t know about that. Theism/atheism is about god/s, which are a subset of supernatural phenomena. In the Venn diagram, the big circle is ‘supernatural phenomena’ and ‘god/s’ is a little circle positioned entirely inside it. Not the other way around.

That is an interesting way of looking at it.

Theism/Atheism is concerned with the question of GODs.

The question of gods is the cart before the horse.

The real question being asked has to do with our existence - our experience as human beings inside of the universe...in a planetary system, in a galaxy et al.

The question actually being asked is "Do we exist within a created thing?"

That is the horse before the cart, because - if the answer is 'yes', then this implies a creator or creators which only then brings the subject of gods onto the table.

Theism has assumed that we exist within a created thing, and gone about dressing up images of what the creator or creators constitute, even though it has not been established that we exist within a created thing.

Therefore, one could argue that - the question of god which produces atheists and theists - those said productions are based on a cart-before-horse fallacy and neither of those positions are relevant in relation to the question which requires answering first, which is "Do we exist within a created thing?"

Atheism and Theism may make each other 'relevant' in relation to the question of god, but the question of god is irrelevant while the question of whether we exist in a created thing or not, hasn't even been answered.

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by Navigator

That is an interesting way of looking at it.

Theism/Atheism is concerned with the question of GODs.

The question of gods is the cart before the horse.

The real question being asked has to do with our existence - our experience as human beings inside of the universe...in a planetary system, in a galaxy et al.

The question actually being asked is "Do we exist within a created thing?"

That is the horse before the cart, because - if the answer is 'yes', then this implies a creator or creators which only then brings the subject of gods onto the table.

Theism has assumed that we exist within a created thing, and gone about dressing up images of what the creator or creators constitute, even though it has not been established that we exist within a created thing.

Therefore, one could argue that - the question of god which produces atheists and theists - those said productions are based on a cart-before-horse fallacy and neither of those positions are relevant in relation to the question which requires answering first, which is "Do we exist within a created thing?"

Atheism and Theism may make each other 'relevant' in relation to the question of god, but the question of god is irrelevant while the question of whether we exist in a created thing or not, hasn't even been answered.

You might want to have a chat with Spinoza.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Georg

Lolwut?

Atheist is defined as not believing in god(s), and not defined as "not believing in anything supernatural/irrational".
So strictly speaking ()I can believe in fairies, ghosts and whatever other nonsense, as long as I do not hold a belief in god(s), I'm an atheist.
End of story.

And of course a baby is an atheist, since it does not hold a belief in god(s) either.
The reason for the nonbelief does not matter.
There is no requirement of a certain thought process, or any thought process at all for being a nonbeliever to meet the definition..

Yes I understand that.

From the perspective of an Agnostic Neutral on the question of GOD, I see that, all that is required to be an atheist, is "lacking belief in all gods"...one can still believe in all the other 'goofy' stuff and declare oneself an atheist as long as one is not believing in goofy stuff to do with gods.

The definition is easily meet, because it embraces anyone who does not believe in gods specifically.

Any thought processes externalized by folk self identifying as atheists [because they lack belief in gods], is strictly NOT derived from the position of atheism. Why anyone does not believe in gods, is besides the point.

Baby's are atheists and no one expects them to give reasons as to why they lack belief in gods, and adults who have their reasons for not believing in gods and share those reasons, are not speaking from the position of atheism, because atheism doesn't speak of such things.

Clearly then an atheist is "Someone who lacks belief in gods" NOT "Someone who has reasons to lack belief in gods" let alone someone that anyone should confuse their expressed reasons, with being an expression of atheism itself.

[Jack by the hedge]

I don't believe in any Gods. I don't believe in Gods who create universes (or horses or carts or theists or atheists) and I don't believe in Gods who don't create universes.

It doesn't bother me if someone thinks universe-creating is a necessary qualification for Godhood; people have their own ideas about things their notion of God must or must not do. I content myself they are all just pretend and leave it at that.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Navigator

... because atheism doesn't speak of such things.

What?

[Georg]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Clearly then an atheist is "Someone who lacks belief in gods" NOT "Someone who has reasons to lack belief in gods"

Huh?
Having reasons for the nonbelief is not required to be an atheist, but it surely isn't mutually exclusive.......so your NOT makes no sense for me.
What am I missing?

By the way, what's an Agnostic Neutral?
Can you name or describe a god or gods you believe in?
If not, then you're an atheist.
Welcome to the dark side

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

What?

This:

Quote:

It doesn't bother me if someone thinks universe-creating is a necessary qualification for Godhood; people have their own ideas about things their notion of God must or must not do.

Is an expression one can expect from the position of atheism [I lack belief in gods so it does not bother me as an atheist that people have their own ideas about things their notion of God must or must not do]

This:

Quote:

I content myself they are all just pretend and leave it at that.

Is beside the point, as it is implying a reason why one lacks belief in gods.

Atheism - as a position - is not required to give reasons for lacking belief in gods. Your reasons for being an atheist are besides the point....are not relevant to lacking belief in gods, any more than a babies inability to give reasons for why it lacks belief in gods, are not required in order to correctly say that the baby is an atheist.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Georg

Huh?
Having reasons for the nonbelief is not required to be an atheist, but it surely isn't mutually exclusive......

Sure they are.

Quote:

so your NOT makes no sense for me.
What am I missing?

Baby's are atheists. Their inability to give reasons as to why they are atheists does not mean that they are not atheists.
Therefore, being atheist and having reasons for being atheist are not the same thing. They are mutually exclusive.

It is enough for me to know that when you refer to yourself as an atheist, you are clearly saying that you do not have any beliefs in gods. Any extra reasons you might have, make no difference because lacking belief in gods [being atheist] doesn't have to have reasons attached to it, other than lacking belief in gods....as in "The reason I am an atheist is because I lack belief in gods."

Quote:

By the way, what's an Agnostic Neutral?

Agnostic Atheism and Agnostic Neutrality are both positions that can coexist and are not mutually exclusive. Agnostic Atheism refers to the belief that there is no evidence or proof for the existence of a deity or gods, but also acknowledges that the existence of a deity or gods cannot be completely ruled out.

Agnostic Neutrality refers to the lack of belief in the existence of a deity or gods, but also acknowledges that there may be insufficient evidence to make a definitive conclusion. Both positions allow for the possibility of holding supernatural beliefs while still not believing in the existence of gods.

[Ultimately, an individual's beliefs and self-identification are a personal matter and can vary based on their individual experiences and perspectives.]

Quote:

Can you name or describe a god or gods you believe in?

No. But I am mostly convinced that I exist within a created thing.

Quote:

If not, then you're an atheist.

Strictly speaking, yes I am. This is because - as an atheist - I can believe that I exist within a created thing and still not believe in 'gods' whatever those are defined as, as long as they are not defined as "that which created the created thing I am pretty much convinced I am experiencing."

Which is to say, While I think I exist within a created thing, I do not necessarily think the creator/s need to be said to be 'gods'. I am open to examining any argument that insist that I should do.

Quote:

Welcome to the dark side

It is always worth trying to shed light on...

[Jack by the hedge]

If the point is whether or not one believes in a thing, I can see that one's reasons are beside that point, but I do not see what you mean when you say that speaking of one's reasons for <some belief> is not speaking from the position of <that belief>.

Perhaps I just don't follow what you intend to mean by speaking from a position.

It didn't shed any light when you said "Your reasons for being an atheist are besides the point....are not relevant to lacking belief in gods". How can one's reasons for holding some view not be relevant to your holding of that view?

Can you explain what you meant?

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Navigator

... being atheist and having reasons for being atheist are not the same thing. They are mutually exclusive.

That's not what "mutually exclusive" means. It means either can be true but not both.

[Jack by the hedge]

The sky is blue. The reason it is blue does not change the fact it is blue. While trivially true, I don't see what this observation tells us.

[Lithrael]

Is this just another idiosyncratic definition thread?

“I believe everything I experience was in some way created” and “I do not believe in any gods” are both perfectly cromulent statements for a hypothetical atheist to make. Just the first one is pretty atypical.

While most atheists don’t believe in any supernatural phenomenon or creation cosmology etc, the word for a person holding those specific positions is not ‘atheist.’

[Carrot Flower King]

Is there actually any point to this tedious, circular discussion about what certain words might mean if used in a way someone arbitrarily decides they nean at any given point?

Avon? Meet Humpty Dumpty!

Oh yes, Blake's 7 and Lewis Carroll in one go!

[Lithrael]

Yeah, the idea that the question of deities is just a placeholder for the question of origins is interesting but I don’t think it’s the actual universal underlying meat of theism vs atheism.

The idea of acknowledging the distinction between atheism by natural state vs atheism arrived at by reason is worthwhile but not a new idea. Changin the language to reflect these differences must be unnecessary or it would have already happened. When we want to discuss these nuances we just use more words.

The vast majority useage of the word atheism is absolutely about gods in specific and NOT about magical thinking in general. I think you will not have any luck with dumping all these broader implications into such a narrowly defined word.

[Myriad]

Trans atheists are atheists!

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

The sky is blue. The reason it is blue does not change the fact it is blue. While trivially true, I don't see what this observation tells us.

Even rejecting a god claim, is not a product of atheism, strictly speaking.

Babies who - because they lack belief in gods, neither reject or accept god claims and that is because it is not the task of atheism to accept or reject god claims. All that is required to be an atheist is to lack belief in gods. Not to reject belief in gods.

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.


By changing the wording "The sky is blue. The reason it is blue does not change the fact it is blue." to "Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. The reason Atheism is the lack of belief in gods does not change the fact Atheism is the lack of belief in gods."

Quote:

While trivially true, I don't see what this observation tells us.

It is not a case of being trivially true, but a case of being technically correct.
Further to that, it is not atheism which propels atheists to believe in supernatural things, because atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods.

Therefore, while it might be true that atheists can believe in ghosts et al, it is NOT atheism [the lack of belief in gods] which is the fundamental cause or reason for them doing so.

Some think that it might be agnosticism which is the cause, which is why such folk add 'agnostic' to 'atheist' but whatever the cause might be, we know without a doubt that it isn't atheism.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

While most atheists don’t believe in any supernatural phenomenon or creation cosmology etc, the word for a person holding those specific positions is not ‘atheist.’

I agree and that is what I am arguing re the article in the OP, which was given by someone who believes that atheists can believe in ghosts et al and that the article is evidence of this being the case.

My argument is that it is folk who self identify incorrectly as 'atheists' who are the ones believing in ghosts et al.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

Yeah, the idea that the question of deities is just a placeholder for the question of origins is interesting but I don’t think it’s the actual universal underlying meat of theism vs atheism.

The idea of acknowledging the distinction between atheism by natural state vs atheism arrived at by reason is worthwhile but not a new idea. Changin the language to reflect these differences must be unnecessary or it would have already happened. When we want to discuss these nuances we just use more words.

The vast majority useage of the word atheism is absolutely about gods in specific and NOT about magical thinking in general. I think you will not have any luck with dumping all these broader implications into such a narrowly defined word.

Again, I agree that atheism is not what propels anyone to believe in ghosts et al and is specific to the position of lacking belief in gods, not promoting the rejection of the belief in gods, such as is the task of anti-theists...not to be mistaken for being simply 'atheists' or to be confused with atheist expression.

Quote:

Changing the language to reflect these differences must be unnecessary or it would have already happened.

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.

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.

It may not have already happened, because there are more anti theists calling themselves atheists, than there are atheists calling themselves atheists.

So - my argument is sound, and shouldn't be trivialized or hand-waved away.

My argument presents a sound argument that emphasizes the importance of avoiding blanket statements about people's beliefs being "irrational" without considering the context and individual circumstances.
My argument highlights the complexity and individuality of people's beliefs and the need to respect diverse opinions, even if they differ from one's own.
My argument also points out that it is not appropriate to attribute the cause of an individual's beliefs to atheism, as it is simply the lack of belief in gods and cannot be considered a fundamental cause of other beliefs an individual may hold. My argument presents a well-reasoned, balanced, and nuanced perspective on the topic and promotes empathy and respect for diverse perspectives.

[Georg]

Originally Posted by Navigator

... there are more anti theists calling themselves atheists, than there are atheists calling themselves atheists.

I do not think this is possible, since antitheists are a subset of atheists, see post #5 by smartcooky.

[Wudang]

Originally Posted by Navigator

My argument is that it is folk who self identify incorrectly as 'atheists' who are the ones believing in ghosts et al.

Why? You've said that a lack of belief in god(s) is a sufficient and necessary reason to be called an atheist. Others have pointed out that you can believe in non-material things while not believing in god(s) (several schools of Idealism spring to mind - the fact they appear incoherent to me is moot).

I suggest you decrease the word play and try a little more set theory to map out your caegorizations.