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

[junkshop]

Dammit, Jim Leumas! What have ellipses ever done to hurt you?

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

You seem a little fixated on antitheism.

Not at all. Please note that I mention all the positions related.

Did you note that I do not think conflating said positions is helpful?

Which is why the OPQ is being asked...

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

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".

Did you misunderstand what I meant 'most'?

I meant most people who engage in something other than simply lacking belief in gods.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Navigator

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.

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

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.

There are four position mentioned. Atheism, Agnosticism, Antitheism, and Agnostic Neutralism.

Even if we agreed that Agnosticism, and Agnostic Neutralism are the same position, we have 3 positions which - while they might all share a lack of belief in gods, they are different from each other as to be treated as separate positions.

So yes - strictly speaking, only atheism is a lack of belief in gods, as the other positions - including the antitheist position have moved from simply being a lack of belief in gods.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Navigator

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.

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

You seem a little fixated on antitheism.

I have no problem with any of the positions. My focus is on the OPQ. The mention of Atheism, Antitheism and Agnosticism as being positions in their own right, is simply my acknowledging the reality of the separate positions.

An agnostic-atheist and an antitheist-atheist are fallacious positions because they unnecessarily conflate each other and cause confusion, such as claiming atheists believe in ghosts because they are 'agnostic atheists' - as per the OP link to the article.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Navigator

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

This seeming fear of allowing anyone an "unnecessary advantage" makes you sound like you feel a bit embattled.

The playing field has to be level, don't you agree?

I am arguing that it needs to be clear that no position has any unfair advantage over any other position by the unnecessary conflating two separate positions to be an expression of each other, because this causes confusion and confusion can be used as an advantage.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Navigator

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.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

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.

Dave

Antitheism is believed to be a subset of atheism. But it is actually a position in its own right.

Which of these positions are Neutral?

Agnostic Atheism
Nontheist Atheism
Agnostic Neutralism

Which of these positions are Neutral?

Agnosticism
Antitheism.

[The Great Zaganza]

Believing that the there is no such thing as Collecting Stamps is not a subset of not collecting stamps yourself.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Antitheism is believed to be a subset of atheism. But it is actually a position in its own right.

Which of these positions are Neutral?

Agnostic Atheism
Nontheist Atheism
Agnostic Neutralism

Which of these positions are Neutral?

Agnosticism
Antitheism.

Any argument or position based upon agnosticism is an illogical fallacious argument from ignorance ... by definition.

So it is not neutral or not not neutral.... it is ignorance ... by definition.

Arguments or stances based upon ignorance are... illogical and fallacious.

People who claim ignorance ... i.e. agnosticism ... should just shut up and not make any opinion or stance or argument about what they claim agnosticism of... otherwise they are committing illogical fallacies.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Leumas

Any argument or position based upon agnosticism is an illogical fallacious argument from ignorance ... by definition.

So it is not neutral or not not neutral.... it is ignorance ... by definition.

Arguments or stances based upon ignorance are... illogical and fallacious.

People who claim ignorance ... i.e. agnosticism ... should just shut up and not make any opinion or stance or argument about what they claim agnosticism of... otherwise they are committing illogical fallacies.

Those are boldly silly assertions. What does an agnostic have to be ignorant of?

Your assertion about agnosticism is incorrect. Agnosticism is not inherently illogical or fallacious. It is simply a position that one does not have enough evidence or knowledge to make a definite claim about the existence or non-existence of a particular deity, supernatural being, or phenomenon. An agnostic individual can still make logical, evidence-based arguments about related issues without committing fallacies.

Speaking of fallacies committed, you committed the fallacy of overgeneralization. By making a sweeping generalization about the entire concept of agnosticism, claiming that it is inherently illogical and fallacious, which is not accurate. Additionally, you have made a straw man argument by implying that agnostics claim to have complete ignorance on a subject, which is not the definition of agnosticism. The assertion that people who claim ignorance (agnosticism) should not make any opinion or stance is also incorrect, as agnosticism allows for the possibility of holding a belief or making a stance, even if it is not a definite one.

[The Great Zaganza]

Agnostic doesn't have to mean "could be one way or the other, equally likely". I could heavily lean one way over the other but still refuse to make a final choice, and still be agnostic.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Antitheism is believed to be a subset of atheism. But it is actually a position in its own right.

Which of these positions are Neutral?

Agnostic Atheism
Nontheist Atheism
Agnostic Neutralism

Which of these positions are Neutral?

Agnosticism
Antitheism.

My answer.

Agnosticism and Agnostic Neutralism can be considered neutral positions as they do not assert a definite belief or stance on the existence or non-existence of a deity or supernatural being.

Agnostic Atheism and Nontheist Atheism are not neutral positions as they assert a lack of belief in a deity or supernatural being.

Antitheism is not a neutral position as it asserts a definite belief in the non-existence of a deity or supernatural being and actively opposes theistic beliefs.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Agnostic doesn't have to mean "could be one way or the other, equally likely". I could heavily lean one way over the other but still refuse to make a final choice, and still be agnostic.

That's correct. Agnosticism is often misunderstood as being neutral or impartial between theism and atheism. However, an individual can hold a leaning or a preference towards either theism or atheism while still considering themselves agnostic. Agnosticism is not necessarily about the strength of one's belief or lack thereof, but rather a recognition of the limitations of knowledge and the uncertainty of the evidence available. An agnostic can have a strong inclination towards either theism or atheism, but still refrain from making a definite claim about the existence or non-existence of a deity or supernatural being due to a lack of sufficient evidence.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Believing that the there is no such thing as Collecting Stamps is not a subset of not collecting stamps yourself.

Rejection of something and lacking something are two distinct concepts. Rejection involves actively denying or opposing a particular belief or idea, whereas lacking something simply means not having it or not being aware of it.

In the case of atheism, the definition is commonly understood as a lack of belief in a deity or supernatural being, rather than an active rejection of theism. This means that an individual who identifies as an atheist does not have a belief in a deity or supernatural being, but this does not necessarily mean that they actively reject or oppose theism. They simply do not hold a belief in a deity or supernatural being.

In relation to atheism, the saying "Believing that the there is no such thing as Collecting Stamps is not a subset of not collecting stamps yourself." can be interpreted as: "Believing that there is no deity or supernatural being is not the same as not participating in religious activities or practices."

In other words, just because someone holds the belief that there is no deity or supernatural being, it does not mean that they do not engage in religious practices or attend religious ceremonies. They may choose to participate in these activities for cultural, social, or personal reasons, despite their disbelief in a deity or supernatural being.

This highlights the distinction between atheism, which is a lack of belief in a deity or supernatural being, and religious practices, which are cultural, social, or personal behaviors. They are separate and distinct, and an individual can hold the belief of atheism while still engaging in religious practices.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

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

Your perspective on the advantage of a lack of belief in gods, or atheism, is subjective and dependent on the individual's personal experience. Some individuals may indeed find relief in not having to make an effort to understand the nature, requirements, and preferences of gods, or in not having to engage in religious practices in order to retain their favor. For these individuals, a lack of belief in gods may lead to a freeing up of personal resources.

However, this perspective is not universally applicable, as some individuals may find comfort and meaning in their belief in gods, or may have a strong cultural or social connection to religious beliefs and practices. For these individuals, the belief in gods may have a significant purpose and advantage in their lives.

In the end, whether or not a lack of belief in gods has an advantage or particular purpose is a matter of personal perspective and belief, and cannot be universally answered.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

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.

The statement you provided defines belief as holding something to be true under certain conditions, specifically when there is insufficient evidence to make a knowledge judgement, no evidence, or the evidence contradicts the belief. This definition of belief emphasizes that it is not necessarily based on evidence or facts, but can still be held as true by an individual.

The example of not believing in the chair you're sitting in is meant to illustrate this point by showing that even though you have direct experience of the chair supporting you, you can still hold the belief that the chair does not exist.

It's important to note that this definition of belief is not universally accepted, and other definitions may exist that place more emphasis on evidence and facts. Ultimately, the definition of belief is subjective and dependent on the individual's own perspective and understanding.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Tommok

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.

When knowledge is absolute, such as knowing you are a human being, belief is not necessarily required, as the knowledge is already established and supported by evidence or justification. However, in many cases, knowledge is not absolute and can be incomplete, meaning that an individual has only limited information or evidence to support a belief. In such cases, belief can play a role in continuing to work towards a point of knowing something to be true, by seeking out additional evidence or justification.

Once something is known to be true, belief is no longer necessary, as the knowledge has been established and supported by evidence. At this point, belief can serve to reinforce the knowledge, but it is not a requirement. The distinction between belief and knowledge is that belief can be held without evidence or justification, while knowledge requires evidence or justification to support it.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Those are boldly silly assertions. What does an agnostic have to be ignorant of?

A-gnostic = Without knowledge...

So .... the answer to your question is.... whatever he claims to be ignorant of and thus claims agnosticism about.

Originally Posted by Navigator

Your assertion about agnosticism is incorrect. Agnosticism is not inherently illogical or fallacious.

If only you were able to read posts properly you would know that the above is a STRAWMANNING...

I did not say that agnosticism is illogical... go read the post again and see for yourself.

I said making arguments while one is also claiming agnosticism is illogical.

And if you do not know the difference then... well... I suggest you learn more about the fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

Originally Posted by Navigator

It is simply a position that one does not have enough evidence or knowledge to make a definite claim about the existence or non-existence of a particular deity, supernatural being, or phenomenon.

Exactly... so doing any further claims would be a fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

Originally Posted by Navigator

An agnostic individual can still make logical, evidence-based arguments about related issues without committing fallacies.

Yes... and if only you had managed to read my post you would know that yet again you are arguing against a strawman.

I said

Originally Posted by Leumas

Any argument or position based upon agnosticism is an illogical fallacious argument from ignorance ... by definition.

So it is not neutral or not not neutral.... it is ignorance ... by definition.

Arguments or stances based upon ignorance are... illogical and fallacious.

People who claim ignorance ... i.e. agnosticism ... should just shut up and not make any opinion or stance or argument about what they claim agnosticism of... otherwise they are committing illogical fallacies.

It would behoove you to READ stuff before you make strawmen out of it and argue against those instead of what was actually said.

Originally Posted by Navigator

Speaking of fallacies committed, you committed the fallacy of overgeneralization.

No I did not... it appears so to you only because you committed the fallacy of not reading and making strawmen out of what you have not read.

Originally Posted by Navigator

By making a sweeping generalization about the entire concept of agnosticism, claiming that it is inherently illogical and fallacious, which is not accurate.

I suggest you read the post before you make sweeping ASSUMPTIONS about what you have not read.

Originally Posted by Navigator

Additionally, you have made a straw man argument by implying that agnostics claim to have complete ignorance on a subject, which is not the definition of agnosticism.

A-gnostic = WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE....

get that???

Originally Posted by Navigator

The assertion that people who claim ignorance (agnosticism) should not make any opinion or stance is also incorrect, as agnosticism allows for the possibility of holding a belief or making a stance, even if it is not a definite one.

Holding beliefs out of A-gnosticism (without knowledge) is the definition of a logical fallacy.

It would behoove you to learn about the fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Navigator

When knowledge is absolute, such as knowing you are a human being, belief is not necessarily required, as the knowledge is already established and supported by evidence or justification....

You are equivocating the word belief with FAITH.

[Navigator]

Quote:

Holding beliefs out of A-gnosticism (without knowledge) is the definition of a logical fallacy.

It would behoove you to learn about the fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

Incorrect. The fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, also known as the "argument from ignorance," occurs when a conclusion is drawn based solely on a lack of evidence to the contrary. This fallacy assumes that the absence of evidence for a particular claim means that the claim must be true. However, this is not always the case.

On the other hand, agnosticism is the position that the existence of a deity or deities is unknown or unknowable. An agnostic person may hold beliefs or make a stance based on the available evidence and their own experiences, but they acknowledge that there is a degree of uncertainty or lack of knowledge about the matter. This is not the same as drawing a conclusion based solely on ignorance, which would indeed be a logical fallacy.

Therefore, you are incorrect as you conflate agnosticism with the fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Navigator

That's correct. Agnosticism is often misunderstood as being neutral or impartial between theism and atheism. However, an individual can hold a leaning or a preference towards either theism or atheism while still considering themselves agnostic.

Yes... and that is called FAITH and is an illogical fallacy... whichever direction.

Originally Posted by Navigator

Agnosticism is not necessarily about the strength of one's belief or lack thereof, but rather a recognition of the limitations of knowledge and the uncertainty of the evidence available.

Yes... and that is why agnostics need to shut up and not make FAITH based fallacious beliefs.

Originally Posted by Navigator

An agnostic can have a strong inclination towards either theism or atheism, but still refrain from making a definite claim about the existence or non-existence of a deity or supernatural being due to a lack of sufficient evidence.

So if the defense lawyer claims that the butler did the crime.... but no butler has ever been in the employment of the murder victim nor has there ever been a butler in the vicinity, nor has any butler ever been produced...

Furthermore... there is scads of evidence that the 70 years old murder victim was murdered by his 25 years old wife who was caught with the blood drenched knife and blood all over her body and blouse and mini-skirt and stilettos....

Is it logical or rational that juror #11 keep a strong inclination towards the butler having done it and that he could still be produced one day and that the pretty gold-digger wife is innocent of the crime??


Well... if your answer is no it is not logical... then that is exactly what theistic agnosticism is in 2023.




.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Leumas

You are equivocating the word belief with FAITH.

My use of the example of knowing one is a human being is not equivocating the word "belief" with "faith". The example was meant to illustrate that certain types of knowledge can be absolute and not reliant on belief, as it is supported by evidence or justification. This is in contrast to other types of knowledge that may not be absolute and require belief until additional evidence or justification is found.

I was making a distinction between belief and knowledge, where belief can be held without evidence or justification, while knowledge requires evidence or justification to support it. In the case of knowing one is a human being, belief is not necessary as the knowledge is already established and supported by evidence.

Your claim that I am equivocating the word "belief" with "faith" is not correct. "Belief" and "faith" are not synonyms and refer to different concepts. Belief can refer to a mental acceptance of something as true, while faith typically refers to belief in a higher power or spiritual system.

In conclusion, my use of the example of knowing one is a human being was not equivocating the word "belief" with "faith" and your claim that I was doing so is not accurate.

[Navigator]

You really need to think about ceasing with the practice of quote-mining, as doing so only makes you look like you are battling a strawman...and one may as well go argue with that scarecrow in the field.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Incorrect. The fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, also known as the "argument from ignorance," occurs when a conclusion is drawn based solely on a lack of evidence to the contrary.

Yes... it bloody is correct... and you go it.... and that is exactly what Agnosticism is.... QED!!!

Originally Posted by Navigator

This fallacy assumes that the absence of evidence for a particular claim means that the claim must be true. However, this is not always the case.

Yes... that is what an agnostic does... if an agnostic says that the absence of evidence for the existence of gods is not enough for him to stop having FAITH in their existence.

Originally Posted by Navigator

On the other hand, agnosticism is the position that the existence of a deity or deities is unknown or unknowable.

And if he then proceeds to still have FAITH... then it is the definition of an argument out of ignorance.

Originally Posted by Navigator

An agnostic person may hold beliefs or make a stance based on the available evidence and their own experiences,

Then he is not A-gnostic... if he has evidence or experience... then he is GNOSTIC.....

get that???

Originally Posted by Navigator

but they acknowledge that there is a degree of uncertainty or lack of knowledge about the matter.

Then again they are working out of FAITH.... not rationally.... either direction.

Originally Posted by Navigator

This is not the same as drawing a conclusion based solely on ignorance, which would indeed be a logical fallacy.

If one says that he has experience or evidence then he is not A-gnostic... and if he thinks that his "evidence" and "experience" are not logical or substantial... then he is acting out of FAITH... not logically... whichever way.

Originally Posted by Navigator

Therefore, you are incorrect as you conflate agnosticism with the fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

Nope... it only appears to you this way because you are equivocating FAITH with knowledge and belief and evidence.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Navigator

....I was making a distinction between belief and knowledge, where belief can be held without evidence or justification....

Yes... irrational FAITH....

Belief based upon knowledge is also belief ... but is rational .... unlike FAITH which you rightly said is an irrational belief "held without evidence or justification".... QED!!!


You are equivocating between irrational faith and rational belief.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Navigator

You really need to think about ceasing with the practice of quote-mining, as doing so only makes you look like you are battling a strawman...and one may as well go argue with that scarecrow in the field.

So quoting your own words right under the post which has your own words... is "quote mining".....

Do you know what citing means and what it is and how it is done.... it might behoove you to look it up....

Labeling the action of citing as "quote mining"... is the definition of strawman and scarecrow erecting.




.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Navigator

<snip>

Do you think being agnostic in 2023 about leprechauns is rational?

Do you think an agnostic about leprechauns can then rationally say that he has faith in leprechauns despite it being 2023???

If your answer to the above two questions is ... no... then why the special pleading for faith in deadbeat sky daddies???

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Incorrect. The fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, also known as the "argument from ignorance," occurs when a conclusion is drawn based solely on a lack of evidence to the contrary. This fallacy assumes that the absence of evidence for a particular claim means that the claim must be true. However, this is not always the case.

That's partially incorrect. It's not a fallacy when you just fall back on the null hypothesis, when it's not your burden of proof to prove a negative. (Which it usually isn't.) It's only a fallacy when basically you conclude the positive based on the negative not being disproven.

E.g., given that I don't have any evidence either way that my morning wood is causing the sun to rise, it's actually correct and not a fallacy to fall back on the null hypothesis that no, it doesn't. It's not even incorrect to be against the Morning Wood Sun cult, as long as none of them proved that causation.

Of course, it being the null hypothesis, it's just a working assumption. You can't claim it was PROVEN to be the negative either. If sufficient evidence is provided for the contrary, sure, we'll change our minds then.

And I mean, I can't speak for all atheists, but I'm more than open to be probven wrong. I even posted more than once what would convince me that someone is a god. I'm actually not even asking for omnipotence or anything. Show that you actually have the powers ascribed to an Egyptian Pharaoh (who was taken to be an actual god at the time), and I'm convinced. Then you're a god, as far as I'm concerned. Or a prophet/avatar/whatever of a god, if that's what you wish to claim.

[HansMustermann]

As for the ghosts and all that, it just surprises me how hard it seems to be for some people to understand that being an atheist ONLY means not believing in gods. Especially that it's NOT a synonym for "skeptic". In fact, it's orthogonal.

You can believe in the Illuminati, ghosts, levitation, clairvoyance, etc, and still be an atheist.

Hell, you don't even have to have a rational reason for being an atheist. I could be an atheist because my invisible cat telepathically told me so. It's still being an atheist.

Hell, you can even be a religious atheist. Some schools of Buddhism are hard-line atheistic. So you could be an atheist BECAUSE you're a devout Buddhist.

[Lithrael]

Well put, Hans.

Also I’m enjoying that this thread has become a play date for Navigator and Leumas.

Navigator, I’m still not clear what is important to you about this ‘not because of’ stuff. Also confused by your worries about conflation when you are talking about (what I assume everyone else sees as) subsets.

Atheists who aren’t interested in talking about their opinions about gods, and atheists who will miss no opportunity to slam religion, are both atheists. Sure you could sort them into say ‘vanilla atheists’ and ‘antitheist atheists’ and those two groups would be defined by those differences but they are all definitely atheists.

To me what you are saying is like… worrying that there will be confusion if you call murderers ‘criminals’ because a lot of criminals are just shoplifters. And murderers and shoplifters are totally different! So how can ‘criminal’ not be a misleading term to use!? Well, because it’s a broad category containing more specific ones.

To put it another way, I am not conflating sea turtles with tortoises if I say they are both turtles.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Navigator

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

Then why did you cite it?

Quote:

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.

I'm asking why you presented it as though it supported your position on agnostic atheists. You claimed that the article identified "agnostic atheists" as being more likely to hold superstitious beliefs. But the article never uses that term, referring to "agnostics and atheists" as two separate groups. So it is clearly not using the definition of agnosticism that most of the atheists here are using.

Quote:

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.

No, it isn't. The article, which you've admitted is crap, never clarifies the definitions of atheism or agnosticism, and clearly makes the common assumption that one is either one or the other. And it clearly makes the assumption that "agnostic" means "undecided", rather than the position that a claim is unfalsifiable, and therefore not scientifically valid.

Quote:

As far as positions go, atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods.

You almost have it. Atheism isn't so much a position as it is a state. Being an agnostic atheist, or a gnostic atheist, would be a position. "Atheism" tells you the state - lacking belief in gods - but it doesn't tell you someone's position on why they lack belief in gods.

Quote:

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.

No. Gnostic/agnostic is different from theist/atheist in the way that the X coordinate is different from the Y coordinate. They are not, however, mutually exclusive. One can be an agnostic theist, for example, as long as one maintains that the existence of one's god/gods is unfalsifiable, but also claims a positive belief in said deities. "Agnostic neutralism" is a term you're attempting to force onto those with whom you're here arguing.

Quote:

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.

And your argument is wrong. Gods are a specific subset of supernatural concepts. One could hold that ghosts exist without believing in anything like gods.

Quote:

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.

You appear to be willfully misunderstanding my argument. I never stated that an agnostic is less inclined to hold irrational beliefs. I said that someone who is equally disposed toward the existence/nonexistence of gods is probably more inclined to irrational beliefs about other things. Many people, unfortunately, hold the popular misconception that "agnostic" means undecided, and the author of the article seems to be writing under the same misapprehension. Your continuing use of the term "agnostic neutral" suggests that you are making the same error, despite numerous explanations by others in this thread.

Quote:

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.

Your thread title is indeed JAQing. We aren't conflating atheism and agnosticism any more than we are conflating belief and epistemology. You came here knowing that you'd already encountered people who identify as agnostic atheists, with what you thought was an authoritative source proving that agnostic atheists are more prone to irrational beliefs than "atheists". But now that people have told you that you are incorrectly defining what they mean by "agnostic atheist", you're ignoring them and continuing to insist that "agnostic" means "neutral".

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

Atheists who aren’t interested in talking about their opinions about gods, and atheists who will miss no opportunity to slam religion, are both atheists. Sure you could sort them into say ‘vanilla atheists’ and ‘antitheist atheists’ and those two groups would be defined by those differences but they are all definitely atheists.

Or like the difference between people who don't believe in Santa Claus, and people who pass out copies of that Chick Tract about the kid who instantly becomes homicidally insane when he learns that Santa Claus isn't real.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by Leumas

Any argument or position based upon agnosticism is an illogical fallacious argument from ignorance ... by definition.

So it is not neutral or not not neutral.... it is ignorance ... by definition.

Arguments or stances based upon ignorance are... illogical and fallacious.

People who claim ignorance ... i.e. agnosticism ... should just shut up and not make any opinion or stance or argument about what they claim agnosticism of... otherwise they are committing illogical fallacies.

Originally Posted by Navigator

Those are boldly silly assertions. What does an agnostic have to be ignorant of?

Your assertion about agnosticism is incorrect. Agnosticism is not inherently illogical or fallacious. It is simply a position that one does not have enough evidence or knowledge to make a definite claim about the existence or non-existence of a particular deity, supernatural being, or phenomenon. An agnostic individual can still make logical, evidence-based arguments about related issues without committing fallacies.

Speaking of fallacies committed, you committed the fallacy of overgeneralization. By making a sweeping generalization about the entire concept of agnosticism, claiming that it is inherently illogical and fallacious, which is not accurate. Additionally, you have made a straw man argument by implying that agnostics claim to have complete ignorance on a subject, which is not the definition of agnosticism. The assertion that people who claim ignorance (agnosticism) should not make any opinion or stance is also incorrect, as agnosticism allows for the possibility of holding a belief or making a stance, even if it is not a definite one.

Based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument from ignorance.

Agnosticism is saying, I don't know* so I'm not saying one way or the other.
Argument from ignorance, I don't know so it must this.

*Really its more of I don't think anyone can know because its unfalsifiable. Specific gods are falsifiable but not all possible gods. IMHO.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

Navigator, I’m still not clear what is important to you about this ‘not because of’ stuff. Also confused by your worries about conflation when you are talking about (what I assume everyone else sees as) subsets.

Atheists who aren’t interested in talking about their opinions about gods, and atheists who will miss no opportunity to slam religion, are both atheists. Sure you could sort them into say ‘vanilla atheists’ and ‘antitheist atheists’ and those two groups would be defined by those differences but they are all definitely atheists.

To me what you are saying is like… worrying that there will be confusion if you call murderers ‘criminals’ because a lot of criminals are just shoplifters. And murderers and shoplifters are totally different! So how can ‘criminal’ not be a misleading term to use!? Well, because it’s a broad category containing more specific ones.

To put it another way, I am not conflating sea turtles with tortoises if I say they are both turtles.

Lithrael - it is important to clearly define anything. Calling murderers and rapists and pot smokers and shoplifters all 'criminals' isn't able to do this. It simply lumps them all under the same heading.

To answer your question.


I think the only way out of this box of tricks is to update the current definition of atheism because quite obviously the current definition is too open to silly factors such as babies and even rocks being able to be called atheists

One could argue along the lines that the definition of atheism refers to the lack of belief in a deity or gods by a sentient being, typically a human. It does not apply to non-sentient entities or beings that are not capable of holding beliefs, such as babies or animals.

But the current definition does not imply that...it simply say's that Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. That implies babies are atheists too.

The definition of atheism simply states that it is the lack of belief in gods, and does not make any mention of the sentience or capability of the individual holding that belief. This has led to the interpretation that the definition could apply to non-sentient entities or beings, including babies. To avoid misunderstandings, it may be necessary to clarify the definition to specify that it only applies to sentient beings capable of holding beliefs.

I might suggest that the updated definition is changed to define antitheism as atheism, rather than as a subset of atheism

The current definition of antitheism is generally understood to refer to the active opposition to belief in gods or religion, rather than simply the lack of belief.

If the current definition of atheism was changed, there may be less disagreement where antitheism should be placed - as a subset or a stand alone position.

The current definition of atheism has been a source of confusion and debate for a long time, and updating it could help address these issues.

⊛ The definition only addresses the lack of belief in gods or deities, but not the broader philosophical or ethical implications of that lack of belief.

⊛ The definition does not account for the range of beliefs and perspectives that individuals may hold within the broad category of atheism, such as agnosticism, humanism, or antitheism.

⊛ The definition does not clearly distinguish between the lack of belief in gods or deities and the lack of belief in other supernatural or paranormal claims, such as ghosts, spirits, or UFO's.

⊛ The definition does not take into account the cultural, historical, or social context in which atheism is held, which could influence an individual's beliefs and understanding of the concept.

⊛ The definition does not address the fact that some people may hold a lack of belief in gods or deities due to a lack of evidence, while others may hold that belief due to personal experience or conviction or antitheist feelings due to an number of valid reasons.

These are some of the areas of confusion that arise from the current definition of atheism. Addressing these issues in a revised definition could help to clarify the concept and reduce misunderstandings.

Antitheism can stem from a variety of reasons, including philosophical objections to religion or a personal experience with religious harm. Including this in a revised definition could help to reflect the range of perspectives and experiences within the broad category of atheism.

Antitheism is a relevant position. Further to that, many people already think that the expression of antitheists is the expression of atheists, so changing the definition of atheism to better suit that, wouldn't create too much of a problem adjusting to it.

Including antitheism in the definition of atheism could help to reflect the reality that many people already associate the two concepts. However, it's important to consider that this change could also lead to further debates and controversies, as some individuals may hold that antitheism is a separate position from atheism.

Individuals who believe that antitheism is separate from atheism may argue that the two concepts represent distinct positions. They may argue that atheism simply refers to the lack of belief in gods or deities, while antitheism involves a more active opposition to religion and religious belief. They may base their argument on the distinction between a lack of belief (atheism) and a positive belief in the opposite (antitheism).

In general, those who believe that antitheism is separate from atheism may argue that the current definition of atheism accurately reflects the concept, and that any attempt to broaden the definition to include antitheism would dilute or alter the meaning of the term.

Given that we know the current definition can include babies when it shouldn't "Lack of belief in gods" does not imply any motivation or goal. It is simply a lack of. There is no requirement or stipulation that lacking belief means having goals or motivations.

The position of Antitheism on the other hand, is fully about motivation and goals, and is currently only a subset of atheism as atheism is currently defined.

Given these differences, it is understandable that some individuals may argue that antitheism should be considered a separate position from atheism, rather than a subset.

If Antitheism had its own position, so too should Agnosticism.

Agnosticism is a distinct position from both atheism and antitheism, and it refers to the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not gods or deities exist. Agnostics may hold the view that the existence of gods or deities is unknown or unknowable, and that it is not possible to have absolute certainty about the matter.

Given that agnosticism represents a distinct position, some may argue that it is appropriate to have a separate category for it, separate from both atheism and antitheism. This would help to accurately reflect the diversity of perspectives and experiences within the community and avoid confusion or misunderstandings.

Others may argue that agnosticism is a subset of atheism, given that agnostics lack belief in gods or deities. The relationship between agnosticism and atheism is a subject of ongoing debate and discussion, and there is no clear consensus on how the two concepts should be defined or related.

These two points have created a problem re the current definition of atheism, and both points have to do with forcing both antitheism and agnosticism to be subsets of atheism, rather than stand alone positions which are distinct from each other.
Therefore, it can be shown that the current definition of atheism has been the main cause of fighting due to the confusion it causes among human beings.

It is clear that the current definition of atheism has caused confusion and disagreement among some people, particularly with regards to the relationship between atheism, antitheism, and agnosticism. By forcing these distinct positions to be subsets of atheism, the current definition does not accurately reflect the reality of the community and can lead to misunderstandings or oversimplifications.

It is important to acknowledge and address these challenges, as they can impact the ability of individuals and communities to have productive discussions and to understand each other's perspectives and experiences. By updating the definition of atheism to better reflect the reality of the community, it may be possible to reduce confusion and improve the clarity of communication.

Ultimately, the goal should be to arrive at definitions that are widely understood and accepted, and that accurately reflect the diversity of perspectives and experiences within the community. This can help to foster more productive and respectful discussions and to better understand each other's experiences and viewpoints.

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Navigator

The current definition of atheism has been a source of confusion and debate for a long time, and updating it could help address these issues.

Only with idiots. Or people who deliberately twist it to try to foist a point.

Does a thinking being believe in god or gods? No? Then they're an atheist.

You're attempting to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Lithrael - it is important to clearly define anything. Calling murderers and rapists and pot smokers and shoplifters all 'criminals' isn't able to do this. It simply lumps them all under the same heading.

To answer your question.


I think the only way out of this box of tricks is to update the current definition of atheism because quite obviously the current definition is too open to silly factors such as babies and even rocks being able to be called atheists

One could argue along the lines that the definition of atheism refers to the lack of belief in a deity or gods by a sentient being, typically a human. It does not apply to non-sentient entities or beings that are not capable of holding beliefs, such as babies or animals.

But the current definition does not imply that...it simply say's that Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. That implies babies are atheists too.

The definition of atheism simply states that it is the lack of belief in gods, and does not make any mention of the sentience or capability of the individual holding that belief. This has led to the interpretation that the definition could apply to non-sentient entities or beings, including babies. To avoid misunderstandings, it may be necessary to clarify the definition to specify that it only applies to sentient beings capable of holding beliefs.

I might suggest that the updated definition is changed to define antitheism as atheism, rather than as a subset of atheism

The current definition of antitheism is generally understood to refer to the active opposition to belief in gods or religion, rather than simply the lack of belief.

If the current definition of atheism was changed, there may be less disagreement where antitheism should be placed - as a subset or a stand alone position.

The current definition of atheism has been a source of confusion and debate for a long time, and updating it could help address these issues.

⊛ The definition only addresses the lack of belief in gods or deities, but not the broader philosophical or ethical implications of that lack of belief.

⊛ The definition does not account for the range of beliefs and perspectives that individuals may hold within the broad category of atheism, such as agnosticism, humanism, or antitheism.

⊛ The definition does not clearly distinguish between the lack of belief in gods or deities and the lack of belief in other supernatural or paranormal claims, such as ghosts, spirits, or UFO's.

⊛ The definition does not take into account the cultural, historical, or social context in which atheism is held, which could influence an individual's beliefs and understanding of the concept.

⊛ The definition does not address the fact that some people may hold a lack of belief in gods or deities due to a lack of evidence, while others may hold that belief due to personal experience or conviction or antitheist feelings due to an number of valid reasons.

These are some of the areas of confusion that arise from the current definition of atheism. Addressing these issues in a revised definition could help to clarify the concept and reduce misunderstandings.

Antitheism can stem from a variety of reasons, including philosophical objections to religion or a personal experience with religious harm. Including this in a revised definition could help to reflect the range of perspectives and experiences within the broad category of atheism.

Antitheism is a relevant position. Further to that, many people already think that the expression of antitheists is the expression of atheists, so changing the definition of atheism to better suit that, wouldn't create too much of a problem adjusting to it.

Including antitheism in the definition of atheism could help to reflect the reality that many people already associate the two concepts. However, it's important to consider that this change could also lead to further debates and controversies, as some individuals may hold that antitheism is a separate position from atheism.

Individuals who believe that antitheism is separate from atheism may argue that the two concepts represent distinct positions. They may argue that atheism simply refers to the lack of belief in gods or deities, while antitheism involves a more active opposition to religion and religious belief. They may base their argument on the distinction between a lack of belief (atheism) and a positive belief in the opposite (antitheism).

In general, those who believe that antitheism is separate from atheism may argue that the current definition of atheism accurately reflects the concept, and that any attempt to broaden the definition to include antitheism would dilute or alter the meaning of the term.

Given that we know the current definition can include babies when it shouldn't "Lack of belief in gods" does not imply any motivation or goal. It is simply a lack of. There is no requirement or stipulation that lacking belief means having goals or motivations.

The position of Antitheism on the other hand, is fully about motivation and goals, and is currently only a subset of atheism as atheism is currently defined.

Given these differences, it is understandable that some individuals may argue that antitheism should be considered a separate position from atheism, rather than a subset.

If Antitheism had its own position, so too should Agnosticism.

Agnosticism is a distinct position from both atheism and antitheism, and it refers to the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not gods or deities exist. Agnostics may hold the view that the existence of gods or deities is unknown or unknowable, and that it is not possible to have absolute certainty about the matter.

Given that agnosticism represents a distinct position, some may argue that it is appropriate to have a separate category for it, separate from both atheism and antitheism. This would help to accurately reflect the diversity of perspectives and experiences within the community and avoid confusion or misunderstandings.

Others may argue that agnosticism is a subset of atheism, given that agnostics lack belief in gods or deities. The relationship between agnosticism and atheism is a subject of ongoing debate and discussion, and there is no clear consensus on how the two concepts should be defined or related.

These two points have created a problem re the current definition of atheism, and both points have to do with forcing both antitheism and agnosticism to be subsets of atheism, rather than stand alone positions which are distinct from each other.
Therefore, it can be shown that the current definition of atheism has been the main cause of fighting due to the confusion it causes among human beings.

It is clear that the current definition of atheism has caused confusion and disagreement among some people, particularly with regards to the relationship between atheism, antitheism, and agnosticism. By forcing these distinct positions to be subsets of atheism, the current definition does not accurately reflect the reality of the community and can lead to misunderstandings or oversimplifications.

It is important to acknowledge and address these challenges, as they can impact the ability of individuals and communities to have productive discussions and to understand each other's perspectives and experiences. By updating the definition of atheism to better reflect the reality of the community, it may be possible to reduce confusion and improve the clarity of communication.

Ultimately, the goal should be to arrive at definitions that are widely understood and accepted, and that accurately reflect the diversity of perspectives and experiences within the community. This can help to foster more productive and respectful discussions and to better understand each other's experiences and viewpoints.

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

You're attempting to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

The problem does exist, as the details of my post show.
Another problem that exists is how some folk quote-mine and create strawmen.

For me, such folk may as well go talk to said scarecrow in the field, because they will get the same response from me as they would from the scarecrow.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Only with idiots. Or people who deliberately twist it to try to foist a point.



Does a thinking being believe in god or gods? No? Then they're an atheist.



You're attempting to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

Yes. This.

Like atypical or asexual or apolitical the word just means a non-member of a group. Becoming exasperated that by that definition a cheese sandwich is apolitical seems rather silly. What confusion does it cause that we don't have a specific word for lacking any political views while not being a foodstuff?

[ahhell]

@Navigator, perhaps instead of updating the definition of atheism, we should more clearly define god? The definition seems to be "supernatural entity that people worship"

Which in most cases excludes ghosts, fairies, etc.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by ahhell

@Navigator, perhaps instead of updating the definition of atheism, we should more clearly define god? The definition seems to be "supernatural entity that people worship"

Which in most cases excludes ghosts, fairies, etc.

I think that defining god and even worship has its own problems in relation to the current definition of atheism, ahhell.

I am satisfied that - as an Agnostic - my treating Agnosticism as a separate and distinct position from atheism [as atheism is currently defined] and also treating Antitheism as its own unique position, for the same reason, is the best approach to take.

If and when my Agnostic based expressions cause confusion to any readers, re I might not sound like I am an atheist at all - I can direct them to post #114 of this thread, so it is all good in its own way.

I don't personally consider myself either atheist or theist, and some folk have a problem with that.

I do not.

[Carrot Flower King]

Originally Posted by ahhell

@Navigator, perhaps instead of updating the definition of atheism, we should more clearly define god? The definition seems to be "supernatural entity that people worship"

Which in most cases excludes ghosts, fairies, etc.

Please don't go there: we'll have another one of those "Yes, but that isn't what I mean by a god!" while-someone-actually-talks-about-what-everyone-else-thinks-would-be-a-god discussions which go on for 10s of pages and get nowhere.

And that will be before we circle back back to "What do you mean "mean"?" and words meaning exactly what Humpty Dumpty says they mean.

ETA Or on the other hand we are only on page 3, so go for it!