I dislike the definition of Atheism being merely lack of belief and not disbelief — WiseMoron

I think the distinction you might be after is between 'strong atheism', which believes strongly that there is no God, and 'weak atheism', which doesn't claim to know, but also says it's not an important question.

I know that atheism isn't a religion, but how can you have an opinion on the same subject that you have no belief nor disbelief in? — WiseMoron

Much modern atheism, like that of the 'new atheists', and 'evangelical atheists' like Richard Carrier and others, is very much a mirror-image of theism and is therefore defined, in some sense, by what it denies. There's a publication called 'The Good Book' which purports to be a secular bible, and another by Carrier, 'Good without God', which likewise tries to articulate a secular ethical system. Not being an atheist, or drawn to atheism, I don't have detailed knowledge of the contents of these books, but I think they illustrate the point regardless, that they are in a real sense anti-theist, or even misotheist, i.e. they are motivated by a positive animus towards religion, not mere indifference.

I think the distinction you might be after is between 'strong atheism', which believes strongly that there is no God, and 'weak atheism', which doesn't claim to know, but also says it's not an important question. — Wayfarer

Isn't the latter a better description of "apatheism" rather than atheism?

perhaps, but is it a word? Is there a checkbox for it on the Census?

Guessing there should be weak theism and strong theism too, since those two exist for atheism...fck philosophy...

perhaps, but is it a word? — Wayfarer

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

Is there a checkbox for it on the Census?

I can't speak to the Australian census, but the U.S. census, as far as I'm aware, has no category for apatheist.

The difference between hard atheism and soft atheism (also known as strong/positive and weak/negative atheism respectively) is the distinction that you're pointing out, and so it's true that there's ambiguity inherent in the term "atheism". All atheists lack belief in god, but only hard atheists go further to possess the belief that no god(s) exist.

The diagrams still do make sense, they're just less useful if we take atheism to mean soft-atheism.

I consider myself an agnostic (soft) atheist (I don't believe in God and I believe knowledge of gods is unattainable). Gnostic soft-atheist would be someone who doesn't believe in god but believes that knowledge of god is attainable. A gnostic hard-atheist would be someone who believes no god(s) exist and believes that knowledge of god(s) non-existence is attainable.

I don't think a person can have a blank-slate "lack of belief" unless he grew up in a society where religion was a non-issue (or didn't exist). For the rest of us atheists, or for many of us, at least, we grew up in societies where religion was very much a going concern. Some of us even once believed in this or that religion, and positive "dis-belief" is a necessary part of our atheism. It takes nothing away from the atheist if he "believes in atheism", "disbelieves in religion", or just plain doesn't give a rat's ass one way or the other.

Atheism is quite often reactionary -- it is a rejection, reaction to, specific religious beliefs, activities, and maybe religious people. Being reactionary doesn't make it less. "Reactionary" merely specifies the route by which someone arrived at atheism.

Taking the position that God doesn't exist of necessity entails a belief--a belief that God doesn't exist. It is a belief because the existence of God can neither be proved (hard on the believer) or disproved (hard on the disbeliever). It can not be an indisputable fact, either way. (Lots of things can not be proved indisputably. We have to put up with that, like it or not.)

If the definition of Atheism is merely lack of belief, both of these diagrams make no sense whatsoever. — WiseMoron

That may be overstating it a bit, but I think the diagram does have some problems.

I think that to be internally consistent, both dimensions need to be belief, with the scale indicating degree of confidence in the belief and the top/right being maximum confidence the belief is wrong and bottom/left being maximum confidence it is right.

Now comes the tricky bit:

While the horizontal scale represents belief in the existence of a certain sort of god, the vertical scale is belief that it is possible for anybody to know whether or not that certain sort of god exists.

In other words, the vertical scale is not knowledge but strength of belief in the possibility of knowledge.

Without that adjustment, I don't see how the vertical scale can be continuous. It seems to me it would have to be simply binary - Knows or does not Know.

That diagram is basically cancer precisely because it leaves out, or rather bastardizes, agnosticism, or the mere lack of belief. Agnosticism entails not being either an atheist or a theist - it is to have an indeterminate belief. But for some funny reason both sides, especially the atheistic side, demand that everyone pick a side when in reality there are many people, myself included, who have little interest in the debate currently and have no wish to be associated with those who are.

To equate agnosticism with "weak atheism" is to beg the question and ignore the legitimate concerns actual agnostics have against either theism or atheism.

There is absolutely no need for any of these silly "sorting" diagrams, as if it's a political spectrum but for theological issues. You're either a theist, an atheist, or an agnostic, with the particulars happening within these three positions, just like any simple ontological debate. If I do not believe electrons exist, but I don't "know" electrons don't exist (wtf?!), I'm not an "agnostic a-electronist". I'm just an a-electronist. Nobody gives two shits how "strong" your belief is - because the actual strength of your belief is brought up through testing your reasons.

If you ask me "do you believe in God?" I will respond with "tell me what God is and I'll tell you whether I believe in it." I do not believe in the gods of organized religion, but that does not make me an atheist. It just makes me non-religious. That's it, folks. These are not the droids you are looking for. Move along, move along.

Here's an attempt from me:, using belief in god on the horizontal and belief in the possibility of knowledge of god on the vertical.

The area above the parabola is agnostic and below it gnostic. The six markers are:
GT = Gnostic Theist
AT = Agnostic Theist
GA = Gnostic Atheist
AA = Agnostic Atheist
GU = Gnostic Uncommitted
AU = Agnostic Uncommitted

This diagram captures the idea that it is not possible to believe with virtual certainty in god, or its nonexistence, while at the same time believing that knowledge about that is impossible. The more towards the middle one gets horizontally, the more viable it becomes to be either gnostic or agnostic.

The GUs are an interesting group. They have no strong belief or disbelief themselves but they are convinced that it is possible for others to know one way or the other.

I don't know what the word "gnostic" means in your diagram.



As for your question: Do you believe there are not two moons that revolve around the earth? Do you believe there are not three moons that revolve around the earth? And so on?

It seems to me that we do not walk about carrying beliefs about what is not the case, at least if its the sort of thing which we haven't given much thought. So I could be an atheist if I were the sort of person who came across this category "atheist" and said, well, yes, that is something I do not have a belief in.

It also seems to me that a person could actively form a disbelief, or a belief that God does not exist, and so could be an atheist.

Both seem to fit the category to me. Which kind of atheist a person is is just a psychological fact about their state of belief. And maybe a person could even slide from one kind to the other, too.

You do realize agnosticism is a position about know-ability and not about existence? The way you're employing it is in a bastardized form.

How am I employing it in a bastardized form?

I'm a convinced atheist. One thing I like to mutter about is the assumption often made that a single 'God' with a capital G is what atheists don't believe in. Me, I think all gods are products of the human imagination.

There is however emotion and feeling, which we tend to separate out as if they were different or lesser ways of apprehension, when the likelihood is they are every bit as profound and perhaps more fundamental to us than intellect. I have religious feelings, for instance when I listened to part of Bach's 'Art of the Fugue' today I had to stop the car and be emotional. Joy, empathy, love and aesthetic pleasure are all experiences where it seems to me I approach something like religious feeling.

How am I employing it in a bastardized form? — darthbarracuda

You're ignoring the main connotation of agnosticism which is "skeptical of knowledge", not "abstains from belief or disbelief in god".

Many people are skeptical of human knowledge pertaining to god but they believe in god none the less. Originally agnosticism was a skeptical reaction to theistic claims of knowledge (which rationally leads to abstaining belief) but the new colloquial usage forgets that to focus strictly on the "abstaining from belief" aspect. People who can say "I don't believe in god" (atheism) use agnosticism as a label to try and highlight the fact that they abstain from belief either way, but in doing so they're removing the nuance of it's original thrust (skepticism toward knowledge, not explicitly abstaining from belief).

The bad rap of atheism (people insisting it's a claim to knowledge, rather than a lack of belief or disbelief) is what drove people to try and redefine agnosticism in this way.

Imho, no discussion along these lines can make any sense until and unless the terms are defined. On my understanding of "God" - or "god" - only a foolish person can be an atheist, and no thinking person can be an atheist. Now, if a naive atheist insists on the non- or un-existence of god, then it doesn't take much to determine not that he or she does not believe in any possible god, but rather that he does not believe in someone else's version.

There is a very large difference between denying the god of this or that religion, and denying the possibility of any god whatsoever. But of course the devil is in the details. The god I have in mind is the absolute presupposition of natural science, and the ground of all moral/ethical understanding.

And pace relativists, you don't have a dog in this hunt, only an annoying bark.

The bad rap of atheism (people insisting it's a claim to knowledge, rather than a lack of belief or disbelief) is what drove people to try and redefine agnosticism in this way. — VagabondSpectre

Disbelief is a claim of knowledge. Any sort of belief is held because it is seen as true, even if one is a fallibilist or whatever.

Agnosticism applies to things outside of the god debate.

Many people are skeptical of human knowledge pertaining to god but they believe in god none the less. — VagabondSpectre

Which makes them theists, not agnostics.

Which makes them theists, not agnostics. — darthbarracuda

You can choose to use the word agnostic that way if you wish. It would be consistent with how some people currently use it, but not consistent with the meaning it had when originally coined by Thomas Huxley. Nor is it consistent with Bertrand Russell's use. As one of history's most famous atheists, Russell described himself as an Agnostic Atheist.

A practical disadvantage of using agnostic that way is that one loses a simple way to refer to Christian agnostics, who have historically been very important. Aren't they often mystics, and weren't Kierkegaard and Simone Weil amongst their number?

Disbelief is a claim of knowledge. Any sort of belief is held because it is seen as true, even if one is a fallibilist or whatever. — darthbarracuda

Some atheists possess disbelief, some do not. (hard and soft-atheists respectively). What's common between both positions is specifically: lacking belief in god. That said, you can believe something is true without any rational reason to support that belief (agnostic theism and agnostic hard-atheism)

Agnosticism applies to things outside of the god debate. — darthbarracuda

Yes but it has to to with knowability, not belief. It's an epistemic position about whether something is knowable, not whether it is believed.

Which makes them theists, not agnostics. — darthbarracuda

A theist who claims their belief in god is based on faith rather than knowledge is a good example of an agnostic theist.

The GUs are an interesting group. They have no strong belief or disbelief themselves but they are convinced that it is possible for others to know one way or the other. — andrewk

Can you define what GU and AU is? That would help me a lot because I kinda get what GU is. AU is a group that has no strong belief or disbelief, but they are convinced that it's not possible for others to know one way or the other? Two very interesting groups imo.

It seems to me that we do not walk about carrying beliefs about what is not the case, at least if its the sort of thing which we haven't given much thought. So I could be an atheist if I were the sort of person who came across this category "atheist" and said, well, yes, that is something I do not have a belief in.

It also seems to me that a person could actively form a disbelief, or a belief that God does not exist, and so could be an atheist. — Moliere

I would consider the first example as a type of agnosticism and the later atheism. Because babies are born into this world knowing very little, they thought nothing about God or whatever it is, wouldn't it make more sense to classify babies as a type of agnostic than any other type of category? The way the majority uses the term "atheism" is obviously flawed...



If the diagram is cancer, the ethnicity systems are equally as much. People can obviously have complex minds, but that doesn't stop us to attempt to understand one another by simplifying things and breaking down a complex world into a series of simpler systems. We do this in math, science, and even philosophy. Reason why I said ethnicity systems can be cancer too is because if you have someone whose ancestors are a mix of Native Americans, African Americans, Mexicans, and some Europeans...what category should that person identify himself or herself as? Just by the way s/he looks? Obviously the ethnicity system is more than just about looks. Just like the ethnicity system is more complex than it's actually represented as, photosynthesis is more complex than a mere teaching diagram as well. My point is, humans naturally think in a way to simplify complex things into smaller or simpler things in an attempt to understand it.

If you don't attempt to simplify things in order to understand it better, how do you expect to understand anything complex? A math teacher once told me, "Something complex is just a group of simple things."

Yes that's what I meant.
Agnostic Uncommitted (AU) are people that that have no strong belief or disbelief in God, and who believe fairly strongly that it is impossible to know whether there is one or not. I would expect this to be a large group. Maybe a lot of non-philosophical, non-religious people are in this group.

Gnostic Uncommitted are people who have no strong belief or disbelief in God, but who believe it is possible for somebody (else) to know whether there is one. I sometimes think I might be in this group. I certainly think that, if there were a God, it would be possible for people to know of its existence, since such a powerful being could reveal itself to certain individuals, thereby removing any possibility of doubt from their minds. Of course, that knowledge would only pertain to people that received such revelations, (and gullible others that were told about it).

I don't think it works so well the other way though. I don't see how it could be possible to know with certainty that there is no God. But it depends on definitions. I think one can know with a great deal of confidence that there is no God of the type described in the Bible, because it is (IMHO) self-contradictory. But that is only one of a vast range of possible conceptions of God(s).

What's common between both positions is specifically: lacking belief in god. — VagabondSpectre

But asserting that lack of belief in God makes you an atheist is to beg the question. What if I just don't believe in God, one way or another, but neither do I disbelieve in God?

Not believing in God is a necessary but not sufficient condition for atheism.

Yes but it has to to with knowability, not belief. It's an epistemic position about whether something is knowable, not whether it is believed. — VagabondSpectre

In this case, the etymology of agnosticism is not really accurate at all.

A theist who claims their belief in god is based on faith rather than knowledge is a good example of an agnostic theist. — VagabondSpectre

But they nevertheless believe God exists. They may think they cannot "know" if God exists, but clearly they do think they have some reasons to believe God exists.

If you truly do not believe one way or another, then you are an agnostic, plain and simple. Nobody actually goes around denying knowledge of God and yet believing anyway. That's stupid.

Saying "I don't know God exists" but believing anyway is confusing and dishonest. Why would anyone believe anything they didn't think was actually true? And how can someone actually know that they know something? And why should anyone else care how "strongly" you believe in God or whatever? Why don't we just ask them what their reasons for belief are and go from there?

Nobody knows that they know God exists, but that doesn't matter at all. What matters is their belief.

If you truly do not know if God can be known to exist, then you are an agnostic, plain and simple. Nobody actually goes around denying knowledge of God and yet believing anyway. That's stupid. — darthbarracuda

Say I ask you if you think/belief if trillion of dollars is real or not? You cannot say for certain you know that trillion dollars exist because you have never seen it. Even though you can look online and see other people have trillion of dollars, something cost trillion of dollars, or the stock market shows trillion of dollars are being exchanged still isn't sufficient evidence because you can legitimately become skeptical of that. In terms of being logical and being very certain beyond doubt that trillion of dollars exist, you must have the requirement of first hand experience in seeing it physically. Therefore, you heavily believe trillions of dollars exist because of conformity, yet aren't 100% certain beyond doubt that it exists.

We are of course talking about philosophy, not practicality.

In terms of being logical and being very certain beyond doubt that trillion of dollars exist, you must have the requirement of first hand experience in seeing it physically. Therefore, you heavily believe trillions of dollars exist because of conformity, yet aren't 100% certain beyond doubt that it exists. — WiseMoron

Then this applies to basically any judgement at all, and agnosticism becomes an annoying baggage term. I'm an "agnostic" about the real external world. I'm an "agnostic" about my car existing. I'm an "agnostic" about how many toes my dog has. I'm "pretty sure" the real external word exists, that my car exists, and that my dog has twenty toes, but of course I'm not absolutely certain.

But since when did absolute certainty become a requirement for belief? Why is it so important? Why can't we just say, you believe God exists = theism, you believe God does not exist = atheism, you lack a belief in God = agnosticism? Making all these extra terms only muddies the water and makes things even more pretentious than they already are.

But since when did absolute certainty become a requirement for belief? Why is it so important? — darthbarracuda

Absolute certainty isn't a requirement for belief, obviously...it's a requirement for actual knowledge, not the mere knowledge one can day dream about.

Nobody knows that they know God exists, but that doesn't matter at all. What matters is their belief. — darthbarracuda

Doesn't this agree that agnostic theism is a legit theological position?

But certainly nobody actually claims that they have absolute knowledge of God's existence. If they do they're a hack.

But certainly nobody actually claims that they have absolute knowledge of God's existence. If they do they're a hack. — darthbarracuda

Lol, you haven't met them yet. They are called gnostics for a reason and I'm primarily against them. Both atheists and theists. Gnostic theism is what most atheists hate anyways.

Who exactly calls themselves a gnostic, apart from those fourteen-year-old wannabe tryhards?

Religious people that made tons of money from publishing books, idk. Or people same age as you and me posting online. Some religious people think that knowing God exists proves more that you are holy or whatever than merely having strong faith.

Do you think these people are a good representation of actual philosophy of religion?