Myth: Atheism is a Denial of God That Requires Faith

MarkFL

La Villa Strangiato
Valued Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2015
Messages
3,221
Age
60
Location
St. Augustine, FL.
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Atheist
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
In Relationship
Misunderstanding the Definition of Atheism:

The most common misunderstanding about atheism involves the definition. Many people insist that atheism is really the denial of the existence of God, but there are two errors here. First, it pretends that atheism is exclusively about their god, the god common to Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Second, it focuses on a narrow sub-set of atheism and atheists to the exclusion of all others. Standard dictionary definitions list "denial of God or gods" second; first comes "disbelief in god or Gods." Disbelief is not the same as denial, it's either the absence of belief or the presence of skepticism.

What do Dictionaries Say About the Definition of Atheism?:

Comprehensive, unabridged dictionaries use "disbelief in God or gods" when defining atheism. When we take a closer look at "disbelieve," we find two senses: an active and a passive. In the passive sense, "disbelieve" simply means "not believe" - thus a person who disbelieves a claim may simply not accept the truth of the claim without going any further, like asserting the opposite.

This broad definition of atheism is not new: atheists have been using it since at least the mid 18th century and dictionaries have been using it since at least the late 19th century.

What's the Difference Between Belief & Disbelief?:

Is disbelief in an idea the same as believing that the idea isn't true? No: mere disbelief in the truth of a proposition is not equivalent to the belief that the proposition is false and that the opposite is true. If you make a claim and I disbelieve it, I am not necessarily saying that your claim is false. I may not understand it well enough to say one way or the other. I may lack enough information to test your claim. I may simply not care enough to think about it. There are a variety of reasons why I might disbelieve something and the most basic meaning for disbelief is to simply lack belief.

What's the Difference Between Atheism & Agnosticism?:

Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as some assume, a "third way" between atheism and theism. The presence and the absence of a belief in some sort of god exhaust all of the possibilities; thus everyone either has or lacks such a belief. There's nothing in the middle. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who does not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

What’s the Difference Between Strong Atheism & Weak Atheism?:

The more common understanding of atheism among atheists, "not believing in any gods," is often called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. The popular misunderstanding of atheism as the denial and explicit rejection of gods is often called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. The division is not absolute: many people may be weak atheists in general, but strong atheists when it comes to specific gods. Few people are weak atheists with all possible gods; not many more are strong atheists with all possible gods. Much more common is a mix of the two, with each being adopted based upon circumstances.

Atheism Requires Faith and Atheists Are as Dogmatic as Theists:

Often theists will try to place atheism and theism on the same plane by arguing that while theists cannot prove that god exists, atheists also cannot prove that god does not exist. This claim often relies upon the erroneous assumption that all propositions are created equal and mistaken ideas about the definition of atheism. Disbelief in gods does not require faith and disbelieving in the existence of gods does not make a person dogmatic.

Atheism is a Not a Religion, a Philosophy, an Ideology, or a Belief System:

Because of atheism's long-standing association with freethought, anti-clericalism, and dissent from religion, many people seem to assume that atheism is the same as anti-religion. This, in turn, seems to lead people to assume that atheism is itself a religion - or at least some sort of anti-religious ideology, philosophy, etc. This is incorrect. Atheism is the absence of theism; by itself, it isn't even a belief, much less a belief system, and as such cannot be any of those things.

Why Are There Misunderstandings About Atheism?:

Misunderstandings arise because many theists imagine that all atheists fit a narrow, limited concept of atheism. Reliance on dishonest apologists and cheap dictionaries can easily exacerbate the problem. It is also possible that some theists feel that since they are claiming the existence of their god, then anyone who does not agree with them must be claiming the exact opposite — a serious misunderstanding of not only basic logic but also how human beliefs or belief systems operate.

What is the Definition of Atheism?

Atheism, broadly defined, it is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods. Christians insist that atheism means the denial of the existence of any gods; the absence of belief in any gods is, for some strange reason, often ignored. At best it might be mistakenly referred to as agnosticism, which is actually the position that knowledge of gods is not possible. Dictionaries and other specialized references make it clear, though, that atheism can have a much broader definition.

How are Atheism & Theism Different? How are Atheism & Theism Similar?

Given the constant debates between atheists and theists, the differences between atheism and theism should be obvious. The truth is that there are so many misconceptions which both sides have about the other that the facts can get lost. The difference is ultimately very simple: theists believe in at least one sort of god. How many gods, the nature of these gods, and why the belief exists is irrelevant to the concept.

What is the Difference Between Atheism & Agnosticism?

Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Many people who adopt the label of agnostic also simultaneously reject the label of atheist, even if it technically applies to them. There is a common misconception that agnosticism is somehow a more “reasonable” position while atheism is more “dogmatic,” ultimately indistinguishable from theism except in the details. This is not a valid position to argue for because it misrepresents or misunderstands everything involved: atheism, theism, agnosticism, and even the nature of belief itself. It also happens to reinforce popular prejudice against atheists.

Agnostic Atheism & Agnostic Theism

The primary reason atheists are thought to be closed-minded seems to be the belief that atheism requires a dogmatic, unthinking denial of the existence of gods. In contrast, agnostics appear to be open-minded because they admit to not knowing for sure if any gods exist or not.

This is a mistake because atheism is not defined in that manner; on the contrary, an atheist may not necessarily deny any gods and may in fact be an atheist precisely because they do not know for sure if any gods exist — in other words, they may be an agnostic as well as an atheist.

Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes clear that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not, not to describe someone who somehow found an alternative between the presence and absence of some particular belief.

It should therefore be clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. A person who believes in a god while insisting that they know for sure that their god exists would be a gnostic theist. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism. A person who denies that any gods exists while insisting that they know for sure that gods either don't or can't exist would be a gnostic atheist.

In the end, the fact of the matter is a person isn’t faced with the necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic. Not only can a person be both, but it is in fact common for people to be both agnostics and atheists. An agnostic atheist won’t claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label “god” exists or that such cannot exist, but they also don’t actively believe that such an entity does indeed exist.

Prejudice Against Atheism, Atheists

It is worth noting that there is a vicious double standard involved when theists claim that agnosticism is “better” than atheism because it is less dogmatic. If atheists are closed-minded because they are not agnostic, then so are theists - but agnostics making this argument rarely state this explicitly. It's almost as if they are trying to curry favor with religious theists by attacking atheists, isn't it? On the other hand, if theists can be open-minded then so can atheists.

Agnostics may sincerely believe that agnosticism is more rational and theists may sincerely reinforce that belief, but it relies upon more than one misunderstanding about both atheism and agnosticism. These misunderstandings are only exacerbated by continual social pressure and prejudice against atheism and atheists. People who are unafraid of stating that they indeed do not believe in any gods are still despised in many places, whereas “agnostic” is perceived as more respectable.

What is the Difference Between Strong Atheism & Weak Atheism?

The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is “not believing in any gods.” No claims or denials are made — an atheist is a person who is not a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called “weak” or “implicit” atheism. There is also a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called “strong” or “explicit” atheism. Here, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point.

What is the Difference Between Atheism & Godlessness?

It’s true that atheists are by definition godless, but it’s possible to draw a subtle distinction between the two concepts. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods; godlessness is the absence of gods and is generally defined as not recognizing or worshipping any gods. Technically, a person could believe in the existence of gods they don’t worship. This might be rare, but the implications are important. Godlessness need not deny the existence of gods, but it does dismiss their importance.

What is the Difference Between Belief & Disbelief?

Is disbelief in an idea the same as believing that the idea isn’t true? No: mere disbelief in the truth of a proposition is not equivalent to the belief that the proposition is false and that the opposite is true. If you make a claim and I disbelieve it, I am not necessarily saying that your claim is false. I may not understand it well enough to say one way or the other. I may lack enough information to test your claim. I may simply not care enough to think about it.

Is Atheism a Religion, a Philosophy, an Ideology, or a Belief System?

Because of atheism's long-standing association with freethought, anti-clericalism, and dissent from religion, many people seem to assume that atheism is the same as anti-religion. This, in turn, seems to lead people to assume that atheism is itself a religion - or at least some sort of anti-religious ideology, philosophy, etc. This is incorrect. Atheism is the absence of theism; by itself, it isn't even a belief, much less a belief system, and as such cannot be any of those things.

Is Atheism Morally & Intellectually Significant?

Many atheists regard atheism itself as being important, but that is mistaken. The mere fact that a person doesn’t happen to believe in any gods isn’t very meaningful. Thus, if atheism is going to have intellectual or moral significance, it must be for other reasons. Those reasons can’t be found simply in critiques of religion or arguments against theism; instead they must be found in a general program of reason, skepticism, and critical inquiry.

Does Godless Atheism Have Implications for One's Philosophy or Ideology?

Atheism, which is the mere disbelief in the existence of gods, has no inherent philosophical or political implications. There are too many different and opposing atheistic philosophies and political positions for this to be possible. Godlessness, which covers more than just atheism, arguably can have implications because refusing to recognize or worship any gods may influence how we approach important issues. I will argue for some implications which people should draw from their godlessness.

What Is Atheism? Why Atheists Define Atheism Broadly?:

Theism, broadly defined, is just the belief in the existence of at least one god. Contrasted with this is atheism: broadly defined, atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods. Most disagreement over this comes from Christians who insist that atheism must be the denial of gods, or at least of their god. Mere absence of belief in gods is, they claim, properly labeled agnosticism — even though agnosticism has it's own definition and is about a different concept entirely.

Strong Atheism vs. Weak Atheism:

The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is a person who is not a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. There is also a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. Here, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point.

Why are there Misunderstandings About Atheism?:

Misunderstandings arise because many theists imagine that all atheists fit a narrow, limited concept of atheism. Reliance on dishonest apologists and cheap dictionaries only exacerbates the problem. It is possible that some theists feel that since they are claiming the existence of their god, then anyone who does not agree with them must be claiming the exact opposite — a serious misunderstanding of not only basic logic but also how human belief systems operate.

How do Modern Dictionaries Define Atheism?:

A common theme in good dictionary definitions is the primary use of "disbelieve" when defining atheism. When we take a closer look at the word "disbelieve," however, we find two senses: an active and a passive. In the passive sense, "disbelieve" simply means "not believe" — thus a person who disbelieves a claim may simply not accept the truth of the claim without going any further, like asserting the opposite.

How do Online Dictionaries Define Atheism?:

When debating atheism online, people often rely on various online dictionaries. These are references which everyone has equal access to, unlike printed dictionaries which people may not have at all or may not have immediate access to. Like printed dictionaries, most online dictionaries include “disbelieve” in the definition of atheism and, therefore, implicitly support the broader definition of atheism as the absence of belief in gods.

How do Specialized Reference Books Define Atheism?:

Specialized reference materials are designed not to provide general information for a general audience but, rather, information on specific topics like religion, sociology, or other social sciences. Their value here is in the fact that they provide insight into what scholars from different fields think of when it comes to the concept of atheism — and many of these scholars agree that atheism is the absence of belief in gods.

How did Early Freethinkers Define Atheism?:

Some apologists argue that the broader definition of atheism is a recent creation, but they are wrong. Atheists and freethinkers have defined atheism relatively consistently over the past couple of centuries. Although a few have focused solely on the sense of 'strong' atheism, many more have differentiated between 'weak' and 'strong' atheism. As early as 1772, freethinkers treated atheism as broadly encompassing the absence of belief in gods.

How do Modern Atheists Define Atheism?:

A few contemporary atheists restrict the definition of atheism to just the sense of 'strong' atheism, but most do not. Most instead point out the difference between 'weak' atheism and 'strong' atheism, arguing that the former is the broader and more commonly found form of atheism.

How do Theologians Define Atheism?:

Although misunderstandings about the definition of atheism have tended to come from theists, it is also true that many theists have recognized that atheism has a broader sense than simply 'denial of the existence of gods.'

Debating the Definition of Atheism:

Debates about the definition of atheism are common — far too common, frankly, but there doesn’t seem to be much that can be done about this. Sometimes there are poor reasons for disagreements, as when theists and even some atheists object to the implications of weak atheism and feel a need to reject it. Sometimes there are good reasons for disagreements, as when philosophers find weak atheism too uninteresting to write much about and prefer to focus on strong atheism — but don’t want to qualify their use of terminology all the time.

When you come right down to it, though, we can’t ignore the fact that there are people who do believe in some sort of “god” without claiming to know for sure one exists and there are people who don’t believe in any such thing without claiming to know for sure than none can or do exist. They share in common a refusal to make knowledge claims, which justifies calling them all agnostics — but if the former are agnostic theists, then what can the latter be if not agnostic atheists?

No debate over the definition of atheism can cause the existence of such people to cease — and not only do they exist, but their position is distinct enough from agnostic theism to justify differentiation. Using words like “nontheist” hardly seems to help and the similarities between them and the narrow definition of atheism are close to the similarities between agnostic theism and non-agnostic theism. There doesn’t appear to be any good reason to refuse to apply the “atheist” label to them — and given how much variety there exists within theism, why can’t there also be a bit of variety with atheism?

By Austin Cline
Agnosticism & Atheism Expert

More information can be found here:

Myth: Atheism is a Denial of God That Requires Faith
 

Rens

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
4,754
Age
53
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
In Relationship

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
"Atheism" has meaning. And it had the SAME meaning until one Atheist (an otherwise entirely unknown man) in 1888 had a strong felt need to "STRIP" (the word some Atheists use for what he did) ... "STRIP" the word of it's MEANING. Why? We are told - so that it would SEEM to be Agnosticism (often used in lieu of that or combined so as to suggest they are the same thing), and so that Atheists could demand "proof" from Theists while dodging proof for Atheism. Since 1888 and this one man, a few others have decided to use that same "STRIPPED" word for the same reasons.


Theism. Theos = GOD. An affirmation or belief that God IS.
A-Theism. A = NO, not, denial. Theos = GOD. An equal but antithethical affirmation or belief that God is NOT, there is NO God.

Gnosis. Gnosis = to know, affirm, hold to a position.
A- Gnosticism = To NOT know or affirm or dogmatically hold a position, for or against.


ALL admit that IS what the word literally means.... and exclusively, universally meant.....(and still does usually mean)..... until an Atheist man in 1888 had this felt need to "STRIP" it of meaning (again, "strip" is their word, not mine) - in order to dodge the issue of "burden of proof" and to make it SEEM as if he was really an Agnostic.


Necessary, valid questions
:

1. Why would an Atheist need to "strip" the word of its meaning?

2. Why would an Atheist want to evade the issue of proof (when they seem OBSESSED over that point when addressing those with the antithetical position, Theists?

3. Why would an Atheist want to SEEM like that are an Agnostic?

4. If they really are Agnostic - not denying or affirming any position, just searching for truth - then why not simply refer to themselves as what they are, Agnostics? A word they need not "strip" of its meaning to get it to SEEM like their own?

5. Is that intellectually honest? Is it deceptive?

6. Does this 'stripping' aid or hinder communication and understanding?




IMO, this recent "stripping" by a few Atheists is at best confusing semantical gymnastics.... and at worst, a deceptive ploy to evade the issue of proof they so obsess about for everyone else. IF it was really a case of realizing they are actually Agnostics - they'd simply refer to themselves as Agnostic. If they held no position, they'd exclusively use the word for not holding a position. Anything else seems..... well.




- Josiah
 
Last edited:

MarkFL

La Villa Strangiato
Valued Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2015
Messages
3,221
Age
60
Location
St. Augustine, FL.
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Atheist
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
In Relationship
...A-Theism. A = NO, not, denial. Theos = GOD. An equal but antithethical affirmation or belief that God is NOT, there is NO God.

Wrong. Read post #1 in this thread.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
double post, sorry
 
Last edited:

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Josiah said:

"Atheism" has meaning. And it had the SAME meaning until one Atheist (an otherwise entirely unknown man) in 1888 had a strong felt need to "STRIP" (the word some Atheists use for what he did) ... "STRIP" the word of it's MEANING. Why? We are told - so that it would SEEM to be Agnosticism (often used in lieu of that or combined so as to suggest they are the same thing), and so that Atheists could demand "proof" from Theists while dodging proof for Atheism. Since 1888 and this one man, a few others have decided to use that same "STRIPPED" word for the same reasons.


Theism. Theos = GOD. An affirmation or belief that God IS.
A-Theism. A = NO, not, denial. Theos = GOD. An equal but antithethical affirmation or belief that God is NOT, there is NO God.

Gnosis. Gnosis = to know, affirm, hold to a position.
A- Gnosticism = To NOT know or affirm or dogmatically hold a position, for or against.



ALL admit that IS what the word literally means.... and exclusively, historically, universally meant.....(and still does usually mean)..... until one Atheist man in 1888 had this felt need to "STRIP" it of meaning (again, "strip" is their word, not mine) - in order to dodge the issue of "burden of proof" and to make it SEEM as if he was really an Agnostic.



Necessary, unavoidable questions that probably will be ignored:

1. Why would an Atheist need to "strip" the word of its meaning?

2. Why would an Atheist want to evade the issue of proof (when they seem OBSESSED over that point when addressing those with the antithetical position, Theists?

3. Why would an Atheist want to SEEM like that are an Agnostic?

4. If they really are Agnostic - not denying or affirming any position, just searching for truth - then why not simply refer to themselves as what they are, Agnostics? A word they need not "strip" of its meaning to get it to SEEM like their own?

5. Is that intellectually honest? Is it deceptive?

6. Does this 'stripping' aid or hinder communication and understanding?




IMO, this recent "stripping" by a few Atheists is at best confusing semantical gymnastics.... and at worst, a deceptive ploy to evade the issue of proof they so obsess about for everyone else. IF it was really a case of realizing they are actually Agnostics - they'd simply refer to themselves as Agnostic. If they held no position, they'd exclusively use the word for not holding a position. Anything else seems..... well.




- Josiah



.


Wrong. Read post #1 in this thread.


I think you yourself confirmed this in another thread.... but I am referring to the universal, historic meaning before one Atheist man in 1888 did what Atheists said he did - "stripped" the word, in order to make it SEEM his position was actually Agnosticism and to evade the burden of proof issue Agnostics tend to OBSESS belongs to others.


This whole article you copied here is nonsensical, just a lot of semantic gymnastics. And continues the absurdity we've seen before of confusing nouns with verbs, as if verbs can stand alone with no subject.

The issue here is simple, clear and unavoidable: Either the position is: God IS or God is NOT or you don't take either position dogmatically - they are called Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism. They are mutually exclusive and distinctive positions. All the rest of the mess you quoted is just attempts to "strip," to evade, to hide, to pretend and to set up a double standard. IMO, this "stripping" this Atheist man did in 1888 (copy/pasted by a few Atheists today) is at best confusing, misleading semantic gymnastics.... and at worst, a deceptive ploy to evade the issue of proof they so obsess about for everyone else. IF it was really a case of realizing they are actually Agnostics - they'd simply refer to themselves as Agnostic. If they held no position, they'd exclusively and solely use the word for not holding a position: "Agnostic." This stuff you copied here is nonsense.




- Josiah




.
 
Last edited:

MarkFL

La Villa Strangiato
Valued Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2015
Messages
3,221
Age
60
Location
St. Augustine, FL.
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Atheist
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
In Relationship
Languages evolve change with time, but atheism means without theism as it indicates. It means without (a) belief in gods (theism), not belief there are no gods. It's really that simple. It's not that meaning was stripped, it's that illegitimately added baggage (by those with deceptive agendas and the uninformed) has come to be recognized by the masses. I know some will never accept it, and I did not post this thread to change static and unchangeable minds, I posted this for those who are open to information and who may have been misinformed and will appreciate the truth.
 

Rens

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
4,754
Age
53
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
In Relationship
Agnostic or atheist doesn't mind. The burden of proof is with God, the burden of asking Him is with everyone.
And 2000 years ago God didn't say someone had a belief system that there's only the natural, there was either faith or not, belief or unbelief.
Case closed. God said it. I believe it. That settles it LOL.
 

MarkFL

La Villa Strangiato
Valued Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2015
Messages
3,221
Age
60
Location
St. Augustine, FL.
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Atheist
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
In Relationship
Agnostic or atheist doesn't mind. The burden of proof is with God...

I am agnostic AND an atheist. I am agnostic because I do not claim knowledge, as there's no evidence to legitimately do so. I am atheist because I reject the claim of theism. Anyone who claims knowledge in an effort to persuade, whether they be theist or atheist, has a burden of proof. It just happens to be the case that most theists are gnostic, and most atheists are agnostic.

The burden of proof lies squarely with the claimant...if you make a claim, then you have the burden of proof, which is as it should be. ;)
 

MarkFL

La Villa Strangiato
Valued Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2015
Messages
3,221
Age
60
Location
St. Augustine, FL.
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Atheist
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
In Relationship
Isn't "believing that God doesn't exist" the same thing as "not believing in God"?

No, it is not.

Let's break down the equation:
» Believe no God = No belief in God
» (Yes) Believe No God = (No) Belief God
» (Yes) Belief = (No) Belief
» Yes = No

Obviously, it is illogical. One can't dismiss this as "purely semantics". It is actually indicating a subtle, yet critical issue.

The difference is the level of assertion.

graphic_belief_scale.png


Not having a belief is not accepting a claim as true. If one actively believed there was no god, that would be accepting a claim as true. One who lacks a belief is waiting to find out what's actually true.

It is the difference between Innocent, Not Guilty and Guilty.
It is the difference between Positive, Neutral and Negative.
It is the difference between Confirmed, Pending and Falsified.

Consider the question of whether there's an even number or odd number of stars in the universe. If a person claims that there's an odd number of stars, we wouldn't believe that person's claim, due to lack of evidence. That, however, is not an assertion that there's an even number of stars in the universe. We can reject both claims as unsupported, and the status of the question is "unknown".

To say that not believing in a god is the same as believe there are no gods, is like saying that not believing there's an odd number of stars in the universe is the same as believing there's an even number.

Many atheists are "neutral", in that they are not necessarily accepting that a god absolutely does not exist, but rather are waiting for theists to demonstrate their claims, using the scientific method, preferably.

Colloquially, most people think of this position as "agnostic", but in fact, it is both. In short, agnosticism deals with what is knowable, and atheism deals with what's believed. Most self-described atheists describe themselves as "agnostic atheist".

Taken from:

Atheist FAQ
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,566
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
You guys have made a lot of posts pointing out your disagreements concerning Atheists, Agnostics and Theists. Were there things that you HAVE agreed on? Maybe that's a place to start instead of pushing back and forth about trying to prove who is wrong here?
 

visionary

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2015
Messages
2,824
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Messianic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
I am agnostic AND an atheist. I am agnostic because I do not claim knowledge, as there's no evidence to legitimately do so. I am atheist because I reject the claim of theism. Anyone who claims knowledge in an effort to persuade, whether they be theist or atheist, has a burden of proof. It just happens to be the case that most theists are gnostic, and most atheists are agnostic.

The burden of proof lies squarely with the claimant...if you make a claim, then you have the burden of proof, which is as it should be. ;)

Start with conscience and work from there. Does your conscience exist? If it does where did it get its rules from?
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes

"Atheism" has meaning. And it had the SAME universal meaning for centuries until one Atheist man (an otherwise entirely unknown) in 1888 had a strong "felt need" to "STRIP" (the word some Atheists use for what he did) ... "STRIP" the word of its MEANING. Why? We are told - so that it would SEEM to be Agnosticism (often used in lieu of that or combined so as to suggest they are the same thing), and so that Atheists could demand "proof" from Theists while dodging proof for Atheism. Since 1888 and this one man, a few others have decided to use that same "STRIPPED" word for the same reasons.


Theism. Theos = GOD. An affirmation or belief that God IS.
A-Theism. A = NO, not, denial. Theos = GOD. An equal but antithethical affirmation or belief that God is NOT, there is NO God.

Gnosis. Gnosis = to know, affirm, hold to a position.
A- Gnosticism = To NOT know or affirm or dogmatically hold a position, for or against.


ALL admit that IS what the word literally means.... and exclusively, universally meant.....(and still does usually mean)..... until an Atheist man in 1888 had this felt need to "STRIP" it of meaning (again, "strip" is their word, not mine) - in order to dodge the issue of "burden of proof" and to make it SEEM as if he was really an Agnostic.



Necessary questions (Likely to be dodged):

1. Why would an Atheist need to "strip" the word of its meaning?

2. Why would an Atheist want to evade the issue of proof (when they seem OBSESSED over that point when addressing those with the antithetical position, Theists)?

3. Why would an Atheist want to SEEM like that he's an Agnostic?

4. If they really are Agnostic - not denying or affirming any position, just searching for truth - then why not simply refer to themselves as what they are, Agnostics? A word they need not "strip" of its meaning?

5. Is that intellectually honest? Is it deceptive?

6. Does this 'stripping' aid or hinder communication and understanding?




IMO, this recent "stripping" of word meaning by a few Atheists is at best confusing semantic gymnastics.... and at worst, a deceptive ploy to evade the issue of proof they so obsess about for everyone else. IF it was really a case of realizing they are actually Agnostics - they'd simply refer to themselves as Agnostic. If they held no position, they'd exclusively use the word for not holding a position.




- Josiah



Josiah said:
This whole article you copied here is nonsensical, just a lot of semantic gymnastics. And continues the absurdity we've seen before of confusing nouns with verbs, as if verbs can stand alone with no subject.


The issue here is simple, clear and unavoidable: Either the position is: God IS or God is NOT or you don't take either position dogmatically - they are called Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism. They are mutually exclusive and distinctive positions. All the rest of the mess you quoted is just attempts to "strip," to evade, to hide, to pretend and to set up a double standard.


IMO, this "stripping" this Atheist man did in 1888 (copy/pasted by a few Atheists today) is at best confusing, misleading semantic gymnastics.... and at worst, a deceptive ploy to evade the issue of proof they so obsess about for everyone else. IF it was really a case of realizing they are actually Agnostics - they'd simply refer to themselves as Agnostic. If they held no position, they'd exclusively and solely use the word for not holding a position: "Agnostic."




.


You guys have made a lot of posts pointing out your disagreements concerning Atheists, Agnostics and Theists.


What do you think, Lamm?




- Josiah



.
 
Last edited:

MarkFL

La Villa Strangiato
Valued Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2015
Messages
3,221
Age
60
Location
St. Augustine, FL.
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Atheist
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
In Relationship
Start with conscience and work from there. Does your conscience exist? If it does where did it get its rules from?

That's a complex question, whose answer lies in The Neuroscience of Empathy.

However, this thread is not for debating the existence of God/gods, it is simply to put forth the correct definition of atheism for the benefit of those who may be confused about it and who are willing to learn.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,566
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Besides the spelling being the same, is there any similarities between MarkFL's and Josiah's definitions that can be agreed upon?
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,115
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Besides the spelling being the same, is there any similarities between MarkFL's and Josiah's definitions that can be agreed upon?

I do not think it matters too much. Mark is obviously the best qualified to state what his own view is. He's stated it numerous times. He does not believe in God (technically God, gods, Goddess, goddesses, supernatural beings inclusive of fairies, pixies, the tooth fairy, and so forth). Is there really any need to debate what that means when we can simply ask Mark what he means if something is genuinely unclear to us. He's always been willing to explain patiently.
 

MarkFL

La Villa Strangiato
Valued Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2015
Messages
3,221
Age
60
Location
St. Augustine, FL.
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Atheist
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
In Relationship
Besides the spelling being the same, is there any similarities between MarkFL's and Josiah's definitions that can be agreed upon?

Josiah is saying that atheism is a belief that there are no gods, while I'm saying that atheism is no belief in gods as the word would indicate. Josiah is holding on to the baggage added to the word, an antiquated and erroneous definition that includes only a small part of the overall atheist community and excludes the majority of atheists who are agnostic atheists.
 

MarkFL

La Villa Strangiato
Valued Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2015
Messages
3,221
Age
60
Location
St. Augustine, FL.
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Atheist
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
In Relationship
I do not think it matters too much. Mark is obviously the best qualified to state what his own view is. He's stated it numerous times. He does not believe in God (technically God, gods, Goddess, goddesses, supernatural beings inclusive of fairies, pixies, the tooth fairy, and so forth). Is there really any need to debate what that means when we can simply ask Mark what he means if something is genuinely unclear to us. He's always been willing to explain patiently.

I really just don't want anyone coming away from this site with the wrong idea about what atheism actually is. :)
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,566
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Josiah is saying that atheism is a belief that there are no gods, while I'm saying that atheism is no belief in gods as the word would indicate. Josiah is holding on to the baggage added to the word, an antiquated and erroneous definition that includes only a small part of the overall atheist community and excludes the majority of atheists who are agnostic atheists.

Of course Josiah is using an antiquated definition, but that's because the origin of the word is very ancient:

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society.
 

MarkFL

La Villa Strangiato
Valued Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2015
Messages
3,221
Age
60
Location
St. Augustine, FL.
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Atheist
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
In Relationship
Of course Josiah is using an antiquated definition, but that's because the origin of the word is very ancient:

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society.

Yes, and one can be "without gods" without necessarily stating the claim that there are no God/gods. One only needs to reject the claim that there are God/gods to be "without God/gods." To say that an atheist is only those who claim there are no God/gods is to neglect all those who simply reject the claim that God/gods exist.

A theist is someone who either accepts or claims that God/gods exist. There are two ways to be an atheist (just as there are two ways to be a theist)...either by simply rejecting that claim (agnostic atheist), or by making the claim that there are no God/gods (gnostic atheist).
 
Top Bottom