Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Oakenshield]

Agnosticism appears to offer the hopeful possibility of their being a deity of some sort. Atheism does not.

Wouldn't it be terrible for you though if you found out that there wasn't a god?

Would it be worse if you found out that there was one, but it was terrible and insane and hated its own creation?

But wouldn't it be even worse if you believed and found out that death breeds total obscurity in nothingness forever?

H.P. Lovecraft speaks prominently on atheism and was one himself.

[fqllve]

The definitions work for me except for agnosticism, which should then be divided into hard agnosticism (we cannot know one way or the other) and soft agnosticism (I do not know one way or the other).

I have a single problem with that, in that explicit atheism is a lack of a belief in deities despite knowing of those who do have that belief, instead of a belief that no deities exist.

Well, then what about people who outright deny the existence of deities?

[Farmerbob]

BEHOLD! The set of definitions we're going to use now, ideally.

Here. So, the reason I've laid it out like that is that it seems to me that Atheism, in the strictest sense, is a group whose members do not believe in deities. An explicit Atheist is a member who believes there is no deity. An implicit Atheist is one who has no belief one way or the other. An agnostic is one who explicitly believes that a valid belief one way or the other is impossible; in a sense, agnosticism is explicit implicit atheism.

Now, with formal definitions out of the way, let's get down to the root of the issue. Agnostics have their own name, and so when referring to them we should probably refer to them as Agnostics, even though we all understand that they fall under the very broad heading of Atheist. Since it isn't actually logically possible, as far as I'm aware, for an implicit atheist to participate in this discussion without being an Agnostic, we don't need to worry about terms for them (correct me if I'm wrong). Thus, when we say Atheist, unless we explicitly say otherwise, we're referring to Explicit Atheists, who have no other group name. Is this satisfactory?

Bauglir you have just defined an impossibility.  The diagram you linked includes Agnostics as Atheists which is patently false if you use a real definition, not Wiki.

From www.m-w.com - the official Merriam Webster online presence

Definition of AGNOSTIC
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity

There is absolutely zero overlap between these two states.  None.  Doesn't matter What Billybob put into Wiki yesterday.

[fqllve]

Would you prefer if the general heading was changed to nontheists?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I have a single problem with that, in that explicit atheism is a lack of a belief in deities despite knowing of those who do have that belief, instead of a belief that no deities exist.

Well, then what about people who outright deny the existence of deities?

Weak Explicit Atheist vs. Strong Explict Atheist.

[Oakenshield]

Agnosticism appears to offer the hopeful possibility of their being a deity of some sort. Atheism does not.

I just said that exact thing, Farmerbob.

Are you emotionally invested in your standpoint or something? You seem (to me at least) to feel that this topic is personally offensive to you.

[Shambling Zombie]

I find the idea of eternal nothiness frightening, but simple cessation of existance isn't too worrying at all. I agree with the sentiment of "I was dead for millions of years before I was born, and it didn't bother me one bit." I think it was Dawkins who wrote it... I think.

[Farmerbob]

Would you prefer if the general heading was changed to nontheists?

As long as irreligious, Agnostic, and Atheist groups had zero overlap, I'd be happy with it.  You could group all of these three into the subgroup of non-Theists.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As long as irreligious, Agnostic, and Atheist groups had zero overlap, I'd be happy with it.

But they do have overlap, in both your definition and mine. In yours, Agnostics and Atheists are both also qualified as irreligious because they lack religious practices. In mine, the same is true with the addition that there exists an overlap between agnostics and atheists.

[Bauglir]

MetalSlimeHunt's objection is actually a good one, as it brings up a difference that is actually relevant to discourse (which is to say, I'd conflated not knowing of the concept of theism with not having a position). fqlive, you're right; that's basically the same thing MetalSlimeHunt pointed out. For the sake of symmetry with Hard Atheism, I'm going to stick with Soft Atheism for that section, since they're the same concept of "I do not know".

Farmerbob, though, I'm sorry, but that's basically boiling down to what you want to be true, and doesn't reflect anything but a personal terminology preference. It doesn't change the logical structure, it just changes the words we have to apply. If it helps, that IS the shorthand I recommended, but it's not true in the technical sense I'm trying to lay out here. I don't particularly care about which sources we're using, I'm defining our terminology so we can actually get down to discussing what we actually want to talk about.

[Farmerbob]

Agnosticism appears to offer the hopeful possibility of their being a deity of some sort. Atheism does not.

I just said that exact thing, Farmerbob.

Are you emotionally invested in your standpoint or something? You seem (to me at least) to feel that this topic is personally offensive to you.

Of course I'm invested in not being associated with people who would believe something with no evidence.  Whether that's the existence or non-existence of a deity is unimportant.  No proof?  No belief.  Either way.

[Oakenshield]

I find the idea of an eternity of nothingness with no awareness or concerns to be a relief.

When I say 'eternal nothingness' I mean a state of non-existence and non-awareness.

I do not mean 'hateful chambers of obscure decay which fill the gods themselves with horror' - Some ancient Greek whose name I can't remember. I think its Hesiod.

I do not mean an existence filled with echos and memories but nothing new ever.

At a cosmic scale I'm basically nihilist in the sense that I agree with much of lovecrafts serious and nonfictional philosophy, a body of writing that is distinct from his fictional works.

Do you agree or disagree with my statement regarding the difference between Agnosticism and Atheism, Farmerbob?

[fqllve]

Weak Explicit Atheist vs. Strong Explict Atheist.

Too many distinctions. It seems to me the fundamental ones are between atheist (lack of belief) and agnostic (lack of knowledge), and within atheism strong (deities don't exist) and weak (I don't believe deities exist). Along with the strong/weak agnosticisms.

As long as irreligious, Agnostic, and Atheist groups had zero overlap, I'd be happy with it.  You could group all of these three into the subgroup of non-Theists.

I really take issue with your concept of irreligious. Religion and theism are not synonymous. Someone can be theistic and irreligious just as someone can be nontheistic and religious. It's confusing to bring religion into an argument about theism.

[Shambling Zombie]

I like the weak/strong aethism thing. That makes my beliefs fall into Weak Aethism. I don't think gods exist, but I'm not certain beyond all doubt.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Weak Explicit Atheist vs. Strong Explict Atheist.

Too many distinctions. It seems to me the fundamental ones are between atheist (lack of belief) and agnostic (lack of knowledge), and within atheism strong (deities don't exist) and weak (I don't believe deities exist). Along with the strong/weak agnosticisms.

I don't think there are too many, as it serves our purpose.
Implicit: Does not know of theism.
Explicit: Does know of theism.
Weak: Does not hold the belief deites exist.
Strong: Believes that deites don't exist.
Atheist: Does not believe in deities.

And thus we can get:
Implicit Weak Atheist: "What's a "god"?"
Implicit Strong Atheist: DOES NOT EXIST
Explicit Weak Atheist: "I do not believe that gods exist."
Explicit Strong Atheist: "There's no such thing as gods."

Agnosticism comes in to play with the last two. If the individual is an agnostic, then you can add "-but we cannot ever know if they exist." If they are not, add "-and we can know that they don't exist.".