[Flipside]

... even if there is some kind of 'Creator entity', I'm pretty sure the religions that have formed around the concept are not representations of It in any way.

Being a christian, that is hilarious.

But the thing is, almost all major religions are based on a Book, and the Book is always human-centric in nature.

We live in a Universe with radioactive rays shooting everywhere, exploding stars that can rip apart entire solar systems and black holes that can do the same. Every solar system is like a pinball machine of death with comets and asteroids bouncing everywhere. Any God who thinks that one of the worst Ten things I can do as a person is be jealous of my neighbour has gone through some serious editing from my perspective.

Edit : It would, however, be mildly amusing if the Universe was made in a similar fashion to how white-sand islands are made...

[Herra Tohtori]

Using definitions that are currently in Wikipedia:

Gnosticism (from gnostikos, "learned", from Ancient Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge; Arabic: الغنوصية‎ al-ġnūṣīh) is the belief that the material world created by the Demiurge should be shunned and the spiritual world should be embraced (God's world)

Gnosticism states that spiritual world is more important than material world, and that we should embrace the spiritual world and pay less attention to material world.

However the "spiritual world" is defined is another matter, but it does take a stance that there IS a division between "spiritual" world and "material" world, and specifically that the material world was created by an entity from spritual world.

Since Gnosticism has more than one claim they make, it's hard to nail down what its opposite - Agnosticism should be.

One possibility is that Agnosticism would, in opposition of Gnosticism, state that we should NOT embrace "spiritual world" at the cost of losing focus on the "material world".

Or, it could be a stance that material world was NOT created by spiritual world, but this alone could have several subtypes (such as maybe the spiritual world was created by material world and not the other way round).

Or, it could be a claim that there IS no division between "spiritual" and "material" world.


However, none of these seem to clearly coincide with the "popular" definition of Agnosticism, which is typically the view that there can be no certainty about anything spiritual. However, this popular view inherently acknowledges the possibility of the existence of spiritual world.


Gnosticism-Agnosticism axis is not a simple "yes - maybe - no" axis of position, but rather something that contains both a view on what the relationship of "spiritual" and "material" world IS, and also a view on what our relationship to spiritual world should be.


Theism and Atheism are easier to define; Theism is belief in at least one deity, while Atheism is defined as no belief in any deity.

Even so, though, Atheism can be divided into Weak and Strong Atheism*, which also can have sub-divisions, but the gist of it is that Weak Atheism is simple lack of belief, while Strong Atheism takes a stance that no deities CAN exist; that it is impossible by definition. Weak Atheism doesn't take any particular stance on whether it's possible for divine entities to exist - there's just no belief in any of them.

This is typically an example of materialism or physicalism, which are basically philosophical views that claim there is no division between "material" and "spiritual", or "mundane" and "divine", as the theistic point of view would call them. In a materialistic point of view, anything that exists is by definition part of the "natural" or "material" world; therefore even if an entity with "god-like" properties would be proven to exist, it would still - by definition - be a natural entity and thus, there would be nothing "divine" in it.


Interestingly, there is another end of theistic spectrum which also denies the division between material and spiritual world. Pantheistic world view, however, takes an opposite stance than Materialist/Physicalist world view, and states that instead of everything being material, everything is divine!

However, the Pantheism - Theism - Weak Atheism - Strong Atheism axis has only one correlation with Gnosticism - Agnosticism axis:

Pantheists and Strong Atheists can be neither Gnostics or Agnostics. This is because both Gnostic and Agnostic positions acknowledge the POSSIBILITY that there is both material and spiritual world, while Pantheist view takes the stance that everything is Divine (spiritual) and Strong Atheist view takes the stance that everything is material (or mundane); therefore making it impossible to be either certain that material and spiritual world exist (gnosticism) or uncertain about it (agnosticism).


Interestingly, as far as everyday life and relationship to the world and people around you goes, Pantheism and Strong Atheism are remarkably similar in many cases - probably because both of these world views remove any basis for treating other people differently based on their religion. That is not to say there can't be other reasons for discrimination...



Theists can be both Gnostic or Agnostic in their views, particularly regarding their everyday behaviour and their personal relationship between the Divine or Spiritual world they believe in.

Some Theists are Gnostic in the sense that they concentrate on the spiritual world, with less importance on the material world. In the same sense, some Theists are agnostics in that they don't think it makes sense to ignore the material world in favour of spiritual. Different religions have different stances on this, too. Christianity as a whole emphasizes the importance of Spiritual world, but most sects still think it's important to live your life in the material world as well as you can. Depending on the particular sect of Christianity, some think that your actions in material world affect your fate in the spiritual world, while some think your actions are irrelevant and only your belief and faith and way of thinking matter, regarding the salvation of your soul.

Judaism, on the other hand, is much more concentrated on the material world. They do not put the same importance on "afterlife" as most Christian sects do; instead their concept of "afterlife" is more about the memory of your actions in the material world. If you lived your life good, you leave a good memory of yourself... but I don't think they even have a concept of personal afterlife the same way Christianity does.

Islam does, of course, have a concept of afterlife. Their view on the relationship between life and afterlife (or material and spiritual world) is curiously schizophrenic, though. Not only do they put an inordinate amount of rules and restrictions on how a good muslim is supposed to live, many of the muslim sects seem to emphasize the importance of spiritual world (afterlife) to the material world (life), which is definitely a Gnostic point of view and one of the most important suicide bomber recruiting arguments used by terrorist organizations.

So there's some examples of both Gnostic and Agnostic world religions.

Hinduism, I believe, is another example of very much Agnostic Theistic religion - there's not so much a difference between "divine" and "mundane" worlds, but there definitely are deities in Hinduism.

Gnostic Atheists are much less common. However, Buddhist philosophies (at least some of them) commonly use spiritual symbolism, and that would make it a Gnostic Weak Atheistic world view. However, on the other hand some directions of Buddhism are closer to Pantheism than anything else, which leaves them indifferent about Gnosticism or Agnosticism.

In a way, I suppose some of the "new-age" cults/sects/religions could also be classified as Gnostic Weak Atheism, with focus on "spiritual world" but not particularly Theistic. At the same time some of them, of course, are very much Theistic, so there you go.


I myself would classify myself as Physicalist type Strong Atheist, and neither Gnostic or Agnostic, because by my definitions there is no division between Material and Spiritual that I could be either certain (Gnosticism) or uncertain about (Agnosticism).


*I'm just calling them Weak and Strong Atheism because that's the most convenient way for me to label them. No offense meant for anyone who recognizes themselves as "Weak" Atheist as defined here.

[Killer Whale]

Not sure I like any of those better than mine. Quite a few of them make the mistake of placing Agnostic between Atheist and Theist. I've been saying that's wrong since my first post.

That probably addresses some of my confusion. Cause as I see it, the more agnostic you are, the less important it becomes of whether you're theist or atheist. So you can draw an ugly line on your graph, like so:

And get a continuum with agnostic between atheism and theism. Thus satisfying my personal desire for continuous graphs without actually getting closer to a solution.

What it seems to me is that we have a population of data, made of billions of unique individuals, and we as humans, the great pattern makers, look for the pattern which seems to most fit the data and most likely to be the "true" way of organising it. Often, it's simple enough to separate data into discrete categories: poor/middle class/upper class, white/coloured, male/female, theist/atheist. But those aren't the reality of the case, and don't represent the complexity of the issues. Gender, for example, can be thought of as binary. But very quickly you start seeing variations from the norm. You could call them outliers (Burn them to hell! ... for more burning!), but with a more accepting culture you see that the issue becomes better to describe with multiple different variables.
Does that mean you can't organise an infinite (well... indefinitely large) population? Heck no, taxonomy did it just fine. It just means that rather than fitting all new data into your cosy boxes, sometimes you just need more boxes.

[Bobboau]

how about this, do a google search for the following terms:
shockofgod question

this is an extremely classical example of how atheists are misrepresented.

[MP-Ryan]

Shall I go out today? I won't make a decision yet. It's 2 O'clock. I'll prevaricate some more. It's 9pm. Nope still not going to make a decision. Oh! It's midnight! While you're deciding the decision is being made for you.


Faith requires a concious decision to have it. This seems to be the major issue you and I differ on.

Yes you can make a decision to leave it as an open question whether or not you will have faith, but until you actually do make that decision, you don't have faith. You can't permanently make a decision not to have faith and stay in the middle. Faith isn't analogous to Schroedinger's cat. Every second you wait is one more second the decision is being made for you.

I think you'll find that the religious actually agree with me on this point. You can't say "I can permanently not make a decision whether I'm a Christian or not." If you don't have faith in Christ, you're not a Christian. You can't both be a Christian and not be a Christian. Maybe one day you'll become one. But at this point in time, you are not one. If on top of that, if you also don't have faith in Allah, you're also not a Muslim. And so on. Until we've gone through every single religion in existence and you've said you don't have faith in that particular religion. At which point you're an atheist. Because you don't have faith. There is no middle ground.

"I can't decide" != no.  Because there are TWO statements you can't decide on:
1.  I can't decide if gods exist.
2.  I can't decide if gods do not exist.

Now, your temporal point assumes these question can ever be answered (whereas I argue that is unlikely), so no, time does not make me more and more atheist.

The trouble that you, Luis, and bobb appears to be having is that you think the two statements I just pointed out are mutually-exclusive opposites, which, as I pointed out in the original thread and briefly repeated here, they are not.  There are TWO experimental hypotheses that must be rejected, and two paradoxical nulls that must therefore be accepted, meaning that no decision is ever made without more data.

So I reject your premise that a decision is being made for me (or anyone who shares this philosophical belief set).  As I keep repeating, this is what separate agnostics from atheists - much as you all say you see both nulls, none of your reasoning takes them into account.  I have no doubt theists also take issue with this position as they'd no doubt like to see a decision rendered as well - point is, I don't have to.  If you'd like to plot this belief set on your graph, it is the exact central intersection. 

I don't know how to make this any clearer.  While I have no faith that gods exist, I simultaneously have no faith that gods do not exist.  While I have no evidence that gods exist, I simultaneously have no evidence that gods do not exist.  It's a completely blank position that makes no judgement on the philosophical nature of god(s) other than to predict the questions are not answerable.

[karajorma]

"I can't decide" != no.  Because there are TWO statements you can't decide on:
1.  I can't decide if gods exist.
2.  I can't decide if gods do not exist.

Only the first of those statements is actually relevant to whether you are a theist or atheist though. This is the point you do not seem to understand.

A theist is not someone who has no faith in there being no higher power. A theist is someone who does have faith in there being a higher power. An atheist is anyone else.

Now, your temporal point assumes these question can ever be answered (whereas I argue that is unlikely), so no, time does not make me more and more atheist.

No it doesn't at all. Perhaps giving an analogy involving time was a mistake cause you then assumed that my point had something to do with time. If I don't decide whether or not to help a dying man, I'm not helping him. If I don't decide to step out of the way of a speeding car, I'm not stepping out of the way of a speeding car. If I don't decide whether or not I want to be a Christian, I'm not a Christian. Prevarication is, in and of itself an action.

Schroedinger only remains undecided until there is a observer. But in the question of faith there is an observer. You. You can say that the question of whether a higher power exists or not is unanswerable at this time, hell I agree with you on that. But by not answering the question you are making an observation. You are making a decision. You have chosen not to have faith until the question is answered.

Faith is the belief in something without proof. Can you not see the lunacy involved in insisting that you can't make a decision about whether to believe in something without proof until after you have proof?

The trouble that you, Luis, and bobb appears to be having is that you think the two statements I just pointed out are mutually-exclusive opposites, which, as I pointed out in the original thread and briefly repeated here, they are not.  There are TWO experimental hypotheses that must be rejected, and two paradoxical nulls that must therefore be accepted, meaning that no decision is ever made without more data.

No the trouble is that you are insisting we think that and refusing to listen to what we are actually saying. I understand your point. I just disagree with it actually syncing with the rest of your argument. It syncs just as well with mine but you don't seem to understand that. 

Remember that Luis and I are not the same kind of atheist, so we might not say the same things but the fundamentals are the same. We both have a lack of faith in a higher power. That's it. That's all that makes us atheists. Nothing else. Not a disbelief in a higher power. This is why your second statement is completely irrelevant as to whether we are atheists. It has relevance as to whether or not we are strong or weak atheists but not to whether we are atheists in the first place. Insisting that it's important is like insisting that a protestant isn't a Christian because he doesn't take communion. It's an error based on a huge misunderstanding of what the subject at hand is.

So I reject your premise that a decision is being made for me (or anyone who shares this philosophical belief set).  As I keep repeating, this is what separate agnostics from atheists - much as you all say you see both nulls, none of your reasoning takes them into account.  I have no doubt theists also take issue with this position as they'd no doubt like to see a decision rendered as well - point is, I don't have to.  If you'd like to plot this belief set on your graph, it is the exact central intersection. 

I don't know how to make this any clearer.  While I have no faith that gods exist, I simultaneously have no faith that gods do not exist.  While I have no evidence that gods exist, I simultaneously have no evidence that gods do not exist.  It's a completely blank position that makes no judgement on the philosophical nature of god(s) other than to predict the questions are not answerable.

I'm really at a loss how to make myself any clearer. To be honest I'm just tempted to tell you to not repeat that nonsense about your position being more scientific (since it's derived from a fundamental misunderstanding of what an atheist is) and leave it at that.

But there's one question left I'd like to ask. If you're so certain you're correct. What is an Agnostic Atheist? My definition explains what one is. I'd love to hear you explain based on your definition what one is cause as far as I can figure out your definitions leave you defining it as someone who has both decided that god doesn't exist and hasn't decided whether or not god exists.

[Bobboau]

"I can't decide" != no.  Because there are TWO statements you can't decide on:
1.  I can't decide if gods exist.
2.  I can't decide if gods do not exist.

but it isn't yes either, so if there was a word for people who said yes, and a word for people who were not covered by the first word, then saying "I don't know" would put you under the second word.

[SpardaSon21]

Except he isn't saying yes and he isn't saying no.  He's saying them both at the same time and also not saying either.  The uncertainty of his statement precludes establishing a binary yes/no state to it.

[Bobboau]

no, he isn't saying yes to both, he isn't saying no to both, he is saying "I don't know". he is an agnostic, that means he is of the opinion that no answer can (ever/yet) be come to. that means he is not a person who advocates that gods exist. which mean's he is not a theist. which means he is atheist. atheist means not theist, it does not mean that you believe there is no god.

atheist does not mean that you believe there is no god.

atheist does not mean that you believe there is no god.

atheist does not mean that you believe there is no god.

do I need to repeat it again? are we going to stop with the "but he didn't say no" yet?

atheist does not mean that you believe there is no god.

it is a lack of belief.  believing there is no god is a belief. atheists LACK a belief in god, NOT posses a belief in no god.

so all one needs in order to be classified as an atheist is to not answer in the affirmative to the question "do you believe there is a god". If you answer " not sure" then you clearly do not posses a belief in it, you don't know, you are agnostic, but as a necessary condition you also do not have belief in it you are therefore an atheist. the fact that you don't believe there is no god is irrelevant because... say it with me...

atheist does not mean that you believe there is no god.


I am seriously starting to think I am being trolled here.

[watsisname]

In my view, belief that deities exist makes one a theist.  Not having the aforementioned belief makes one an atheist according to the linguistics of the term (I don't think this requires further elaboration; Kara's explained it already).  Whether one is a strong or weak atheist (the latter also being called agnostic, though Herra pointed out some interesting stuff on that note) depends on if they believe that deities do not exist, or do not hold such a belief, respectively.  Not having belief either way puts them in the middle of most (all?) of the graphs provided thus far, and is the position that MP-Ryan says he holds.  It is the position that I hold, as well. 

Actually, to be more precise, I am a strong atheist with regard to the existence of any deities described by religion so far -- and that's not because of evidence that they don't exist (there is none and can never be) but rather that I believe (and I use this word deliberately) that they are human constructions and implausible to exist in reality, no insult meant to religious forum users amongst us -- but I am weak atheist / agnostic with regard to the notion of there being some sort of divine/intelligent entity beyond our present understanding.  I could easily become a theist if compelling evidence came forward, but it is unlikely that I will become an outright strong atheist because the existence of an all-powerful being beyond our ability to observe can never be disproved by definition.

That these classifications have caused such an intensive debate is simply stunning to me; I don't understand it and I wonder if all the theists are simply laughing at us.

[Bobboau]

I don't get it either. I really thought this was done when I explained it the first time as "atheist means literally 'not theist'".

and then there was 7 pages of:
"but he didn't say no"
"he doesn't need to say no, only not yes"
"but not yes isn't no"
"he doesn't need to say no, only not yes"
"but he didn't say no"
"he doesn't need to say no, only not yes"
"but not yes isn't no"
"he doesn't need to say no, only not yes"
...

[BloodEagle]

Say you have three sticks behind an impenetrable, invisible barrier that prevents any sort of analysis other than direct visual observation via the naked eye.  The stick on the left is red, the stick on the right is blue, and the stick in the middle is covered by an opaque sheet that no one can see through.

Group A claims that the stick in the middle is yellow. Group A claims that, since the sticks exist, obviously the middle one has to be yellow.
Group B claims that the stick in the middle is green. Group B claims that, since Group A's claims are complete bull**** with no empirical founding, the stick is obviously green.
Group C claims that, since no one can actually see the stick, they're not going to choose to believe either possibility until the sheet falls off (or something) and everyone can see what color the stick actually is.
Group B claims that green is not yellow. Group B claims that, by Group C not choosing to believe that the stick is either yellow or green, that Group C believes that the stick is not yellow, and therefore Group C obviously believes the stick to be green.
Group C claims that Group B is mistaken in its argument that Group C has already decided.  Group C cites experiments relating to quantum uncertainty and how it relates to the basic principles of empiricism.

Group A and Group B are arguing philosophy and/or semantics as if they were science.  Group C is arguing science and science as if it was philosophy.

Philosophy and science are like matter and anti-matter (or vice versa).  Do not mix them.  They will explode.

[Bobboau]

that is a fun story. completely unrelated to the discussion at hand other than it seems to be the flawed model of reality some participants seem to be going by.

[BloodEagle]

[dismissive attempt at humor]

 

[Bobboau]

I am not dismissing you, you have crystallized the misunderstanding at the heart of this discussion.

[Scotty]

Seeing as the sub-set of users that applies to tend to think the exact same thing about the other set, and that the definition of atheism is literally: "The doctrine that there is no deity" (Merriam-Webster), "The doctrine or belief there is no god" (Dictionary.com), "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods" (Thefreedictionary.com), I'd say that the flawed model of reality is in use by a different party.

EDIT: Whatever personal definition you might have for atheism notwithstanding of course.  But don't try to paint the entire group with your personal definition because you will it to be true.

[Bobboau]

we are talking about groups of people, not doctrines. so the definitions relating to that can be dismissed, especially because virtually all of the definitions you posted the first time had a variation relating to a person, which is what we are talking about.

IIRC the first time you posted, there were more of the nature of "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods". "disbelieves or denies" this is an inclusive clause, it is an 'or' which means it applies to both articles. So "One who disbelieves the existence of God or gods" is a proper subset of atheist, that is to say if you fit this definition, you are an atheist.


"disbelieves"

dis·be·lieve  (dsb-lv)
v. dis·be·lieved, dis·be·liev·ing, dis·be·lieves
v.tr.
To refuse to believe in; reject.
v.intr.
To withhold or reject belief.

-------------------------------------------------

dis·be·lieve
[dis-bi-leev] Show IPA verb, dis·be·lieved, dis·be·liev·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings.
verb (used without object)
2.
to refuse or reject belief; have no belief

-------------------------------------------------

dis·be·lief Listen to audio/ˌdɪsbəˈli:f/ noun
[noncount] : a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real



which of these definitions of disbelieves says "to actively believe in the opposite of"


BTW, "disbelieves or denies" very much maps to that venn diagram I posted

your original post I see you have done a better job of cherry-picking your definitions.

disbelieving in the existence of a god is precisely what an agnostic does. not believe. making no knowledge claim.

[karajorma]

Scotty, read the wikipedia explanation for atheism and then explain to me what an implicit atheist is.

You won't be able to do it because the definition you think is right precludes the existence of implicit atheists.

[Bobboau]

and is in opposition to most of the definitions he himself posted.

[karajorma]

I'm going to post Bertrand Russell's argument here to see if it clears things up.

Suppose I claim that there is a teapot between the orbits of Earth and Mars there is a teapot. It's too small to be picked up with telescopes and no one has yet been out there to look at it. Pretty much everyone on this forum is going to say I'm almost certainly wrong. They don't believe that there is a teapot. This makes them ateapotist. However the existence of such a teapot is possible. It could have been dropped off by a space probe or something. So even though there is no evidence either way the possibility exists that it's there. So we have to be agnostic about the existence of the teapot. So pretty much everyone on this forum is an agnostic ateapotist.

That these classifications have caused such an intensive debate is simply stunning to me; I don't understand it and I wonder if all the theists are simply laughing at us.

What I don't get is why they aren't more up in arms about the claim from the agnostic side that you can both have and not have faith in something. If I was religious I'd be spitting nails over that one.