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

[William]

There is an argument along the lines that "Atheists can believe in ghosts et al, without believing in "GOD(s)" {SOURCE ARTICLE}.

However, when examining the source article what we find is that the study is done with individuals "Self Declaring to being atheists" and that "agnostic atheists" appear to be most affected by the "irrational thinking of the religious"
_________________________________________

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

My own position on the question, is Agnostic Neutral and therefore I do not have any beliefs re such things as ghosts and spirits, astrology, reincarnation, or think that some people have magical powers, that the article says atheist's can and do have belief in.

[PolytheistWitch]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #10]

It's obvious that people here don't read the post as they're written. I can only assume the argument is with my username and not what I'm typing because I at no point said if you believe in ghosts or other supernatural phenomenon you're not an atheist.

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #10]

Strict definitions and labels may be used to describe a particular phenomenon, but it's important to understand that these labels are often not absolute and can vary depending on context, interpretation, and personal beliefs. In the case of a baby and adult being labeled as "atheist", the label may apply differently to each, as a baby lacks the capacity for forming beliefs while an adult has developed their own views on the existence of gods or deities. It is important to acknowledge and respect the complexities and nuances of labels and definitions, rather than assuming a strict or absolute interpretation. ...

...and regarding folk who call themselves atheists but believe in ghost et al, again in order to avoid confusion and disingenuity, I think that the following is appropriate.

If someone begins to believe in supernatural phenomena like ghosts, they are no longer strictly an atheist, as they now hold a belief in something beyond the natural world. Based on the strict definition of atheism as the lack of belief in gods or deities, if someone holds a belief in something beyond the natural world, they would no longer be considered as strictly speaking, an atheist. They would be considered as being in the domain of theistic thinking, rather than atheistic thinking.

[Difflugia]

If someone begins to believe in supernatural phenomena like ghosts, they are no longer strictly an atheist, as they now hold a belief in something beyond the natural world.

Not everything supernatural is a god, nor does the existence of supernatural things necessarily imply a god.

They would be considered as being in the domain of theistic thinking, rather than atheistic thinking.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Being a strict atheist wouldn't necessarily make one a naturalist, though being a strict naturalist would make one an atheist.

[William]

Yes I understand that.

From the perspective of an Agnostic Neutral on the question of GOD, I see that, all that is required to be an atheist, is "lacking belief in all gods"...one can still believe in all the other 'goofy' stuff and declare oneself an atheist as long as one is not believing in goofy stuff to do with gods.

The definition is easily meet, because it embraces anyone who does not believe in gods specifically.

Any thought processes externalized by folk self identifying as atheists [because they lack belief in gods], is strictly NOT derived from the position of atheism. Why anyone does not believe in gods, is besides the point.

Baby's are atheists and no one expects them to give reasons as to why they lack belief in gods, and adults who have their reasons for not believing in gods and share those reasons, are not speaking from the position of atheism, because atheism doesn't speak of such things.

Clearly then an atheist is "Someone who lacks belief in gods" NOT "Someone who has reasons to lack belief in gods" let alone someone that anyone should confuse their expressed reasons, with being an expression of atheism itself.

Agnostic Neutrality refers to the lack of belief in the existence of a deity or gods, but also acknowledges that there may be insufficient evidence to make a definitive conclusion. Both positions allow for the possibility of holding supernatural beliefs while still not believing in the existence of gods.

[Ultimately, an individual's beliefs and self-identification are a personal matter and can vary based on their individual experiences and perspectives.]

Re the description of atheism, Am I an atheist?
Strictly speaking, yes I am. This is because - as an atheist - I can believe that I exist within a created thing and still not believe in 'gods' whatever those are defined as, as long as they are not defined as "that which created the created thing I am pretty much convinced I am experiencing."

Which is to say, While I think I exist within a created thing, I do not necessarily think the creator/s need to be said to be 'gods'. I am open to examining any argument that insist that I should do.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #10]

It's obvious that people here don't read the post as they're written. I can only assume the argument is with my username and not what I'm typing because I at no point said if you believe in ghosts or other supernatural phenomenon you're not an atheist.

Trying to slay us with irony?

Please re-visit post #10 and see that I infact quoted William and not yourself. Pehaps try reading it as written and then ask yourself what your username has to do with anything being discussed here because I cannot see a connection.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." - Hamlet by William Shakespeare

[Clownboat]

Yes I understand that.

From the perspective of an Agnostic Neutral on the question of GOD, I see that, all that is required to be an atheist, is "lacking belief in all gods"...one can still believe in all the other 'goofy' stuff and declare oneself an atheist as long as one is not believing in goofy stuff to do with gods.

The definition is easily meet, because it embraces anyone who does not believe in gods specifically.

Any thought processes externalized by folk self identifying as atheists [because they lack belief in gods], is strictly NOT derived from the position of atheism. Why anyone does not believe in gods, is besides the point.

Baby's are atheists and no one expects them to give reasons as to why they lack belief in gods, and adults who have their reasons for not believing in gods and share those reasons, are not speaking from the position of atheism, because atheism doesn't speak of such things.

Clearly then an atheist is "Someone who lacks belief in gods" NOT "Someone who has reasons to lack belief in gods" let alone someone that anyone should confuse their expressed reasons, with being an expression of atheism itself.

Agnostic Neutrality refers to the lack of belief in the existence of a deity or gods, but also acknowledges that there may be insufficient evidence to make a definitive conclusion. Both positions allow for the possibility of holding supernatural beliefs while still not believing in the existence of gods.

[Ultimately, an individual's beliefs and self-identification are a personal matter and can vary based on their individual experiences and perspectives.]

Re the description of atheism, Am I an atheist?
Strictly speaking, yes I am. This is because - as an atheist - I can believe that I exist within a created thing and still not believe in 'gods' whatever those are defined as, as long as they are not defined as "that which created the created thing I am pretty much convinced I am experiencing."

Which is to say, While I think I exist within a created thing, I do not necessarily think the creator/s need to be said to be 'gods'. I am open to examining any argument that insist that I should do.

Please define what it is that you believe to be this creator that created this created thing you exist within.

People will then determine if such a thing is a God. If they find your description to be a God, they would consider you a theist. If they don't find this thing to be a God, you could wear the a-theist hat. You do seem like a theist to me though with the way you use the name YHWH in your posts.

The Tetragrammaton (/ˌtɛtrəˈɡræmətɒn/; from Ancient Greek τετραγράμματον (tetragrámmaton) '[consisting of] four letters'), or the Tetragram, is the four-letter Hebrew theonym יהוה‎ (transliterated as YHWH), the name of God in the Hebrew Bible.

Therefore you do give the impression that you are a theist (of the Jewish or Christian variety) over being an atheist. I make no claims one way or the other, nor do I care what label you place on yourself, but if you do care what others think, perhaps drop the specific god concept YHWH if you are just talking about generic gods. Otherwise you will trick people into thinking you are not just religious, but of a specific religious flavor.

[William]

I have agreed that because I have non belief in gods, strictly speaking - I can be considered an atheist.

My position on both the question of god and the question of whether we exist in a creation, is Agnostic Neutral.

The fact that I have no belief in god has no bearing on my position as agnostic neutral, even if one places atheist in the mix, and referred to my position as "atheist agnostic neutral" because the 'atheist' part, is of no particular value re helping anyone understand the 'agnostic neutral' part.

Please define what it is that you believe to be this creator that created this created thing you exist within.

I have no particular belief, as I am still working on establishing for certain that I exist within a creation.

People will then determine if such a thing is a God.

Based on a generic meaning of 'what a god is' or on some other factor?

You do seem like a theist to me though with the way you use the name YHWH in your posts.

Just because I use the name YHVH in my posts, doesn't mean that I believe YHVH exists or that if YHVH exists, that I believe YHVH is a god.

What gives you the impression that if YHVH existed, YHVH would be a god?

Is it because theists believe YHVH is a god?

Or are you just going along with/bouncing off of what theists tell you, is a god?

The Tetragrammaton (/ˌtɛtrəˈɡræmətɒn/; from Ancient Greek τετραγράμματον (tetragrámmaton) '[consisting of] four letters'), or the Tetragram, is the four-letter Hebrew theonym יהוה‎ (transliterated as YHWH), the name of God in the Hebrew Bible.

Correct. YHVH is the name the Hebrews call their idea of a god. Are you agreeing that the Hebrew idea of a god, is a good description of what a god is?
If not, what is your idea of a good description of a 'god'?

Folk have different ides as to what constitutes a 'god'. How have you been able to come to a truthful definition of a god? Or are you just relying upon what theists tell you is a god?

If you do care what others think, perhaps drop the specific god concept YHWH if you are just talking about generic gods.

If I were on a non-Abrahamic religious debating site, I would adopt the label the theists there refer to as god. I have not seen any theist complain that I am confusing them by going along with their preferred name of their preferred idea of god.

Otherwise you will trick people into thinking you are not just religious, but of a specific religious flavor.

I am always open about my position being Agnostic Neutral re the question "do we exist in a creation" [which implies a creator/creators] so there is no tricking going on, and I see no reason why I should stop using the name YHVH re that, since the culture I was born into and is dominant in our world, is the one which has being most influenced by Abrahamic idea of GOD, and is also accepted by most theists who participate on this site.

If Tam or Tanager or Otseng or any other Christiaan I interact with, asks me if I am an atheist, I would tell them that technically I am because I do not have any beliefs in gods, but I would also make it clear to them that I consider my position on the matter of existing within a creation and God is currently Agnostic Neutral.

Indeed, I think that they know that already, since I am not secretive about it.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #136]

Diogenes: Meantime, even with the addition, Atheism's only role is to lack belief in gods. It has nothing to do with defining morality or preventing irrational rules or morality based on some arbitrary belief about pleasing a non existent being.

Purple Knight: Ideally it would do that.

Atheism is not an ideal. It is simply a lack of belief in gods.

Purple Knight: I agree with Diogenes. Ideally lacking a belief in gods would prevent people from falling back on those gods as a reason for morality that can't be disputed and justifying any random belief.

Atheism is not an ideal. It is simply a lack of belief in gods.

Purple Knight: Ideally this would force people to think and have good, reasonable reasons for moral rules.

Because atheism is not an ideal, but simply a lack of belief in gods, as a position is doesn't hold any idealist ideals. Atheism is not a position of idealism.

What is an ideal?
satisfying one's conception of what is perfect; most suitable.
existing only in the imagination; desirable or perfect but not likely to become a reality.
a person or thing regarded as perfect.

[Clownboat]

I have no particular belief, as I am still working on establishing for certain that I exist within a creation.

You and the rest of humanity. At least you are not just inserting a cause and claiming to be correct.

People will then determine if such a thing is a God.

Based on a generic meaning of 'what a god is' or on some other factor?

Yes.

You do seem like a theist to me though with the way you use the name YHWH in your posts.

Just because I use the name YHVH in my posts, doesn't mean that I believe YHVH exists or that if YHVH exists, that I believe YHVH is a god.

Please note the words I did use. You do seem like a theist to me though, because of how you use the name of a very specific god concept. It's up to you to care or not that you seem like not only a theist, but a specific type of theist. I make no claims as to whether you are or not.

What gives you the impression that if YHVH existed, YHVH would be a god?

YHVH, as in the name of the old testament God or YHVH as in a generic god concept? You need to clarify as you use them interchangably for some reason. Surely you can see how you are actively adding in confusion by doing such?

Is it because theists believe YHVH is a god?

Nope. YHVH is the name of the Old Testament god. Belief does not affect this fact.

Correct. YHVH is the name the Hebrews call their idea of a god.
Are you agreeing that the Hebrew idea of a god, is a good description of what a god is?
If not, what is your idea of a good description of a 'god'?

I don't know, I'm fairly ignostic. YHVH does describe a god concept though, so it is a good description for some humans to be sure, but you would have known this before asking.

Folk have different ides as to what constitutes a 'god'. How have you been able to come to a truthful definition of a god? Or are you just relying upon what theists tell you is a god?

I haven't come to a truthful definition of a god. Why do you ask? Do you even have a point? So much of what you type seems to have no point behind it. I answer these questions in hopes you are going somewhere with them, but it seems you just ask to ask. I hope I'm wrong in feeling this way.

If I were on a non-Abrahamic religious debating site, I would adopt the label the theists there refer to as god. I have not seen any theist complain that I am confusing them by going along with their preferred name of their preferred idea of god.

I haven't either, now why claim to be atheist while seemingly subscribing to not just a god concept, but a very specific god concept with a specific name, holy book and claimed rules to live by? Why add this level of confusion? Why would you refer to a non specific god by referring to a very specific god concept?

I am always open about my position being Agnostic Neutral re the question "do we exist in a creation" [which implies a creator/creators] so there is no tricking going on, and I see no reason why I should stop using the name YHVH re that, since the culture I was born into and is dominant in our world, is the one which has being most influenced by Abrahamic idea of GOD, and is also accepted by most theists who participate on this site.

I believe you when you say you see no reason as to why you should stop using the specific name of a specific god when generically discussing god concepts. Obviously the reasons supplied so far as to why you shouldn't went over your head...

You even provided an example as to why you should stop: "What gives you the impression that if YHVH existed, YHVH would be a god?"
Is YHVH being used to describe 'god' generically, or are you asking about YHVH, the God of the Hebrews from the Old Testament? It's impossible to tell with how you interchange these words.
The only way I can answer your question is:
If YHVH existed, it would be considered as God by (b)millions.
If a generic god existed, I assume it would also be considered to be a god.
It's like asking: What gives you the impression that if aliens existed, aliens would be aliens?
Surely you understand at least why your question seems nonsensical, but again, perhaps you had a point in asking and will soon relay what that point is. I anxiously await.

[Purple Knight]

Because atheism is not an ideal, but simply a lack of belief in gods, as a position is doesn't hold any idealist ideals. Atheism is not a position of idealism.

By that logic, modern woke morality is not an ideal because it largely just tells us what we must not do (be racist) rather than what we must do. Libertarianism is not an ideology because all rights are negative, in other words, described in terms of what you don't do to somebody. "An it harm none, do what ye will," the Wiccan mantra, is not an ideal because it is likewise negative.

Regardless of how you define an ideal, ruling things out can be a benefit if the things being ruled out are bad. And I would think ruling out belief in God would rule out "because God says" to justify any old thing and force people to explain their bloody selves. (But, it doesn't.)