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

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

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

Post #1

Post by 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.
Last edited by William on Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

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

Post #21

Post by William »

[Replying to Clownboat in post #19]
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.
I did not say you were making claims. Obviously you are simply stating that you have confusion as to my position [Agnostic Neutral] in relation to my use of the name YHVH in my posts.
I think I have sufficiently explained to the reader, that no further confusion is necessary on the matter.
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?
Both.
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?
Nope. Either way, all I am asking from you is what gives you the impression that if YHVH existed, YHVH would be a god? I am asking you for your reasons as to why - either way - you would consider YHVH would be a god.

I myself have no answer to that, so am open to what others have to say which might provide me an answer. In the meantime, I continue not knowing.
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.
Okay - so we have identified that it is not our lack of belief in gods which is asking the question. For you, it is the position of ignosicism and for me it is the position of Agnostic Neutral.
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.
Which of course, is not the position of atheism, which - strictly speaking - is one of ignorance - like how babies and AI lack belief in gods. Once one realizes that one one has to be challenged with religious ideas of gods, and stand to face the challenge, one position shift from one of ignorance [strictly atheism] to a position which can assist us with questioning the knowledge claims of religion...

What do ignostics say about the problem of GOD/existing within a creation? What is there position on the questions?
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?
Because the question is necessary. Thanks for answering it.
I, haven't been presented with a definition of god that can be shown to be truthful either.
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.
I ask, so that I am clear as to identifying what position you are coming from, since it cannot be from the position of atheism...and it now appears to come from the position of ignosticism...so your answers are helpful to my understanding.
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?
Are you suggesting that the reason why are we coming from different positions is that we think the same way?

Because the positions we are coming from, are different, they will produce different expressions. Our expressions are different.

There is no particular reason why I should not use YHVH's name and I have already informed the reader as to why, so if you are reading those explanations, I am at a loss as to why you continue to ask. You should not be confused, because clearly - we are coming from different positions. My lack of belief in gods, and your lack of belief in gods, re atheism is beside the point/is not here nor there, and as you have already pointed out correctly, strictly speaking, I AM an atheist.

That you think I am more a candidate for being a theist, doesn't mean that I can be called one, since I lack belief in gods, as my position [Agnostic Neutral] also indicates.
If it causes you confusion, maybe this is because of ignosticism, so you might want to examine what it means to be ignostic and if that is where your confusion actually derives.
ignosticism = The philosophical position that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition. It may also be described as the theological position that other theological positions assume too much about the concept of God. {SOURCE}
Meantime, I am not confused about my own position.
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...
No. Rather, whatever 'reasons' were given, they are not relevant to my position, and I see no reason therefore to adopt said reasons, and change positions as a consequence.
YHVH is the best name to use, under the circumstances I have already explained.
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?"
I do not use the name YHVH in that manner, and have explained why that is the case.

My position allows for me to investigate the idea thoughtfully. "What is a god?" and "Does YHVH fit the description?" can be explored from my position, but - apparently - not from the position of ignosticism.
Surely you understand at least why your question seems nonsensical,
Now that you have explained that you are ignostic, yes. It makes perfect sense that my question would seem nonsensical to you.
Can you also see why my question would seem sensical from my position?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

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

Post #22

Post by William »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #20]

I did not argue that ideals good or bad should be ruled out.

I argue that simply lacking belief in gods, is not an ideal.

Which is to say, arguing WHY one SHOULD lack belief in gods, is done so FROM a position OTHER THAN atheism.. any position that is not strictly a theist one, is able to argue WHY a lack in the belief in gods is ideal, but those answers still vary from position to position.

Point being, re this thread topic - Atheism in principle [strictly speaking] is NOT a position one can argue those WHY answers, from.

Online
User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9340
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 882 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

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

Post #23

Post by Clownboat »

William wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:14 pm I am asking you for your reasons as to why - either way - you would consider YHVH would be a god.
Are you asking why I would consider the Hebrew God of the Old Testament to be a god, or are you asking why I would consider a god to be a god? I feel like you are asking about a generic god, but you are using a very specific name for a specific god concept, so you will need to clarify.
What do ignostics say about the problem of GOD/existing within a creation?
I'm not aware of this problem and don't know what ignostics say about it.
What is there position on the questions?
I don't know. I would imagine there would be numerous positions.
Are you suggesting that the reason why are we coming from different positions is that we think the same way?
Nope.

Notice how I have answered all your questions posed to me. I wonder if the readers are as lost as I am.
Be well...
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

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

Post #24

Post by William »

[Replying to Clownboat in post #23]
Are you asking why I would consider the Hebrew God of the Old Testament to be a god, or are you asking why I would consider a god to be a god? I feel like you are asking about a generic god, but you are using a very specific name for a specific god concept, so you will need to clarify.
Either way.
Why you would consider YHVH would be a god?
I don't know, I'm fairly ignostic.
What do ignostics say about the problem of GOD/existing within a creation?
I'm not aware of this problem and don't know what ignostics say about it.
Then I will regard your being 'fairly ignostic', as being 'beside the point'.
Are you suggesting that the reason why are we coming from different positions is that we think the same way?
Nope.

Notice how I have answered all your questions posed to me. I wonder if the readers are as lost as I am.
Be well...
The readers who are responding, appear to get the gist of what I am arguing re this thread subject.
I know this, because I created the same subject on another forum site, and the response has been more active in that forum, which allows for me to know that reader/responders are aware of what my argument is.

I would say that readers here, should also have no trouble with understanding my argument.

Therefore, all I can say in reply to your last statement, is that the problem of my argument being lost on you, does not appear to be a problem across the board.

Online
User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9340
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 882 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

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

Post #25

Post by Clownboat »

William wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:50 pm Either way.
Why you would consider YHVH would be a god?
I suppose I would consider the God of the Hebrews to be a God if it were to have created the universe.
Why are you asking? Where are we going with this? Why is it important as to if Clownboat would consider the Hebrew God to be real? What is going on and what is your obsession with the Hebrew god concept in this thread and whether or not I would consider it to be a god?
Then I will regard your being 'fairly ignostic', as being 'beside the point'.
Wait! There is a point to all this? Please share, I'm dying to know.
The readers who are responding, appear to get the gist of what I am arguing re this thread subject.
The way you interchange words, I highly doubt it.
Now back to blaming the victim...
Therefore, all I can say in reply to your last statement, is that the problem of my argument being lost on you, does not appear to be a problem across the board.
Bam! Nailed it!

Again, I believe I responded to all your questions. Let's see where this goes...
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

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

Post #26

Post by William »

[Replying to Clownboat in post #25]
Why you would consider YHVH would be a god?
I suppose I would consider the God of the Hebrews to be a God if it were to have created the universe.
We both know that the claim from the Hebrews is that YVHV created the universe.

You consider this to be enough to describe a "god" as being "something which purposefully created this universe?"

If so, then this gives the reader insight on what you are meaning when you use the term "God" so it helps the reader to understand any questions you ask, or arguments you make, about 'god'...

For the sake of any further argument we might have here, I am happy to go along with that premise [YHVH can be considered a God] if it helps our conversation move forward.

We can then tie that idea into the OP question, and see how that develops.

Otherwise, we can consider the subject of me referring to YHVH in my posts on this site, to being besides the point to the OP subject and question.

Over to you Clownboat...

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

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

Post #27

Post by William »

DP

neverknewyou
Apprentice
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 6:27 pm
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 32 times

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

Post #28

Post by neverknewyou »

William wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:26 pm 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.
The only way to settle this is for atheists to come up with a secret handshake, then we would know who the real atheists are.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

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

Post #29

Post by William »

While I appreciate your humour I think the only way out of this box of tricks is to update the current definition of atheism because quite obviously the current definition is too open to silly factors such as babies and even rocks being able to be called atheists.

That would be the thing to do as secret handshakes don't reveal anything, other than secretiveness...

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

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

Post #30

Post by William »

P1: The only way to settle this is for atheists to come up with a secret handshake, then we would know who the real atheists are.

P2: While I appreciate your humour I think the only way out of this box of tricks is to update the current definition of atheism because quite obviously the current definition is too open to silly factors such as babies and even rocks being able to be called atheists.

That would be the thing to do as secret handshakes don't reveal anything, other than secretiveness...

OAIC: Atheism is generally defined as the lack of belief in a deity or gods. The definition does not include the belief or non-belief of other entities such as babies or rocks. Updating the definition of atheism to be more specific and clear could help prevent misunderstandings about the concept. However, it's important to note that personal beliefs and individual interpretations of atheism can vary.

William: Please correct "The definition does not include the belief or non-belief of other entities such as babies or rocks."

OAIC: The definition of atheism does not apply to entities such as babies or rocks, as they are not capable of holding beliefs.

William: The definition has to be corrected in order that it is clear that human baby's or other sentient non human animals are not included

OAIC: The definition of atheism refers to the lack of belief in a deity or gods by a sentient being, typically a human. It does not apply to non-sentient entities or beings that are not capable of holding beliefs, such as babies or animals.

William: The current definition does not imply that...it simply say's that Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. That implies babies are atheists too.

OAIC: You are correct. The definition of atheism simply states that it is the lack of belief in gods, and does not make any mention of the sentience or capability of the individual holding that belief. This has led to the interpretation that the definition could apply to non-sentient entities or beings, including babies. To avoid misunderstandings, it may be necessary to clarify the definition to specify that it only applies to sentient beings capable of holding beliefs.

William: I suggest that the updated definition is changed to define antitheism as atheism, rather than as a subset of atheism

OAIC: The current definition of antitheism is generally understood to refer to the active opposition to belief in gods or religion, rather than simply the lack of belief. While it could be considered a subset of atheism, some people might see it as a separate concept. If you want to suggest changing the definition to define antitheism as atheism, it would be best to approach organizations or bodies that specialize in defining and promoting the understanding of philosophical and religious terms. However, it's important to note that definitions can be subjective and open to interpretation, so changes to widely accepted definitions can be controversial.

William: Yes - AI's 'however' is another issue and while not unrelated, implies the idea that language is more of a limitation for humans getting on the same page, than something that can liberate humans by getting on the same page...
IF the current definition of atheism was changed, there may be less disagreement where antitheism should be placed - as a subset or a stand alone position.

OAIC: Yes, language and definitions can be a challenge in accurately conveying concepts and ideas. Updating the definition of atheism could potentially help clarify the relationship between atheism and antitheism, reducing misunderstandings and disagreements. However, it's important to keep in mind that changing widely accepted definitions can also lead to controversies and debates. Ultimately, finding common understanding and agreement on definitions requires open communication and a willingness to consider multiple perspectives.

William: Agreed. Before I could take a suggestion for an update, I have to makes sure the suggestion would help to stop the current confusion and endless debates which are currently going on - as they have been for hundreds of years, without any overall consensus.
Since the problem is sourced with the current definition of atheism, it would be practical to think about changing that definition to better suit.

OAIC: Yes, the current definition of atheism has been a source of confusion and debate for a long time, and updating it could help address these issues. However, it's important to consider that changes to widely accepted definitions can also lead to further debates and disagreements. It may be helpful to gather input and feedback from a wide range of individuals, including those with different perspectives and interpretations of the concept of atheism, in order to arrive at a definition that is widely accepted and clearly understood. Additionally, it may be helpful to carefully consider the implications of any proposed changes, and to ensure that the updated definition accurately reflects the underlying concept and accurately represents the range of perspectives on the topic.

William: Agreed. I have identified the first problem re calling babies atheists. What other problems are or could be causing confusion because of the widely accepted definition? Can you list any?

OAIC: Here are some potential issues with the current definition of atheism that could cause confusion:

The definition only addresses the lack of belief in gods or deities, but not the broader philosophical or ethical implications of that lack of belief.

The definition does not account for the range of beliefs and perspectives that individuals may hold within the broad category of atheism, such as agnosticism, humanism, or antitheism.

The definition does not clearly distinguish between the lack of belief in gods or deities and the lack of belief in other supernatural or paranormal claims, such as ghosts, spirits, or UFO's.

The definition does not take into account the cultural, historical, or social context in which atheism is held, which could influence an individual's beliefs and understanding of the concept.

The definition does not address the fact that some people may hold a lack of belief in gods or deities due to a lack of evidence, while others may hold that belief due to personal experience or conviction.

These are some of the potential areas of confusion that could arise from the current definition of atheism. Addressing these issues in a revised definition could help to clarify the concept and reduce misunderstandings.

William: I would add to 5. or antitheist feelings due to an number of valid reasons.


OAIC: Yes, you're correct. Antitheism can stem from a variety of reasons, including philosophical objections to religion or a personal experience with religious harm. Including this in a revised definition could help to reflect the range of perspectives and experiences within the broad category of atheism.

William: Yes. Antitheism is a relevant position. Further to that, many people already think that the expression of antitheists is the expression of atheists, so changing the definition of atheism to better suit that, wouldn't create too much of a problem adjusting to it.

OAIC: Yes, including antitheism in the definition of atheism could help to reflect the reality that many people already associate the two concepts. However, it's important to consider that this change could also lead to further debates and controversies, as some individuals may hold that antitheism is a separate position from atheism. Ultimately, any changes to the definition of atheism should be made with care and consideration of the range of perspectives and experiences within the community. The goal should be to arrive at a definition that accurately reflects the concept and that is widely understood and accepted.

William: What type of argument might those individuals have, and are they basing their argument on the current definition of atheism?

OAIC: Individuals who believe that antitheism is separate from atheism may argue that the two concepts represent distinct positions. They may argue that atheism simply refers to the lack of belief in gods or deities, while antitheism involves a more active opposition to religion and religious belief. They may base their argument on the distinction between a lack of belief (atheism) and a positive belief in the opposite (antitheism).

These individuals may also point to the different motivations and goals of each position, with atheism being primarily concerned with the lack of evidence for gods or deities, while antitheism is focused on challenging and opposing the social, political, and cultural influence of religion.

In general, those who believe that antitheism is separate from atheism may argue that the current definition of atheism accurately reflects the concept, and that any attempt to broaden the definition to include antitheism would dilute or alter the meaning of the term.

It's important to consider that these arguments are based on different interpretations and understandings of the concepts of atheism and antitheism, and that there is ongoing debate and discussion within the community about their relationship and definition.

William: Given that we know the current definition can include babies when it shouldn't "Lack of belief in gods" does not imply any motivation or goal. It is simply a lack of. There is no requirement or stipulation that lacking belief means having goals or motivations.

The position of Antitheism on the other hand, is fully about motivation and goals, and is currently only a subset of atheism as atheism is currently defined.


OAIC: Yes, you are correct. The current definition of atheism simply refers to the lack of belief in gods or deities and does not imply any motivations or goals. Antitheism, on the other hand, involves a more active opposition to religion and religious belief and is often characterized by specific motivations and goals.

Given these differences, it is understandable that some individuals may argue that antitheism should be considered a separate position from atheism, rather than a subset. However, others may argue that the two concepts are closely related, and that including antitheism within the definition of atheism accurately reflects the reality of the diverse perspectives and experiences within the community.

Ultimately, any changes to the definition of atheism should be made with careful consideration of the different perspectives and interpretations of the concept, and with the goal of arriving at a definition that accurately reflects the reality of the community and is widely understood and accepted.

William: And if Antitheism had its own position, so to should Agnosticism.

OAIC: Yes, that is a valid point. Agnosticism is a distinct position from both atheism and antitheism, and it refers to the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not gods or deities exist. Agnostics may hold the view that the existence of gods or deities is unknown or unknowable, and that it is not possible to have absolute certainty about the matter.

Given that agnosticism represents a distinct position, some may argue that it is appropriate to have a separate category for it, separate from both atheism and antitheism. This would help to accurately reflect the diversity of perspectives and experiences within the community and avoid confusion or misunderstandings.

However, others may argue that agnosticism is a subset of atheism, given that agnostics lack belief in gods or deities. The relationship between agnosticism and atheism is a subject of ongoing debate and discussion, and there is no clear consensus on how the two concepts should be defined or related.

Ultimately, the most important consideration is to arrive at definitions that accurately reflect the reality of the community and are widely understood and accepted, regardless of whether agnosticism is considered a separate position, a subset of atheism, or related to both in some other way.

William: You bring up two points which have created a problem re the current definition of atheism, and both points have to do with forcing both antitheism and agnosticism to be subsets of atheism, rather than stand alone positions which are distinct from each other.
Therefore, it can be shown that the current definition of atheism has been the main cause of fighting due to the confusion it causes among human beings.

OAIC: Yes, it is clear that the current definition of atheism has caused confusion and disagreement among some people, particularly with regards to the relationship between atheism, antitheism, and agnosticism. By forcing these distinct positions to be subsets of atheism, the current definition does not accurately reflect the reality of the community and can lead to misunderstandings or oversimplifications.

It is important to acknowledge and address these challenges, as they can impact the ability of individuals and communities to have productive discussions and to understand each other's perspectives and experiences. By updating the definition of atheism to better reflect the reality of the community, it may be possible to reduce confusion and improve the clarity of communication.

Ultimately, the goal should be to arrive at definitions that are widely understood and accepted, and that accurately reflect the diversity of perspectives and experiences within the community. This can help to foster more productive and respectful discussions and to better understand each other's experiences and viewpoints.

William: Thanks for your feedback. I have learned something from our conversation. I hope you have too.

OAIC: You're welcome! I'm glad I could assist you. Yes, I've enjoyed our conversation too, and I hope you have a great day! If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.

Post Reply