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.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #36]

...Which you disagreed with on the basis of atheism not counting as an ideal. Atheism doesn't count as an ideal, so be it, but then it's still possible for something that is not an ideal to have a role in the formation of morality by preventing beliefs about morality from being enforced in a particular unjustified way. (Which I agree that it should, but in practice it doesn't.)

Antitheism as the stand alone position it needs to be treated as, is quiet capable for the purpose of the role in the formation of morality by preventing beliefs about morality from being enforced in a particular unjustified way. Antitheism is defiantly an ideal based position. [see post #30 for more about this observation.]

Atheism's role in the formation of morality is wholly negative, meaning it can never give a positive justification of some moral rule. It can never "tell us why." However, it can rule out some justifications which arguably is just as important, especially if people are going around killing others off and saying, "because God said" and leaving people with little other reason to disagree.

Your argument here is really agreeing with my own, but without acknowledging the confusion that the current definition of atheism presents.

I would say it is way more accurate to see that it is Antitheism's role in the formation of morality and the role is not wholly negative, [meaning it can never give a positive justification of some moral rule.] It can and does "tell us why." It can and does rule out some justifications, which is important - especially if people are going around killing others off and saying, "because God said" and leaving people with little other reason to disagree.

Even that being the case, Theism itself is not wholly filled with folk who are going around killing others off and saying, "because God said" and theists can and do equally appose such notions, alongside Antitheists.

[Purple Knight]

Your argument here is really agreeing with my own, but without acknowledging the confusion that the current definition of atheism presents.

Yeah I don't care for it.

"Do you believe in God?"

Yes - Theist
No - Atheist
I don't know - Agnostic

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #40]

Why would a thinking person actually wonder if a rock believes in any of the available god concepts? You bring this up as if we should take it seriously when clearly it would be idiotic thinking.

I bring it up, because it is clearly idiotic thinking, just as claiming that babies are atheists is also idiotic thinking.
I explain this in more detail in post #30 of this thread.

[William]

Your argument here is really agreeing with my own, but without acknowledging the confusion that the current definition of atheism presents.

Yeah I don't care for it.

"Do you believe in God?"

Yes - Theist
No - Atheist
I don't know - Agnostic

Firstly the problem with the question is that GOD is not defined and until it is defined by the one asking the question, it cannot really be answered in any way which may satisfy the beliefs of the one asking said question, about whatever their definition of GOD might be.

Secondly, the answers from all of those positions don't really present any detail from which the reader might learn anything.

The better answers would contain way more details.

Theist: "Yes, because..."
Atheist: "No. because..."
Antitheist: "No because..."
Agnostic: "No Because..."

Each answer will be provide a different reason, once the definition of GOD is included in the question, and this in itself shows us evidence that those positions are actually very distinct from one another, which in turn gives us reason for questioning the validity of the current definition of Atheism.

So just because the answers of an Atheist, and Antitheist and and Agnostic may begin with the word "no", their underlying reasons for answering "no" would show us a significant difference in said positions - significant enough to be acknowledged and treated as stand-alone positions rather than Antitheism and Agnosticism being treated as merely sub-categories to Atheism.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #40]

Why would a thinking person actually wonder if a rock believes in any of the available god concepts? You bring this up as if we should take it seriously when clearly it would be idiotic thinking.

I bring it up, because it is clearly idiotic thinking, just as claiming that babies are atheists is also idiotic thinking.
I explain this in more detail in post #30 of this thread.

Babies are atheists. Show that this is idiotic so I can ammend my beliefs.
Which god concept to babies believe in?
I await your answers so I can ammend my thinking to include the fact that babies are theists.

Why did you fail to address this:
"One last try...
William, if I were to use the word Allah when I sincerly just mean god concepts in general, do you think it would cause confusion? What if I wanted to ask you about Allah specifically? How would I do that so you could understand? Should I just expect you to know when I'm being generic about the gods compared to when I'm talking about a specific one even though I use the same word to describe both (as you do with YHVH)?"

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #45]

I explain this in more detail in post #30 of this thread.

Your other questions are strawman re the information in #30 of this thread.

If you care to do so, you can read said post and - if you still have objections, present these.

For my part, I am satisfied that - as an Agnostic - my treating Agnosticism as a separate and distinct position from atheism [as atheism is currently defined] and also treating Antitheism as its own unique position, for the same reason, is the best approach to take.

If and when my Agnostic based expressions cause confusion to any readers, re I might not sound like I am an atheist at all - I can direct them to post #30 of this thread, so it is all good in its own way.

I don't personally consider myself either atheist or theist, and some folk have a problem with that.

I do not.

[Purple Knight]

So just because the answers of an Atheist, and Antitheist and and Agnostic may begin with the word "no", their underlying reasons for answering "no" would show us a significant difference in said positions - significant enough to be acknowledged and treated as stand-alone positions rather than Antitheism and Agnosticism being treated as merely sub-categories to Atheism.

It's fine to have those subcategories and I wish we did but I don't think we need to throw out the big umbrellas because those are just as useful. You hit some things with a jackhammer, some with a flamethrower (cockroaches for example) and some with a fine pair of jeweler's pliers. They're all useful and none of those tools need to go in the garbage for want of their ability to do the jobs of the others.

And I say this as someone who is very unique in atheism and it doesn't fully encompass my position that any entity (including the one in the Bible described as God) might easily exist, but that to actually be God it would have to have special moral authority and I don't think that exists, so I don't think a true God even can exist.

[Clownboat]

So just because the answers of an Atheist, and Antitheist and and Agnostic may begin with the word "no", their underlying reasons for answering "no" would show us a significant difference in said positions - significant enough to be acknowledged and treated as stand-alone positions rather than Antitheism and Agnosticism being treated as merely sub-categories to Atheism.

You will forever be confused until you grasp the fact that why people believe what they believe does not affect what they are.

A person could be a Republican for many reasons. The reasons do not affect the meaning of the word nor that it is being use accurately (assuming they are a Republican of course).

Obviously there are different reasons for people ariving at similar conclusions, but no need to go to war with language to try to include these perceived reasons. The words still have meaning and the meanings are clear. Why someone decided to become a Republican does not affect the word Republican. "Why' in this case would be a follow up question, not one needed in order to accurately use the word in the first place. See theism and a-theism.

[Clownboat]

I don't personally consider myself either atheist or theist, and some folk have a problem with that.

For the record I have a problem with how you use the word "JHVH" (as it sows confusion) not with whether or not you consider yourself a theist or not.

If you (generic) believe in a god or gods, you are a theist.
If you lack beliefs in a god or gods, you are without theism.

If one of the above does reflects your (William's) position, I could see why folks would have a problem with you claiming to be neither when one is an accurate description (I'm not claiming one is by the way). Remember, why you believe in a god or gods or why you don't believe in a god or gods does not affect being a 'theist' or an 'a-theist'.

Do you believe any of the available god concepts to be real? Not YHVH specifically... any god concept?

[Diogenes]

This started because Diogenes said this:

"Atheism's only role [in the formation of morality] is to prevent irrational rules or morality based on some arbitrary belief about pleasing a non existent being.

...Which you disagreed with on the basis of atheism not counting as an ideal. Atheism doesn't count as an ideal, so be it, but then it's still possible for something that is not an ideal to have a role in the formation of morality by preventing beliefs about morality from being enforced in a particular unjustified way. (Which I agree that it should, but in practice it doesn't.)

Atheism's role in the formation of morality is wholly negative, meaning it can never give a positive justification of some moral rule. It can never "tell us why." However, it can rule out some justifications which arguably is just as important, especially if people are going around killing others off and saying, "because God said" and leaving people with little other reason to disagree.

Thank you. Yes, and I don't know why William makes a big deal out of this. Atheism itself does nothing, but atheists simply don't buy into morality that is based solely on "God says...." Perhaps that way of saying it will pass muster. This brings me to my semi-annual reminder that I do not apply the term "atheist" to myself. I have several reasons for not liking the word. One is that it seems to credit theism as the default position. I prefer the word 'naturalist'. Naturalism in the way I think of it is merely a belief in the natural world that we can observe or measure or detect (either directly, thru instruments, or perhaps even mathematical tools). This leaves no room for the supernatural like ghosts, goblins, and gods. I think these things are just silly... but can be dangerous when people take orders from imaginary entities and from them make rules that hurt people. Hating homosexuals, or transgender folk or members of other tribes because YOUR tribal god tells you so is dangerous. It's evil.

However, I agree with a distinction Historia makes, between gods and God. I am open to, perhaps even hope for the existence of a force or presence in the universe that is beneficent and maybe even personal. I sometimes even 'pray' to this hope (which is likely nothing more than my own unconscious), but I see ZERO evidence for this 'God.' I just think it can be a comforting idea, but comforting ideas don't make things spring into existence.