Its great to see that wikipedia is keeping up with the evolution of language. I'm told that there are a few publishing houses (of dictionaries, no less) that aren't paying attention to what "atheism" really means these days.

There was a thread started a while back asking "Whats the term for all of us - atheists and agnostics?"

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist and related pages)








So the answer to the question: "Atheism" is the correct term for both atheists and most agnostics. (Though I believe there are other 'kinds' of 'agnostics' besides the 'weak atheist' kind.)

So what are you? Are you explicit or implicit? Do you identify with 'strong atheism' or 'weak atheism'?

With respect to most kinds of Deities, I am an "explicit weak" atheist.

I believe that god(s) exist inasmuch as their existence is a conceptual one, and is commensurate with the number of believers in a given set of god(s).

To say that god(s) do not exist is an atheistic view, maybe strong, maybe explicit, but it's definitely wrong. It is the same as to say that "thought(s) do not exist", which is false. God(s) do exist in the minds of the believers at least, if not in the real world. Or the conceptual world, independently of believers or even of thought or concepts.

(I just made this all up, and I'm damn proud of it, too.)

Wux, what is your position on dieties existing as something more than ideas?

Your profile says 'atheist', many would (unfortunately) just assume this means 'explicit strong atheist' with respect to dieties as beings (independent of human thought) existing out in the 'real world'.

Is the description for 'explicit strong atheist' a fair represention for (this part of) your worldview? Explicit weak? Or something subtly different than either?

I would say I'd have to be an atheist who doesn't believe in God or any higher power/being/supernatural thing, and that evolution is the closest we have come to figuring out how the human race became what it is today...i hope i made some sense i'm pretty freaking tired!

agnostic here. so was einstein btw. we think that the human mind is incapable of knowing the existence of gods, the afterlife and other supernatural phenomena.

JRTBogie,

Are you comfortable, then, applying to yourself the definition of 'weak atheist' as given above?

I don't care about all those terms. My opinion is that you cannot prove a negative. Therefore, no one can truthfully say "there is no God." However, one cannot say "there are no unicorns" either.

It's my feeling that God is less likely to exist than unicorns. I go about my daily life as if there is no God. I assume there is no God. I'm 99.99999% sure there is no God.

no. thinking that god is unknowable i don't even bother to consider god's existence. i can never know if the statement is true and therefore considering whether or not it is false is senseless.
i hear atheists often bring up santa when christians ask why they cannot prove that god does not exist. i don't even consider the existence of santa outside of for the happiness of my grand daughter. santa is unknowable. there is no evidence that even begins to have ever existed for santa other than testimony that we feed our children. the same is true with gods. atheists get hung up on the idea that there is no evidence for god. agnostics say that there is no reason to believe that there can ever be evidence for god, it's all a series of tales, nothing more.

i consider possibilities that i have not experienced myself only when my own experiences allow me to consider a concept. for instance, though i consider myself a rank amature, i have had considerable training in the sciences, in particular physics and even more specifically aerodynamics. so i understand scientific methodology and i can easily consider the possibility that the big bang theory or evolution or bornouli's principal may have considerable merit. but as i've not experienced god or santa and having experienced nothing that permits my mind to consider it as i do with matters of science my reaction to the faithful is, "how can you even think such a thing". there reaction is always "well, it's in the bible you ninny". and follow with "how can you even think of evolution". and i'll proceed to tell them what i understand and why i understand it. it won't convince them but that's not my purpose. in every case it is they that are trying to convince me.

the same response works with an atheist who says there cannot be god or that god is unlikely but not impossible. "how can you even think such a thing? how can you think about god at all? because a christian told you there is a god and you doubt it but consider it possible? if you'd never heard the words god or deity mentioned would you consider god unlikely but possible? as an agnostic i simply don't consider the possibility of god. a waste of brain power.

Very interesting. But one can truthfully say "I am certain there is no God", because that persons basis for deciding they are 'certain' of something is not as objective, or thorough, as yours. So there are people who are truly and completely 'strong atheists' even if others think that the absolutism of their position is intellectually suspect.


Okay, so one of my purposes in this thread is to raise awareness about the meaning many people give the term atheist, since too many people think only of 'athiesm is a positive disbelief in any Gods'.

Purpose aside, one of the things that is coming out is how blurred that line really is. Literally, I would say you are a 'weak' atheist, but only on a technicality due to careful skepticism - but effectively, you seem to be basically be 'strong' atheist - "God is less likely ... than unicorns"!

JRBroglie,

I mentioned there might be other kinds of agnostics other than the 'weak atheist' kind. I wonder if you might be one, but I don't fully understand your position, or what makes it inherently different than weak atheist. I'm going to think out loud here, and invite your comments on my thoughts:



Okay, so if its senseless to consider whether or not it is false, you will stop short of declaring it false, right? And you also do not believe that any Deities exist, obviously. So by this, according to the definition above, you are a 'weak atheist', as a weak atheist is just a person who will neither declare a God existent nor non-existent.

Though, unlike some weak atheists who might consider the question of the existence of a God an 'as yet unanswered, but potentially answerable question', you hold that even considering the possibility is a 'waste of brain power'. Am I understanding you?

The phrase 'weak atheist' might be accurate, but its inadequate - because it doesn't convey your position on the 'unknowability' of the existence of Diety.

Its sounds very much like you also hold the position that people are born as implicit weak atheists - that is, born without a belief in a God. It only becomes a question if some theist introduces them to the idea.

ok. but i've never bought any other terms describing other kinds of agnostics. people often confuse agnostic as a term in theism. it's not. it's all about the unknowable. it simply applies to god as it does to everything. sombody started a thread asking "are there any ecclectic agnostics in here?" even after reading his definition of "ecclectic agnostic" i still consider it unknowable. lol.





yes. if you define weak atheist as you do and include that god is a potenilly answerable question then there is no doubt that i am not that.



exactly. you could say it remains "adequately inaccurate" without such a conveance. lol. see why i hate these definitions?

i really think discussing these definitions is a waste of time but...... the word "atheist", no matter what word you put before or after it regards "theism". a theist believes in a deity or deities. as with the word "asexual" which means without sex,(now why do you suppose i'd bring a lack of sex into this discussion? must be on my mind for some reason i guess.) "a" added to "theism" gives the word "atheist" which means "without theism". in that sense and that sense alone is where atheism and agnosticism are similar. we are both without theism.

that is where i leave definitions. i am a person who thinks that the human mind is incapable of knowing anything absolutely. you look in the dictionary and tell me if it says that i am defined as a weak athiest. pure agnosticism has nothing at all to do with theism. has only to do with knowledge, more specifically, the unknowable. i don't even consider the prospect that there might be a god. it can never be known so it's a waste of brain power as you know. if i your definition of a weak atheist is "just a person who will neither declare a god existent nor non-existent" but is open to learning one day that one or the other is correct then i'm not a weak atheist in any regard. he can never know. if you say a weak athiest might also see this as unknowable, then as theism goes, he's an agnostic. were he to take it further that he can never know anything, like me he's a pure agnostic.



actually i'll go with pure atheist at birth. in the sense that when born we have little capability of learning so comming to the thought that nothing is knowable is not going to happen so agnostic doesn't work. nor does weak atheist work if we agree that a week atheist has looked at the concept of god but has not commited to something that he thinks may some day be answerable. you'd never have known of the word "god" unless somebody told it to you or wrote it for you. i don't know what you'd call a person such as tarzan who was abandoned shortly after birth and raised by apes when he reaches adulthood. he wouldn't have a language so god would never occure to him but unlike a newborn he has the capacity to reason. i know never happen but the point is, how would you define someone in terms of theism if he has no concept of god? no concept of the universe? no concept of man? we invented all these questions did we not? hell, we invented the words.

in this regard obviously he's atheist if because he's without theism. he's not a strong atheist if that is someone who believes it fact that there is no god. he cannot think that god is unknowable if he hasn't been introduced to the word "god" so he cannot be an agnostic. is he a weak atheist? eeeeehhhh. that would be a stretch. we're back to the question, has a weak atheist considered the existence of god? if so, tarzan ain't one. interesting discussion if i didn't hate difinitions. lol.

You forgot the hot nails, the waterboard and the electric dynamo. Otherwise you almost got me to talk.


Why don't you join a humanist website or real site? I used to belong to one in Toronto, but they blackballed me. I am a contrarian philosopher and agree with only those who are very much smarter than I. So the community had enough of me and got me expelled by social cohesion and harmonized behaviour patterns.

So... you're as smart as Einstein? Wow.

you sound much like my ex. she would often insert words that i never uttered into comments i made. her "thinking", as i suspect is yours, was that by deaming, or attempting to demean, my position it would somehow raise hers on high. the very definition of "straw man argument". i'd ask her as i ask you now, is there a point you hope to make and do you consider this and effective way of making it? it's a rhetorical question, no need to answer. as to your question, only one word comes to mind, "absurd".

Hello. We're not talking about Einstein. To bring Einstein into the topic was -- as you said -- absurd, inasmuch as he came into it unexpectedly and rather without reason.

So in conversation people look for a reason, always, because we're reasonable animals. As I read your lines, I'm thinking, "what could have been the reason for which he brought in Einstein?"

More to the point was that you brought him in rather unexpectedly AND only as a comparison to yourself. "he was like me", you said in a way. And please don't object to the "in a way". To a lot of people this "in a way" can not be interpreted in other ways than your bringing him up only to compare him to yourself.

Hence the association. I am sorry if I upset you. You set yourself up. My intention was not to make fun of you, but your post was funny by way of its own egotism. Not that you are an egotist, I don't know that, I'm not making a judgment on that. I don't know you I admit and I'm not going to pretend I know you. It's just that it appeared very self-effacing to say, in a way, "I eat toast and apricot jam in the morning every day, and so did Charles Darwin, by the way."

i wasn't upset in the least. had i been i would not have used the word "absurd". of course in open forum i'm free to bring up einstein or anybody else i chose to mention. if you feel so wronged by my doing so why are we still talking about it. i mentioned him in one four word sentence. you've now devoted no less than two posts and several paragraphs on this whole new issue of yours. most of us have this little scroll wheel on our mouse thingy. works real well for scrolling past posts we'd rather not be bothered with.

Hey cool - a sustained exchange, however brief, in the atheist section!

I mean, the atheist and agnostic section... but then again, agnostics are also weak atheists, so 'atheists' covers it all.


JRBRoglie, thank you for expanding on your position, and for being willing to play along with these definitions while doing so.

I do want to clarify something:



I did not mean to imply that at all - just that you and this other kind of weak atheist happen to fall under the same umbrella of 'having neither an active belief nor disbelief in a diety'. That person you describe may also be a weak atheist, but they are no more 'representative of' weak atheists than agnostics (per your description) are.

I can see why you consider agnostic to be a much more relevant and useful term!

I'd wager there a quite a few, I dunno, lets say French people, who would be slightly offended if we just called them "Europeans", even though they are. Doing so can be viewed as implying their Frenchness doesn't matter, and that they are just like other Europeans.

"i wasn't upset in the least." Well, maybe you weren't but I was, after reading your lines,
"her "thinking", as i suspect is yours, was that by deaming, or attempting to demean, my position it would somehow raise hers on high." And you may deny that, but it certainly shows signs that you were upset. My thinking and probaby your wife's, was not what you suppose here. My thinking was a reaction to a clear and unmistakeable display of egotism and self-centeredness, via name-dropping and improper referencing. This is the second explanation, same as the first one, paraphrased, to help you comprehend the reason I and perhaps your first wife used sarcasm on you. A third time: I am NOT trying to elevate my position on your expense with my sarcasm. I need no such crutch, never needed such a crutch. The demeaning you feel is from the intended educational value of the emotional content, with which I, perhaps your wife, perhaps even others, try to make you unlearn your unbecoming behaviour. This is called "social pressure". "Stop doing what you do" is what a sarcastic statement really says. The sarcastic statement, at least in my case, is not a tool to establish pecking order, as you seem to indicate.

" if you feel so wronged by my doing so why are we still talking about it." Because it takes two to tango. You keep asking me or provoking me to reply to you.you've now devoted no less than two posts and several paragraphs on this whole new issue of yours.
Takes two to tango, no? I could not have devoted to this smaller topic this much devotion without your parallel devotion.
most of us have this little scroll wheel on our mouse thingy. works real well for scrolling past posts we'd rather not be bothered with.
So... you were bothered with my post referencing your Einstein post, and it was perfectly okay for yu to voice your annoyance, too, but the cause of my being bothered by being called unfair and unethical, (a demeaner and an unfair judge who calls others out to make himself look better is something) I should certainly just skip over. You're grossly unfair, buddy.

I just ask you to apply your own logic and morals to yourself next time before you so generously dish it out on others.

It's true you wanted this to not develop, this mini-topic, you even said, "it's a rhetorical question, no need to answer. as to your question, only one word comes to mind, "absurd"." So you are saying I am doing you or the community a disservice by defending my honor? Despite your generously calling my entire explanation "absurd" and your question a rhetorical question. Well, you have a surprize: A rhetorical question is not something that has deeply touched your audience and they have the need to defend their honour. A rhetorical quesion is something entirely different. Look it up, please, before the next time you use it again, and try to use it in a context that its meaning warrants it.

Aside from that, I felt compelled to show you how my comment was not absurd, at all. And this is my payment from you, for showing you my logic and how it applied to the situation, de facto educating you?

You have to learn to not excite others to see through your extreme egotism and narcissism, you have to learn that hypocrisy does not look good on you, you have to learn that you cannot have a double standard when you try to convince someone with logical arguments to stop getting emotionally upset when you rile them.

Maybe, just maybe, the reason your ex-wife, I, and perhaps others, upset you is that they feel upset by you? Worth giving a thought to this, too, buddy.

It also irks me, and probably a great number of others when you want to close an argument that gets uncomfortable for you, by saying "you talk too much about this", impying that they are doing an unreasonable task which is wasting everyone's time, and you wash your hands. I won't let you get away with that sort of reasoning, young man. I certainly did not do anything stupider (not at all by far) than you, by replying to your insulting and increasingly insulting untruths and hypocritical comments.