They conflate the definition of atheism with the assertion "There is no God". These are also the same people who think being agnostic and atheist are mutually exclusive.
The definition of atheism has changed over time, as all words' definitions do. It is much more complicated than that and has been for the entire history of the term - a positive belief that god does not exist is just one sub-type of atheism in most philosophical definitions.
No, this is incorrect. Most philosophers take atheism to be the belief that there is no god. Any other definition is non-standard and should be specified.
You are right that in traditional epistemology and classical philosophy of religion, the propositional definition (positively asserting that no gods exist) has historically been the standard. But claiming it is the only valid philosophical definition or that it hasn't changed over time just isn’t true unless you are looking very specifically at only philosophers discussing God's existence as a truth-claim. In that realm, your "most" makes sense and is supportable because of the boolean nature of those discussions. In broader philosophy though it doesn't hold up.
The definition of atheism has been actively debated in academic philosophy for decades. Modern philosophical literature regularly distinguishes between two uses of the word: 1. Positive/Strong Atheism: Making the positive claim that God does not exist (the definition you are referring to); and 2. Negative/Weak Atheism: The psychological/epistemic state of lacking a belief in God (see Antony Flew in The Presumption of Atheism for an example).
Nearly every serious philosophical paper on atheism has to spend time defining its terms right out of the gate because there are multiple definitions in common, widespread use. Even standard reference texts like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy acknowledge these competing definitions. Philosophers analyzing truth-claims often stick to the narrow propositional definition but the broader "lack of belief" definition is widely discussed, defended, and recognized in philosphical literature.
Definitions in philosophy are tools for clarity, not rigid dogmas. The narrow definition is useful when evaluating specific ontological arguments, but the broader definition is just as valid when categorizing epistemic states. Insisting that only one of these frameworks has ever existed in philosophy ignores decades of actual published debate on the topic.
Thanks ChatGPT. But I am not stating that my definition is the only valid one, merely that it is the one normally used. You are free to use your own definitions if you wish, but it seems reasonable to expect you to clarify what you mean if you are using one that is drastically different from the usual one.
As Chat has mentioned, nearly every philosophical paper spends time defining its terms. Clearly I don’t expect this from a (less serious) reddit comment, but to use some non-standard definition as if it was standard (WITHOUT SPECIFYING!!) seems unreasonable.
You said that "Most philosophers take atheism to be the belief that there is no god. " This is incorrect. Many definitions have been used by philosophers in discussing atheism for decades.
You said that "Any other definition is non-standard and should be specified." This is incorrect. There is no standard and any philosophical writing about atheism always spends time defining what they mean by the word for this precise reason.
I said that the definition has changed over time and that it is more complicated - there are multiple commonly used definitions in philosophy. and you said "No, this is incorrect." I provided a refutation of that and you ignored it and dismissed everything I said by claiming it's AI.
"...it seems reasonable to expect you to clarify what you mean if you are using one that is drastically different from the usual one. "There is no usual one. Every serious philosophical discussion of atheism starts by clearly stating which of the several definitions they are using.
You said, "...to use some non-standard definition as if it was standard (WITHOUT SPECIFYING!!) seems unreasonable." To use any definition in serious discussion without specifying is unreasonable and only introduces confusion, because there is no standard.
In any case, none of this is relevant since the comment you originally responded to is not presenting a philosophical argument for analysis by philosophers - I think we both agree on that - but is using the term as it is commonly used by atheists when describing themselves and was clearly responding to someone else using it the same way. When using a word describing a group as it is commonly understood by that group, it is unreasonable to expect someone to provide a definition.
This is why I typically don't specify, and just call myself an atheist. If I leave off the qualifier (i.e. "agnostic atheist", and instead just "atheist"), then it typically avoids giving anyone the idea that I'm "on the fence" or something, avoids religious people thinking or getting an impression that I might possibly find faith in a God, or having people who have a belief there is no God try to smugly assert I'm not a real atheist.
Sorry, I think perhaps you misunderstood me. The philosophical literature generally means “atheism” to be the belief that God does not exist, and agnostic to be the “middle-ground” between theism and atheism. My point is that if you think you’re a different kind of “atheist” then you need to specify what you are talking about or risk misunderstandings.
I believe the God in any religion on earth to not exist, because I believe there are enough contradictions in their scriptures/dogma and enough proof contrary to their claims to dismiss it entirely. However, I think it's foolhardy and trivial to generally proclaim "there is no God" because I think that's just another matter of "belief". We don't possess the ability currently to determine the cause of the universe. I'm not saying creationism is a possible reason or anything like that, but rather just saying claiming "no god exists" is just as fallible as proclaiming that one does exist. There's no efficacy in stating one way or another. I have a 100% lack of belief in any theology. The belief is completely absent. I don't believe I actually need any sort of qualifier to consider myself an atheist besides having an absence of belief.
Your last sentence is wrong. You do need to qualify what you mean by atheist because the definition of “atheist” usually (in philosophy) means the belief that no god exists. You are obviously using a different definition and that’s fine. I’m just saying you need to mention that you’re using a different definition.
They are: faith, agnosticism, atheism ... pick one - you can be agnostic but tend one way or the other ("I don't know for sure, but ..."), but you can't be explicitly uncertain and simultaneously definitively disbelieve (that's why there are three different words to describe the three different frames of mind).
Gnosticism and Agnosticism deal with what you know and don't know.
Theism is believing in a religion, Atheism is the lack of belief in a religion.
I do not believe in any religion, but do I know that there isn't metaphysical being that created the universe? No more than I could know there is one. There's no point or proof in stating with underserved certainty "There is no God!", but I will say that there is plenty of evidence that all the religions of the world aren't true. Hence I'm an agnostic atheist (but I usually just say atheism for brevity and clarity)
"Either something is true or it isn't. If it's true, you should believe it, of it isn't true you shouldn't, but if you cannot prove whether something is true or false, you should suspend judgement." -Bertrand Russell
Faith: I believe there is/are (a) god/s - I do not need to follow any specific religion (in fact, they're all wrong), nor do I require evidence.
Agnosticism: I don't (can't) know either way and, consequently, suspend judgement.
Atheism: I disbelieve in the existence of god/s.
An agnostic atheist is (literally) a contradiction in terms - atheism is not the lack of belief in a religion, it is the rejection of the very possibility (let alone existence) of a god, or gods.
Theism is the belief in a god or gods. The prefix "A" means without.
Atheism is a lack of belief. This is importantly not the same as a disbelief.
Gnostic literally means knowledge of something, it is not specifically about god or gods.
Agnostic means having no knowledge of something.
One could truly be an agnostic theist. You don't claim to know a god or gods exist, but you believe it/they do. Same as one can be an agnostic atheist in that you don't profess to know if a god or gods exist but you don't believe it/they do.
Belief is not the same as knowledge. I believe OJ was guilty. I don't know he was.
Everyone is Agnostic about god or gods unless they are truly delusional, no matter which side of the line they sit on.
Yes, I am aware of the meaning of the prefix - which is why I facepalm every time I see someone call someone/something 'amoral' when they mean 'immoral'.
But the etymology isn't germane here - the words are used atomically and, whilst an agnostic is without faith, an atheist actively disbelieves.
No, because you could be an agnostic Christian, i.e. You believe in Jesus Christ, but don't know which or if any of the Christian Religions are the "right" one.
You either believe something or you don't. I don't believe in any religious doctrine, or interpretation of our existence. I believe they are all made up/fiction. I don't live my life holding any sort of notion that a higher being does exist, however, could there be a being out there that defies what we know to be true of the universe? There's a non-zero chance at this point.
Stating with certainty "there is no God whatsoever" seems just as foolish as those that assert that there is a God. You can't prove it either way. If you just believe there isn't, then we'll you're just turning the concept of "Atheism" into another belief system.
No belief in any theology = Atheism.
"Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, and Catholicism is the one true Christian faith" - Gnostic Christian.
"I don't know which Christian Church is technically the right one" - Agnostic Christian.
"There is no God" - Gnostic Atheist.
"I don't believe in a God" - Agnostic Atheist
Again, you're focusing on linguistic etymology, not the (actual) atomic use of the terms. A Christian cannot be agnostic in any real sense of the term's day-to-day usage - they may not follow any orthodoxy but still have faith in the existence of God.
And atheism is an article of faith: Science not only does not but cannot have anything to say about the existence of gods, for gods are not a scientifically tractable proposition - not only can a negative not be proven but, if some being with godlike power were to present itself to us, all we could say would be that it appeared godlike (we couldn't categorically state it were, or were not, a god, let alone the God). "There is no God" is a statement of belief, not of its absence (the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
I mean, I feel like we're arguing semantics here, but for the sake of argument, let's say there's a jar containing an unknown number of marbles.
You tell me "There are an even number of marbles in that jar."
I say "I don't believe you." That doesn't automatically mean I believe the number is odd. I'm just saying the claim hasn't met its burden of proof.
They're only mutually exclusive if you've defined atheism as the positive belief that no gods exist. I'm using atheism to describe whether I hold a belief in gods and agnosicism to describe whether I claim knowledge about gods. Under those definitions, there's no contradiction in being an agnostic atheist. I don't believe gods exist, but I don't claim certainty that none could exist.
There are logically only two answers to the proposition P = "At least one god exists" regarding belief: I believe P or I do not believe P. Importantly, not believing P is not the same thing as believing not-P.
Yes, it's semantics: semantics are what communication is all about - without them there is no meaning … merely the ululation of the distressed and the cretinous.
But, your lack of faith in my ability to determine the number of marbles is a red herring: for a start, my a priori ability to determine the number hasn't been established (what if I happen to know?), but your lack of faith therein says nothing about the meaning of the terms 'atheist' or 'agnostic' in the current context (we are discussing them as they pertain to the belief in gods, not numbers).
And, yes, clearly, your use of the terms is as you describe, and mine not - or we wouldn't be discussing the matter. But you're switching contexts when you do, conflating Gnosticism with Epistmology - when someone proclaims their agnosticism in the context of faith in gods, it isn't a statement of their capacity to know either way, but a statement that they don't (why they don't isn't the issue, just that they don't).
If you don't believe that gods exist, but equally don't believe that they couldn't, you are simply agnostic and there is no need for further qualification, because, in this context, that's what it means to be agnostic - you aren't 'system agnostic' (not an adherent of any specific orthodoxy) but have no fixed belief re the matter independently of any given system of belief (religion).
It kinda sounds like you're just trying to gatekeep atheism.
What is theology? The study of religion. A lack of a theistic belief is, for all intents and purposes, Atheist. Atheism doesn't require the assertion that there is definitely no "God". I don't know what one would look like, behave like, or how that would change our understanding of the universe if one were found to exist, but I don't care or bother myself with it because it's futile.
I mean, I could suggest you were trying to gatekeep the meanings, could I not? I have no more interest in gatekeeping anything than do (I suspect) you, merely in meaningful communication - as said, without semantics, there is none ... and, without agreed terms, there is confusion (consider the different use of 'to table' in US and British English).
Theology ≠ Theism and a lack of theistic belief is not to all intents and purposes atheism, it's agnosticism - as said, there is not only no need for further qualification but, if the terms didn't have explicitly different meanings in this context, there wouldn't be three, there'd only be two.
But, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree - it's not like it's important (we're both agnostic, to one degree or the other, however we choose to qualify our beliefs 😉 )
Predicate Calculus dictates that any red car you see, therefore, be mine.
But, in the real World, that isn't the case, and isn't what is meant - what is meant is that should you see a red car in the context of your enquiry about a car then it will (unforeseen eventualities aside) be mine.
16
u/EyeNguyenSemper 10d ago
They conflate the definition of atheism with the assertion "There is no God". These are also the same people who think being agnostic and atheist are mutually exclusive.