Am I contradicting myself?

[Le Pere Duchesne]

If you say 'we do not know' then you are an agnostic. Contrary to the commonly accepted definitions among atheist academia, there is no real 'gnostic' or 'agnostic' atheism. Atheism is the outright denial of the existence of a deity. It isn't saying "I don't think there is..." it is saying "There isn't..."

I actually find this move toward these definitions disturbing, because I see it as a means to marginalise 'hard' atheists. Being subject to pressures from a profoundly devout culture, these people are giving in, and saying "look, you might be right, but I don't think you are." And in doing so are appealing to them and trying to be 'the reasonable atheists.' All this will do is hurt atheism. What is needed is a complete and utter break from these people, declaring them for what their appeals show them to be: agnostics. If you declare a lack of knowledge on the subject, you are declaring yourself agnostic, and cannot in any way be seen as an Atheist.  

[Daffodil the Destroyer]

I suppose you're entitled to hold that opinion, contrary as it is to the facts. But I encourage a look at the breakdown of the word.

George H. Smith

The prefix "a" means "without," so the term "a-theism" literally means "without theism," or without belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief.

Not having a belief in something isn't the same as believing that it does not exist.

 

[Raticiel]

Daffodil the Destroyer

I suppose you're entitled to hold that opinion, contrary as it is to the facts. But I encourage a look at the breakdown of the word.

George H. Smith

The prefix "a" means "without," so the term "a-theism" literally means "without theism," or without belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief.

Not having a belief in something isn't the same as believing that it does not exist.

Exactly, but if you say you're theist, you say "there is god", not "I believe in god" (as a matter of faith). As I said, belief and faith are something different from theoretical standpoints. Theism is not just a base for religions, actually many religions (even those with god included) don't really need any theories behind them.  

[Raticiel]

Louis-Auguste Robespierre

If you say 'we do not know' then you are an agnostic. Contrary to the commonly accepted definitions among atheist academia, there is no real 'gnostic' or 'agnostic' atheism. Atheism is the outright denial of the existence of a deity. It isn't saying "I don't think there is..." it is saying "There isn't..."

I actually find this move toward these definitions disturbing, because I see it as a means to marginalise 'hard' atheists. Being subject to pressures from a profoundly devout culture, these people are giving in, and saying "look, you might be right, but I don't think you are." And in doing so are appealing to them and trying to be 'the reasonable atheists.' All this will do is hurt atheism. What is needed is a complete and utter break from these people, declaring them for what their appeals show them to be: agnostics. If you declare a lack of knowledge on the subject, you are declaring yourself agnostic, and cannot in any way be seen as an Atheist.

Yeah, more than exactly. cool sadly I'll probably never make up my mind and choose one side. I'm in the skeptical marsh and I'm going to drow some day, or something big will have to happen... Second big bang perhaps burning_eyes  

[Daffodil the Destroyer]

Wait, how can you say "exactly" to both posts? XD I'm confused. Either atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive or they are not. Obviously, I hold that they are not, but the previous poster is implying that they are.

 

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Daffodil the Destroyer

I suppose you're entitled to hold that opinion, contrary as it is to the facts. But I encourage a look at the breakdown of the word.

George H. Smith

The prefix "a" means "without," so the term "a-theism" literally means "without theism," or without belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief.

Not having a belief in something isn't the same as believing that it does not exist.

The only fact you can cite is where the word is derived from. Proving the current meaning of a word through etymology is plain silly. It would be like saying:
"The french didn't have Kings, they had tribal leaders. Why do I say this? Because their word for what you call their 'King' is 'roi,' which is a debased form of the latin rex, the military leader of the latins."

Because that is exactly what you are doing there. You take a word which is used to mean a denial, and you turn it into something neutral.

But that is really beside the point, and is a rather typical diversionary tactic. The point is that atheism, or more precisely, hard materialists, are being isolated by 'soft' materialists in order to suck up to idealists. In doing so they appeal to them in bringing forward a definition which is 'less contrary' and may garner some support, or at least less hostility.

What should be happening is just the opposite: an active affirmation of materialism and the incompatibility of materialism and idealism, and the exaltation of materialism being the only philosophical viewpoint compatible with science, and thus the actual unniverse.

The lack of this is the problem, and it would be preferable if people referred to themselves as materialists, and not atheists, purely because there is no way to confuse materialism and agnosticism on a philosophical level.  

[MiniSiets]

Raticiel

I understand what you want to say, but theism/atheism are philosophical standpoints, not matters of belief.

...Except that they are matters of belief by all practical and textbook definitions of the terms. neutral

Since when were beliefs not allowed to also be considered as philosophical viewpoints? Again it seems like you're asserting that there is some mutually exclusive dichotomy that doesn't actually exist. Theism can be a philosophical view and a belief. The fact that people have attempted to make logical arguments in support of the belief does not change that it is still a belief.  

[Raticiel]

MiniSiets

Raticiel

I understand what you want to say, but theism/atheism are philosophical standpoints, not matters of belief.

...Except that they are matters of belief by all practical and textbook definitions of the terms. neutral

Since when were beliefs not allowed to also be considered as philosophical viewpoints? Again it seems like you're asserting that there is some mutually exclusive dichotomy that doesn't actually exist. Theism can be a philosophical view and a belief. The fact that people have attempted to make logical arguments in support of the belief does not change that it is still a belief.

Well, I guess it depends on the discourse... But generally "believing" something means I take something for faith, which means stuff like argumentation, logic, rationality are, well, not matching at all. Faith is faith, it's something that should not be spoken. So it's pointless to argue with it. You can't debate about it and claim you are "right", because there is no "right" and "wrong" when it comes to people's beliefs. I can seriously believe in pink bunnies and the prince of darkness, and nobody can tell me I'm wrong. It would be a nonsense.
But in philosophy you use your reasoning. Arguments. Logic. Experience and faith are those that are supposed to help philosophy, but they usually make it fail.
Textbooks? Encyclopedias? Well, sorry but I don't fully trust any sources, I know that every single philosophical term has it's own story, and you can't simply define them. After all they're supposed to be used to define things, not to be defined themselves. Intuition is the best tool here. And little as I know "theism" is the standpoint, I say "there is god", not "I believe in god". Maybe the difference is small, maybe it depends on the situation. I have to admit perhaps there's no dichotomy here, but it should be clear that I can fight against "there is god", but I can never beat "I believe in god".  

[Raticiel]

Daffodil the Destroyer

Wait, how can you say "exactly" to both posts? XD I'm confused. Either atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive or they are not. Obviously, I hold that they are not, but the previous poster is implying that they are.

Because you're obviously right smile I just don't think theism has anything to do with "believing". Of course in our general everyday discourse it's bo difference between "there is god" and "I believe in god", but when it comes to debating, well, it's pretty important to remember even about such small details.  

[MiniSiets]

Discussing belief can often suggest that there is a certain level of faith involved, though it should be said that it does not always necessarily imply faith--at least to the degree that religions take it. After all, all beliefs and claims of knowledge as well ultimately rely on at least some small degree of faith (excluding conceptual knowledge), since we recognize that humans lack omniscience. But, in terms of faith to such an unreasonable degree as religion takes it, many beliefs are not predicated upon "faith".  

[Raticiel]

MiniSiets

Discussing belief can often suggest that there is a certain level of faith involved, though it should be said that it does not always necessarily imply faith--at least to the degree that religions take it. After all, all beliefs and claims of knowledge as well ultimately rely on at least some small degree of faith (excluding conceptual knowledge), since we recognize that humans lack omniscience. But, in terms of faith to such an unreasonable degree as religion takes it, many beliefs are not predicated upon "faith".

Well, I'm afraid the problem now is my understanding of english language. In polish there's only one word source for both "belief" and "faith". "To believe" is "wierzyc" and "faith" is "wiara". I see this as "to be assured of something without any support, grounding, arguments, reasoning etc.". Of course in order to discuss something we need a certain level of faith, I obviously believe I'm writing this to a person living somewhere, but if we are discussing theoretical stuff here we have to specify what are talking about, otherwise we can't communicate.  

[MiniSiets]

Well, typically I define belief as "any proposition or cognitive content held to be true" and the reasons for that belief can vary from really bad faith-based reasons to really good rational reasons.  

[Raticiel]

Eh, if only our reason could really prove anything... rolleyes
oh well, I guess there's not much to argue if you put it that way.. wink

@ Robespierre - why do you say agnosticism and materialism are equal to atheism? neutral