Definitions: Atheism and Agnosticsm.
 

[b]Atheism and agnosticism defined.[/b]

The arguments over what ‘atheism’ and ‘agnosticism’ mean have been raging here since sciforums began. Newcomers often have erroneous pre-conceived ideas and have to be re-educated within each debate and many dictionaries especially older ones are simply not in touch with current usage.

The definitions here I believe are fairly simple to understand and represent the majority view (of those who have seriously considered the issue). However, there are variations on the definition of agnosticism which involve the concepts of theist agnosticism and atheist agnosticism, but I find that these subtle variations are not widely held and attempts to use them here have simply been met with confusion. But if anyone disagrees or has further comment then please post your concerns and definitions in this thread and I’ll evaluate then and give consideration for including them in this opening post.

The other primary contentious issue is the subject and definition of ‘faith’ but I think that deserves its own sticky thread.

The source for the following definitions is –

[url]http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html[/url]


[b]"What is atheism?"[/b]

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the [b]"weak atheist"[/b] position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as [b]"strong atheism"[/b].

Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god': Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it's not a very important debate...

It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.

Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.

[b]"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?"[/b]

Definitely not. [color=red]Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true.[/color] Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not. Which brings us to agnosticism.

[b]"What is agnosticism then?"[/b]

The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. [color=red]He defined an agnostic as[/color] someone who disclaimed both ("strong") atheism and theism, and who believed that the question of whether a higher power existed was unsolved and insoluble. Another way of putting it is that an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not know for sure whether God exists. Some agnostics believe that we can never know.

In recent years, however, the term agnostic has also been used to describe those who simply believe that the evidence for or against God is inconclusive, and therefore are undecided about the issue.

To reduce the amount of confusion over the use of term agnosticism, it is recommended that usage based on a belief that we cannot know whether God exists be qualified as "strict agnosticism" and usage based on the belief that we merely do not know yet be qualified as "empirical agnosticism".

Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming that you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic. For example, many people use agnosticism to mean what is referred to here as "weak atheism", and use the word "atheism" only when referring to "strong atheism".

Beware also that because the [color=red]word "atheist" has so many shades of meaning,[/color] it is very difficult to generalize about atheists. About all you can say for sure is that atheists don't believe in God. For example, it certainly isn't the case that all atheists believe that science is the best way to find out about the universe.

Have fun
Cris

[b]Edit 9/5/3[/b]

Reference to Christian Apologetics and Research.
A fair site for Christians about atheists.

[url]http://www.carm.org/atheism/atheism.htm[/url]

Well put Cris, thanks a lot. I'm glad to see this addressed. I hope it will save everyone some time in the threads.

At the same time, Drange poses the question in a somewhat different manner ...
[quote]Suppose you are to answer the following two questions:[list=1][*]Does the sentence "God exists" express a proposition?[*]If so, then is that proposition true or false?[/list]If you say no to the first question, then you may be classified as a noncognitivist with regard to God-talk. If you say yes to it, thereby allowing that the given sentence does express a proposition, then you are a cognitivist with regard to God-talk. (Let us henceforth abbreviate these expressions, simply using the terms "cognitivist" and "noncognitivist".) All theists, atheists, and agnostics are cognitivists, so the second question applies to them: is the proposition that God exists true or false? You are a theist if and only if you say that the proposition is true or probably true, you are an atheist if and only if you say that it is false or probably false, and you are an agnostic if and only if you understand what the proposition is, but resist giving either answer, and support your resistance by saying, "The evidence is insufficient" (or words to that effect).

- see [url=http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html][b]Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (1998)[/b][/url][/quote]I suspect that much of the argument about terminology conceals a more fundamental disagreement about [b]burden of proof[/b]. The theist sees an admittedly uneven playing field. It is, after all, relatively easy to cast stones at Christian doctrine so long as the atheist has no fear of being forced to defend his or her 'doctine' in return. To make matters worse, too many of these atheists are recognized by theists as little more than frenetic bible-bashers no less dogmatic and superficial than the most ignorant of fundametalist. Given all this, the frustrated theist views debating [i]"atheism as the absence of belief"[/i] a bit like wrestling a foul smelling ooze. This will continue to be the case so long as one or both contenders are discussing/debating ontology rather than epistemology.

[quote]Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not.[color=blue][?][/color] Which brings us to agnosticism.[/quote][color=blue]Quite interesting. Why not [i]just[/i] say I'm unsure to avoid the confusion? Crap you guys are so technical when it can be avoided.[/color]

The brief summary, as I understand it:

<b>strong atheist</b>:
"I believe there is no God." (i.e. positive belief in the non-existence of God).
<b>weak atheist</b>:
"I do not believe there is a God." (i.e. lack of a positive belief in non-existence, but not necessarily a negative belief).
<b>strict agnostic</b>:
"It is impossible to know whether God exists or not." (i.e. belief that the nature of God is undecidable.)
<b>empirical agnostic</b>:
"God might exist, but the evidence so far is inconclusive." (i.e. truly undecided, on the basis of the evidence.)
<b>theist</b>:
"I believe there is a God." (i.e. positive belief in at least one God.)

MarcAC,

[quote]Why not just say I'm unsure to avoid the confusion?[/quote]Because a disbelief is not an expression of uncertainty.

E.g. I am quite sure that I do not believe theist claims.

Pretty soon atheism is going to have more sects than christianity. :confused:

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by okinrus [/i]
[B]Pretty soon atheism is going to have more sects than christianity. :confused: [/B][/QUOTE] But far, far fewer myths. ;)

The rhetorical difference between disbelief and belief in a negative is not relevant to the definition of Atheism.

Theism/Atheism deal with belief. The Theist believes that a deity exists. The Atheist EITHER does not believe in the existence of a deity OR believes that deities do not exist.

Gnosticism/Agnosticism is a separate school of thought from Theism/Atheism.

Gnosticism/Agnosticism deal with knowledge. A Gnostic is one who claims to know that a deity exists. An Agnostic claims to have no knowledge about the existence of a deity.

Confused yet?

A [B]Gnostic Theist[/B] is one who believes in a deity and claims to know that the deity exists. Typically devoutly religious people fall into this category. They claim their knowledge comes from fulfilled prayer, prophecy or miracles.

An [B]Agnostic Theist[/B] is one who has a belief in the existence of a deity but does not claim to know this for sure. They are often skeptical about religious documents, such as the Bible, but refuse to accept the idea of an uncaused first cause, i.e. the Big Bang, without divine intervention.

A [B]Gnostic Atheist[/B] is one who does not believe in a deity (or believes that no deity exists) and claims to know that no deity exists. This is sometimes referred to as Strong Atheism. Their knowledge derives from scientific evidence that refutes religious claims.

An [B]Agnostic Atheist[/B] is one who does not believe in a deity (or believes that no deity exists) but does not claim to have knowledge regarding the existence of a deity. This is sometimes referred to as Weak Atheism. The Agnostic Atheist is content to leave the burden of proof (knowledge) on those who make the claims regarding the existence of a deity.

Reposted from [URL=http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25260&perpage=20&pagenumber=3]this thread[/URL] at the request of Wesmorris.

Excellent explanation, LucidDreamer. I just want to clarify two things.

[QUOTE]A [B]Gnostic Atheist[/B] is one who does not believe in a deity (or believes that no deity exists) and claims to know that no deity exists. This is sometimes referred to as Strong Atheism.[/QUOTE]
A gnostic atheist is a strong atheist, but not necessarily vice versa. See below.

[QUOTE]An [B]Agnostic Atheist[/B] is one who does not believe in a deity (or believes that no deity exists) but does not claim to have knowledge regarding the existence of a deity. This is sometimes referred to as Weak Atheism.[/QUOTE]
An agnostic atheist can be either a strong atheist or a weak atheist. An agnostic atheist who simply lacks belief that God or gods exist is a weak atheist. An agnostic atheist who holds an explicit belief that God or gods do not exist is a strong atheist. One need not claim knowledge that God or gods do not exist in order to have an explicit belief that they do not.

[QUOTE]One need not claim knowledge that God or gods do not exist in order to have an explicit belief that they do not.[/QUOTE]

I agree. However the claim of knowledge is what distinguishes a strong Atheist from a weak one. Knowledge implies certitude.

I really think that people are getting too hung up on the distinction between disbelief and belief in a negative. While I agree that there is a difference rhetorically, it plays no role in the definitions of strong or weak Atheism or Atheism in general. Atheism can be either disbelief in a deity or belief that no deity exists.

It is important to note that Agnosticism is not a third option to Theism or Atheism, but rather a subset of the two.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by LucidDreamer [/i]
[B]It is important to note that Agnosticism is not a third option to Theism or Atheism, but rather a subset of the two. [/B][/QUOTE]

Damnit are you sure? Shit i think I might have it backwards. Straighten me out please. I was thinking that Theism and Atheism are two non-intersecting circles within in the intersection of agnosticism and (what do you call someone believes in knowledge from authority?) (trying to describe it like a Venn Diagram).

Most people live in a state of apathy except for a few rare moments.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by okinrus [/i]
[B]Most people live in a state of apathy except for a few rare moments. [/B][/QUOTE]

hehe.. okay, jcarl.. if you're watching. THIS IS A NON-SEQUITER. Use the example to understand the pattern then use that to improve your arguments.

[QUOTE]Pretty soon atheism is going to have more sects than christianity. [/QUOTE]
seeing this is a thread for clearing up misconceptions- [B]atheism is in no way a religion[/B]. it never has been. if it was, it would indeed have many more sects than christianity as you would be hard pressed to find a group of atheists who agreed on a substantial set of beliefs.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by LucidDreamer [/i]
I agree. However the claim of knowledge is what distinguishes a strong Atheist from a weak one.[/QUOTE]
That is not true. The claim of knowledge is what distinguishes a gnostic from an agnostic. Atheism has nothing to do with the field of epistemology (gnostic vs. agnostic), but deals only in the realm of belief.

[QUOTE]Knowledge implies certitude.[/QUOTE]
Yes, this is why gnostic atheists would all be strong atheists as well. Certitude does not, however, imply knowledge, which is why strong atheists are not necessarily gnostic atheists.

[QUOTE]I really think that people are getting too hung up on the distinction between disbelief and belief in a negative. While I agree that there is a difference rhetorically, it plays no role in the definitions of strong or weak Atheism or Atheism in general. Atheism can be either disbelief in a deity or belief that no deity exists.[/QUOTE]
Disbelief and belief in a negative not only have a role in the strong and weak atheist positions, but they are the very qualities that distinguish these two philosophical stances. Yes, atheism in general can encompass either of these two standpoints. However, it is important to keep these distinctions in mind because many people have misconceptions about atheism (the very reason that Cris appropriately posted this subject as a sticky). A notable example is the erroneous belief that all atheists are strong atheists, i.e. they hold an explicit belief that God or gods do not exist, when they may simply be skeptics.

[QUOTE]It is important to note that Agnosticism is not a third option to Theism or Atheism, but rather a subset of the two.[/QUOTE]
Correct. Agnosticism is not a third option to theism or atheism. However, it is not a subset of those two views either; it is a completely different philosophical field (epistemology).

[quote]
seeing this is a thread for clearing up misconceptions- atheism is in no way a religion. it never has been. if it was, it would indeed have many more sects than christianity as you would be hard pressed to find a group of atheists who agreed on a substantial set of beliefs.
[/quote]
Atheism can be considered a religion. "2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices" (Webster) So you have your beliefs in varying degree of the nonexistance of God and your beliefs constitute your own personal religion.

[quote]
hehe.. okay, jcarl.. if you're watching. THIS IS A NON-SEQUITER. Use the example to understand the pattern then use that to improve your arguments.
[/quote]
That was supposed to be a joke.

Okinrus,

[quote] Atheism can be considered a religion. "2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices" (Webster) So you have your beliefs in varying degree of the nonexistance of God and your beliefs constitute your own personal religion.[/quote]Nice try, but no that doesn’t work. For your statement to be true atheists must maintain a “religious attitude, belief and practice”.

From Webster - Religious: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.

Therefore for atheists to be considered religious they must acknowledge an ultimate reality or deity. Since atheism is specifically disbelief in such things then the two conditions are mutually exclusive, i.e. an atheist cannot both believe and disbelieve in a deity.

Atheists cannot be religious.

[QUOTE]The claim of knowledge is what distinguishes a gnostic from an agnostic. Atheism has nothing to do with the field of epistemology (gnostic vs. agnostic), but deals only in the realm of belief. [/QUOTE]

I agree entirely. I don’t think I said anything that contradicts that.

[QUOTE]Damnit are you sure? Shit i think I might have it backwards. Straighten me out please. I was thinking that Theism and Atheism are two non-intersecting circles within in the intersection of agnosticism and (what do you call someone believes in knowledge from authority?) (trying to describe it like a Venn Diagram).[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Correct. Agnosticism is not a third option to theism or atheism. However, it is not a subset of those two views either; it is a completely different philosophical field (epistemology).[/QUOTE]

All right, let me clarify what I meant. Perhaps the use of the word subset was confusing. Theism/Atheism and Gnosticism/Agnosticism are two separate schools of thought. However, one cannot be either Gnostic/Agnostic without also being either Theist/Atheist. The two schools of thought are in that sense connected.

Let us examine three statements:

Statement # 1: “I know that God exists.”

Statement # 2: “I know that God does not exist.”

Statement # 3: “I do not know that God exists.”

The first statement is pretty straightforward. The person is clearly a Gnostic since he is stating that he has knowledge about God. We can conclude that he is also a Theist because with his knowledge comes belief. If I know that something exists I must also believe that it exists.

The second statement is also straightforward. The person is also a Gnostic for the same reason: claimed knowledge regarding the existence of God. We can conclude that the person is also an Atheist. If I know that something does not exist then I must also believe that it does not exist.

The third statement is not so clear-cut. All we can conclude is that the person is an Agnostic because he is not claiming any knowledge regarding the existence of God. The statement says nothing about his belief in God. Never the less he must be either a Theist or an Atheist since he either has belief or he has no belief.

I think that I should clarify my above post further. Knowledge is not a prerequisite for belief; however one who claims belief must also take a position on whether or not he possesses knowledge.

To use a non-religious example, the scientists who operate the SETI program believe that intelligent alien life exists else where in our galaxy. However being good scientists they would never claim knowledge regarding the existence of aliens without first having proof in the form of the radio signals that they are searching for. Their lack of knowledge does not affect their belief. They believe but claim to have no knowledge regarding the existence of aliens.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by LucidDreamer [/i]
[B]However, one cannot be either Gnostic/Agnostic without also being either Theist/Atheist. The two schools of thought are in that sense connected.[/B][/QUOTE] Furthermore,[list][*] one cannot be either an okra-lover or mortician without also being either Theist/Atheist[*] one cannot be either a bee-keeper or existentialist without also being either Theist/Atheist[*] one cannot be either a Peterist or wide receiver without also being either Theist/Atheist[*]one cannot be either above [b]X[/b] or [b]Y[/b] without ...[/list]

[QUOTE]*one cannot be either an okra-lover or mortician without also being either Theist/Atheist
*one cannot be either a bee-keeper or existentialist without also being either Theist/Atheist
*one cannot be either a Peterist or wide receiver without also being either Theist/Atheist
*one cannot be either above X or Y without ...[/QUOTE]

A funny observation but not relevant to my point, which I will try and explain one more time.

Theism/Atheism and Gnosticism/Agnosticism are two separate schools of thought. Never the less you cannot claim to be an Atheist without also taking a position regarding knowledge of God. For that matter you cannot claim to be a Theist without also taking a position regarding knowledge of God. You either have knowledge regarding the existence of God or you have no such knowledge.

The strength of one’s belief in no god (or disbelief) is not what distinguishes between a strong Atheist and a weak one. It is the claim of knowledge that is the determining factor. You either know that there is no God or you claim no such knowledge.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by LucidDreamer [/i]
The strength of one’s belief in no god (or disbelief) is not what distinguishes between a strong Atheist and a weak one.[/QUOTE]
Correct.
[QUOTE]It is the claim of knowledge that is the determining factor. You either know that there is no God or you claim no such knowledge.[/QUOTE]
Incorrect. While it is true that an atheist is either gnostic or agnostic, these epistemological standpoints are not what distinguish strong and weak atheism. Let's try it this way:

[B]Gnostic strong atheism:[/B] Knowledge and explicit belief that God or gods do not exist (the knowledge implies the explicit disbelief).

[B]Gnostic weak atheism:[/B] Lack of belief that God or gods exist and knowledge that God or gods do not exist. (Note that all strong atheists are also weak atheists because they have the requisite lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. They simply take it one step further by proactively believing that God or gods do not exist.) Since knowledge implies explicit disbelief, gnostic weak atheism is simply a more general way of describing gnostic strong atheism. All gnostic weak atheists will also be gnostic strong atheists.

[B]Agnostic strong atheism:[/B] Explicit belief, but not knowledge, that God or gods do not exist.

[B]Agnostic weak atheism:[/B] Lack of knowledge of and belief in the existence of God or gods.

Lucid,

Just a quick critique for now.

[quote]the scientists who operate the SETI program believe that intelligent alien life exists else where in our galaxy. [/quote]Not if they are true scientists. Science is strictly rational. A belief without an evidential basis would be irrational. These scientists offer a speculative hypothesis and are searching for evidence to support the hypothesis. Issues of belief are strictly irrelevant. A true scientist will withhold belief (for or against) until evidence is found, if ever.

[quote]However being good scientists they would never claim knowledge regarding the existence of aliens without first having proof in the form of the radio signals that they are searching for. [/quote]And hence form the basis for a rational belief.

[quote]Their lack of knowledge does not affect their belief. [/quote]Oh but it most certainly does or should if we are discussing truly objective scientists. Without knowledge a belief in the existence of aliens would be irrational.

[quote]They believe but claim to have no knowledge regarding the existence of aliens.[/quote]Then they would not be scientists, since such a belief would be irrational and not scientific.

I agree that holding a belief is not dependent on supporting knowledge (evidence), but if the belief is to be considered rational then knowledge is required.

Now, do your assertions regarding Gnosticism and agnosticism still make sense in that light?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Cris [/i]
I agree that holding a belief is not dependent on supporting knowledge (evidence), but if the belief is to be considered rational then knowledge is required.[/QUOTE]
I must disagree with that statement. While belief without knowledge is not scientific, I wouldn't say it is always irrational. For example, I believe that the Christian God does not exist. This belief is based on reason. There is no evidence for the existence of such a being. The evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ is, in my opinion, spurious at best. And the Christian Bible forces the rational mind into a state of incredulity.

Now I don't claim to have personal knowledge that the Christian God does not exist, but I would certainly maintain that my belief that he does not exist is not irrational.

Hmm ...
 

[quote]seeing this is a thread for clearing up misconceptions- atheism is in no way a religion [/quote]That's like saying a Yugo is in no way a car. True, but barely and selectively.

Should we measure atheism by its assertion, or by its adherents?

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

How do you define "a religion", Tiassa?

I suggest that the term is defined by its members and by common usage... ie that "a religion" is any member of the set of things that are commonly agreed to be religions.

If Atheism is not commonly agreed to be a religion, then it's not a religion.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by LucidDreamer [/i]
[B]Never the less you cannot claim to be an Atheist without also taking a position regarding knowledge of God. For that matter you cannot claim to be a Theist without also taking a position regarding knowledge of God. [/B][/QUOTE] ... which is the converse of saying [i]"It is important to note that Agnosticism is not a third option to Theism or Atheism, but rather a subset of the two."[/i]

[QUOTE]... which is the converse of saying "It is important to note that Agnosticism is not a third option to Theism or Atheism, but rather a subset of the two."[/QUOTE]

OK, forget I used the word “subset” in a previous post. It was a poor choice of words on my part. The point I was trying to make was that people will frequently claim to be Agnostic as an alternative to Atheist, as if the word Atheist has a negative connotation.

People either know or they do not know AND they either believe or they do not believe (or believe in a negative).

Jade,

[quote]I agree that holding a belief is not dependent on supporting knowledge (evidence), but if the belief is to be considered rational then knowledge is required.

I must disagree with that statement. While belief without knowledge is not scientific, I wouldn't say it is always irrational. For example, I believe that the Christian God does not exist. This belief is based on reason. [/quote]The building block of reason is the logical premise. A valid premise requires a factual basis, i.e. it has been proved; it is knowledge. If your claim to reason does not contain such a premise then your claim is irrational, no matter how much it appears “reasonable” to you.

But let’s gain some perspective; while the basis for your belief is not reason it is nevertheless an overwhelming issue of credibility. The question of whether the Christian God exists is as pointless as asking whether Santa Claus exists. It is not a question of reason, irrationality, or need for proof, since a perusal of the history of religions shows an overwhelming and total common theme – human imaginative creativity. I.e. gods are fantasies and do not warrant serious investigation anymore than Santa Claus or fairies.

So while we debate the detailed meanings of terms like theism, atheism, agnosticism, etc, there is a tendency to miss the big picture – gods are fantasy concepts, so let’s lighten up and enjoy the mythical bedtime stories. And aren’t they great children’s stories; the ultimate good guy versus the ultimate bad guy, with lot’s of killing, some love, sacrifice, betrayal, torture – sounds like a best seller.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Cris [/i]
The building block of reason is the logical premise. A valid premise requires a factual basis, i.e. it has been proved; it is knowledge. If your claim to reason does not contain such a premise then your claim is irrational, no matter how much it appears “reasonable” to you.[/QUOTE]
Now I see why we were in disagreement. I was looking at the terms "rational" and "reasonable" in the common everyday usages (i.e. sensible, having sound judgment, not absurd), while you were using these terms as they apply to the field of logic.

[QUOTE]So while we debate the detailed meanings of terms like theism, atheism, agnosticism, etc, there is a tendency to miss the big picture – gods are fantasy concepts, so let’s lighten up and enjoy the mythical bedtime stories. And aren’t they great children’s stories; the ultimate good guy versus the ultimate bad guy, with lot’s of killing, some love, sacrifice, betrayal, torture – sounds like a best seller.[/QUOTE]
I could possibly enjoy these fairy tales if they were presented for what they really are. Unfortunately, some of these fantasies are portrayed as the truth to a credulous population. And the dogma associated with this "truth" starts to infringe upon the personal liberties of those subject to the believers of such nonsense.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by LucidDreamer [/i]
[B]The point I was trying to make was that people will frequently claim to be Agnostic as an alternative to Atheist, as if the word Atheist has a negative connotation. [/B][/QUOTE] Some do. Some don't. Forgive me, but it seems like an underwhelming point. Parenthetically, neither you nor I are in charge of connotation.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by LucidDreamer [/i]
[B]People either know or they do not know AND they either believe or they do not believe (or believe in a negative). [/B][/QUOTE] I agree.

Jade,

[quote]I could possibly enjoy these fairy tales if they were presented for what they really are. Unfortunately, some of these fantasies are portrayed as the truth to a credulous population. And the dogma associated with this "truth" starts to infringe upon the personal liberties of those subject to the believers of such nonsense.[/quote]Or more importantly such “truths” infringe on the freedoms of those who do not believe and against their will.

The solution I think is education and specifically in the area of critical thinking.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Cris [/i]
The solution I think is education and specifically in the area of critical thinking.[/QUOTE]
My thoughts exactly. I've wanted "Critical Thinking" to be a required course for high school students for some time now. I should write to my MLA, but I live in a very conservative province where critical thinking by no means abounds.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Cris [/i]
MarcAC,
Because a disbelief is not an expression of uncertainty.

E.g. I am quite sure that I do not believe theist claims.

[i]Previously[/i]
[b]Disbelief[/b] in a proposition means that one does [b]not believe[/b] it to be true. [b]Not believing[/b] that something is true is [b]not equivalent to believing that it is false[/b]; one may simply [b]have no idea whether it is true or not[/b].[/QUOTE][color=blue]Well I got it 'previously' but now... well I thought here it was being stated that a disbeleif [i]is[/i], possibly, an expression of uncertainty. So disbeleif is not an expression of uncertainty - but if you use it to say I disbeleive in theist claims... it can possibly mean you are uncertain of the truth within the claims? That's what I'm reading there... I'm just trying to wrap my non-technical head around this one - don't mind me. I know Cris is a bright guy/girl.[/color]

[quote]From Webster - Religious: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.

Therefore for atheists to be considered religious they must acknowledge an ultimate reality or deity. Since atheism is specifically disbelief in such things then the two conditions are mutually exclusive, i.e. an atheist cannot both believe and disbelieve in a deity.

Atheists cannot be religious.[/quote][color=blue]Well, maybe it's my reading again, but, ultimate reality [b]or[/b] deity. Don't atheists believe in their ultimate reality? Like if you 'throw yourself off a building gravity will surely pull you down, so gravity does exist' - paraphrased - mind you cro-magnons pushed rocks off cliffsides to slaughter mammoths - I'm wondering if 'gravity' was existent back then - wonder if t hey ever thought of what causes that downward motion? Agnostics are the only ones who escape the religious realm. Try as you might atheists, you're right there with the cattle.:)

You know, you'll soon have a religious sect called 'Consequent Atheists', that guy is areal 'athevangelist' don't you think?[/color]

MarcAC,

[quote]I thought here it was being stated that a disbelief is, possibly, an expression of uncertainty. So disbelief is not an expression of uncertainty - but if you use it to say I disbelieve in theist claims... it can possibly mean you are uncertain of the truth within the claims? [/quote]Try this example: If I claim there is an invisible evil gnome standing on your shoulder right now, will you be unsure whether the claim is true or not or will you simply disbelieve my claim as being idiotic?

See my opening post again – atheist disbelief – [b]This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible.[/b] I.e. there is no uncertainty.

[quote]Well, maybe it's my reading again, but, ultimate reality or deity. Don't atheists believe in their ultimate reality?[/quote]Atheism is concerned with the disbelief of deities. The fact that those who are labeled atheists might also believe other things has nothing to do with atheism.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Cris [/i]
It is not a question of reason, irrationality, or need for proof, since a perusal of the history of religions shows an overwhelming and total common theme – human imaginative creativity. I.e. gods are fantasies and do not warrant serious investigation anymore than Santa Claus or fairies.[/QUOTE]
Everyone agrees with the history of Santa Claus and knows well that there is a human behind the Santa's guise. But not everyone agrees with histories of religions. History of religions would reveal what the authors of those histories wanted to reveal. Besides, your notion of God and It's investigation are heavily linked to religions. Therefore your outright rejection of God as fantasy is not rational and the premises ( histories of religions ) you hold for that rejection is disputable.

Everneo,

[quote]Everyone agrees with the history of Santa Claus and knows well that there is a human behind the Santa's guise. [/quote]I never thought of Santa as human. The concept is of a being that can fly in a sleigh with flying reindeer and can visit every home on the planet in a single night and can climb down every chimney no matter how narrow. The point is that it is a made-up story, a fairy tale.

[quote]But not everyone agrees with histories of religions. [/quote]I agree, but one can examine them to see if they have the qualities of a fairy tale or have factual content.

[quote]History of religions would reveal what the authors of those histories wanted to reveal. [/quote]As was the Santa Claus tale.

[quote]your outright rejection of God as fantasy is not rational and the premises ( histories of religions ) you hold for that rejection is disputable.[/quote]How so? Can you point to any incident or record in history that reveals a proof for the existence of a god? Without a proof you have nothing but a fantasy, a fairy tale exactly like Santa Claus.

You have no method to prove me wrong unless you have a proof for a god, until then all you have is a fairy tale, albeit a very elaborate one, deliberately made complex for adult consumption.

Within this light my rejection of gods as fantasies is fully rational.

Cris,

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by everneo [/i]
Everyone agrees with the history of Santa Claus and knows well that there is a human behind the Santa's guise. But not everyone agrees with histories of religions. History of religions would reveal what the authors of those histories wanted to reveal. Besides, [B]your notion of God and It's investigation are heavily linked to religions.[/B] Therefore your outright rejection of God as fantasy is not rational and the premises ( histories of religions ) you hold for that rejection is disputable. [/QUOTE]

You missed to respond to the line (bold) in my above quote.!

Everneo,

[quote]You missed to respond to the line (bold) in my above quote.![/quote]It appeared to be noise.

I assume then you are trying to imply that a god concept could exist independently of a religious framework. I don’t believe that is possible. As soon as a god concept is imagined and proposed as a truth then that forms the creation of a religious framework, a belief in gods is religion. Even the simplest form that Deism portrays is still a religion.

A possible alternative is that a god concept forms the cornerstone of a scientific hypothesis, where belief, for or against is not an issue. However a scientific hypothesis is only rationally warranted if a body of [b]evidence[/b] and inference has been provided in support of it. So even here you cannot get past the god as a fantasy issue and form a valid hypothesis without some evidence. And the proposal that the universe must have been created so therefore a god did it is not a valid inference for this exercise.

My assertion that all religious histories are based on imaginative fantasies is strictly because none, that I have examined, can point to direct observation or verifiable physical evidence. Now I haven’t examined every religion so there is a potential for you to prove me wrong by showing me a history which isn’t a fantasy.