just in case that came across the wrong way I didn’t mean to say that that was your belief, but only that you had brought up the concept.
OK. If atheism doesn’t mean what a No answer to “Do you believe in God” is supposed to mean, then we do need another word. Though I am annoyed to no end that there needs to be a special word to describe the natural state of being (I just mean default at birth, not to imply other ways are unnatural [see that’s the trouble with English, it’s been abused too much]). We don’t do this with anything else in life.
Sorry to nitpick, but surely you mean we’re all born agnostic - which is a different position. When you were born, did you think the world was round or flat?
Or to say it in another way: the opposite of a theistic belief is not atheistic belief.[/quote]
Actually neither term is really accurate for this context as both are normally used to describe a considered choice – something that a newborn obviously couldn’t make. Agnostics believe that one can never know or be sure, but might believe in a god nonetheless. Atheists have concluded that no god exists.
That said, Chris’ original contention is correct, despite terminology, that we are all born a blank slate onto which a lot of existing theological rules are written, for many of us.
Seeker4
No, “atheism” as commonly used for self description can mean either a considered choice or a lack of belief, though personally I see no reason to even have a word to describe the latter case, a natural state of being. That the “considered choice” meaning seems to dominate is due to the religio-centric view that everybody has to believe in “something.”
Sorry to nitpick, but surely you mean we’re all born agnostic - which is a different position. When you were born, did you think the world was round or flat?
Or to say it in another way: the opposite of a theistic belief is not atheistic belief.[/quote]
You’re refering to “strong” or “positive” atheism, which means a belief that god(s) do(es) not exist.
The generic term “atheism” is the logical complement to “theism”. In other words, if one is not a theist, one is an atheist. The term “atheism” describes a lack of belief in god(s), and “strong” atheism is merely one form of atheism. This is a topic frequently discussed on the newsgroup alt.atheism.
“Agnosticism” is often erroneously used to describe a lack of belief in god(s), but technically it describes the idea that it is impossible to know whether god(s) exists(s).
Self delusion only promotes insanity. We need to rely on pure logic or the human race may not survive.
OK. If atheism doesn’t mean what a No answer to “Do you believe in God” is supposed to mean, then we do need another word. Though I am annoyed to no end that there needs to be a special word to describe the natural state of being (I just mean default at birth, not to imply other ways are unnatural [see that’s the trouble with English, it’s been abused too much]). We don’t do this with anything else in life.[/quote]
i see your point, but that’s what words are for after all. i rather think that we do assign names to everything in life.
it seems clear that there is confusion to what atheism is.
[quote=“Chris”]You’re refering to “strong” or “positive” atheism, which means a belief that god(s) do(es) not exist.
The generic term “atheism” is the logical complement to “theism”. In other words, if one is not a theist, one is an atheist. The term “atheism” describes a lack of belief in god(s), and “strong” atheism is merely one form of atheism. This is a topic frequently discussed on the newsgroup alt.atheism.[/quote]
OK. I stand corrected - so would zeugmite be happy to be called a ‘weak’ atheist?
That sounds like a pretty strict definition. I’d have thought an agnostic was someone who doesn’t know if god exists (and so wouldn’t say they believe in god) - to claim that it is impossible to know is a pretty extreme claim. After all, you’re saying that an agnostic doesn’t know if god exists, but does know that IF god exists he will never demonstrate his existence, which strikes me as a bizarre statement.
Yeah I guess so.
[quote=“david”]
That sounds like a pretty strict definition. I’d have thought an agnostic was someone who doesn’t know if god exists (and so wouldn’t say they believe in god) - to claim that it is impossible to know is a pretty extreme claim. After all, you’re saying that an agnostic doesn’t know if god exists, but does know that IF god exists he will never demonstrate his existence, which strikes me as a bizarre statement.[/quote]
Hinges on the philosophy of “knowing.” You have to have some system that tells you how you “know” something. If it’s by observations, or by faith, or by what your parents tell you, or by hallucination, or whatever. If you think about it, “IF god exists he will never demonstrate his existence” is not bizarre at all – it just shows that, if “knowledge” is given by “demonstration,” then, it is impossible to “know” about the existence of god. The bizarre thing is in fact to claim “does not know” if god exists. How come? If it’s not impossible to know it, then what’s the way to know and why is it still unknown?
A natural follow-up would be, if atheism is declining, then what is replacing it? Religion, I’m sure, but what kind? (Probable answer: several varieties of the biggest religions which either pretend to the most certainty, or benefit the most from ethnic ties.)
Every society that we know anything about, past or present, has had at least one religion. I think it’s something basic to human nature–a part of who we are as a species. It probably serves useful evolutionary purposes, just like alcohol (which is equally widespread).
[quote=“ididn’tdoit”]Stupid people seem to think that science and religion are somehow opposed to each other.
They are just two different ways of looking at the world.
I guess maybe that is why “(Atheism) appears to be losing its scientific underpinnings.”
Real scientists recognize the limits of science and tend to believe in God[/quote]
Actually, scientists tend to be much less religious than the general population- and ‘top’ scientists even less so.
[quote]Larson and Witham polled NAS members in a mix of disciplines mirroring that originally polled by Leuba. The results seem stark: belief in God and immortality were precipitously lower than what Leuba reported. “Among the top natural scientists,” Larson and Witham observe, “disbelief is greater than ever - almost total.” The accompanying table compares belief, disbelief, or doubt regarding God and human immortality as measured in 1914, 1933, and 1998.
Biological scientists rejected beliefs in God and immortality by 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively; among physical scientists, those beliefs were rejected by 79.0% and 76.3% of respondents. “Most of the rest were agnostic on both issues,” Larson and Witham report, “with few believers.” Of all disciplines polled, mathematicians reported the highest level of positive belief in God and immortality, biologists the lowest. [/quote]
There’s also strong and weak agnosticism.
As mentioned earlier, there is a way of thinking about “knowing” which would preclude the possibility of knowing almost anything. For the strong agnostic, they not only believe they don’t know whether or not God exists, they believe you don’t know either. If they were confronted by Moses they would say, “but how do you know he really was God, and not someone or something pretending to be God?”
Weak agnostics come in different varities as well. Most who claim agnosticism are just fence sitters, don’t really care one way or the other, and haven’t looked. Others, though, have looked at the evidence for and against and believe there isn’t enough evidence to make a proof either for or against on the evidence available. The former are not really agnostics, the don’t believe in lack of knowledge-- they have lack of knowledge. But saying you’re agnostic sounds better than saying you’re ignorant.
I disagree, however, with the definition of atheist being the complement of theist. Theist implies belief: theos + ist, God + believer. Atheist has three components: a + theos +ist, negation + God + believer. What is being negated, though, believer or God? Is it a no-God believer, or God no-believer?
If you check Webster’s or Encyclopedia Brittanica, it appears to be the former. This excludes those who lack the belief that there is not a Deity.
Hard atheism is the strong belief that there is no God, that such a thing is impossible and irrational. Soft atheism is the belief that there is no God, but allowing the possibility that there is one. They just think that isn’t the case.
It’s like a belief in aliens visiting the earth. Some will believe that principles of physics (speed of light restriction) would preclude an alien race from visiting earth, so there cannot be alien visitations. Others believe that there aren’t aliens, but allow that while they think it highly improbable, that it could really be.
The idea of non-affirmative atheists meaning people who lack the belief that there is no God, but neither believe in a God, is propounded by affirmative atheists. It flies in the face of the established use of the word from a misunderstanding of the formation of the word atheist. As of now, it is only really accepted by atheists themselves and in my opinion it is just as proper to reject that definition as to try and get it ratified by majority use.
I doubt it’s religion. I would imagine indifference, apathy, and practical philosophies and ethics. Agnosticism is probably increasing as the word becomes more commonly used, but if atheism really is in decline I don’t see religions of the world benefitting.