'Atheist' v/s 'Non-believer'?

[Sarah Madara]

I agree. On earth I think man has the most developed consciousness. But nature can make us seem like dust mites in a blink. We're hardly the "highest power."

Wow, this took an interesting turn

I'm having trouble believing that Wordsmith quite meant that the way it came out, but regardless, this elevation of man really strikes me as an idea that comes from thinking along religious lines as the default. Religion pretty much has God, then man, then everything else. (I don't understand angels. Is that a Catholic thing? Nevermind about them.)

So anyway, strip God away from the equation and someone with a religious perspective may think the atheist is trying to elevate man to highest power, when in fact the atheist sees no such job description.

(ETA: I'm referring to the Abrahamic religions. I don't know how the others do this stuff.)

So much of religion evolved during a time when we couldn't begin to conceive of just how vast the universe is. And so the Judeo-Christian creation story just doesn't acknowledge all this other stuff, the probabilities of other life, the sheer vastness of the universe, etc.

I suppose I feel a similar sense of awe about these things as believers feel when they think of god, but with less fear.

I suppose I'd call myself a wishful agnostic, and in the brief times in my life when I've had some iota of belief in God, it has never been accompanied by fear. While many organized religions may emphasize fear, I think a lot of people believe in God without the fear stuff - especially the new-age types who read and re-read Conversations with God or A Course in Miracles or similar non-denominational stuff shelved in the Inspiration section of the bookstore.

 

[Maxx]

Technically, an atheist believes their is no god. Period. It is an active concept. "I believe ..." as opposed to "I do not believe ..."

Technically, an atheist can simply not indulge in any strong beliefs (beliefs for which there is no associated day-to-day experience) so there is no need for any active "I do not..."
I don't spend all day thinking about every possible thing that is not in my garage and if that non-activity happens to include objects that other people have no reason to think are there, that seems like no action at all by anyone at all.

 

[pegasus]

That's agnostic, not atheist.

If you'll forgive me saying so, I suspect that my experience with all things atheism runs a little deeper than your own. I've been a humanist organizer and have spent over 20 years debating matters of atheism.

Not trying to be ugly. Just saying that I have some pretty long-thought ideas about the meanings of atheism/agnosticism/etc.

 

[pegasus]

As an atheist I am expect that being dead will involve not knowing anything at all forevermore.

Yep, that's my best guess. When I die, the lights will just go out. It will probably be like being put out for a surgery. No memories. No dreams. Just not here anymore.

 

[TheWordsmith]

As a hard atheist, non-believer, crass what have you person I have never, EVER, thought that there is no higher power than man in the universe.

Sorry if I offended you but ... Again, by the very definition, an atheist actively believes there is no single higher power in the universe. Everything in the many universes (and there are more than ours, btw and even our galaxy is way out on the outskirts of our own universe) all occurred by chance - Chaos Theory. Everything slams together enough times and something happens. You may subscribe to a more flexible interpretation but that is the strict definition of atheism.

 

[benbradley]

I suppose we'll have to update the dictionaries...

 

[Sarah Madara]

Again, by the very definition, an atheist actively believes there is no single higher power in the universe.

Whoa! Hold on here, folks. My powers of perception tell me there may be a debate brewing in which people argue back and forth over completely different things because no one has defined "higher power."

As for people arguing the "correct" definition of atheism...

:

 

[benbradley]

Well, there's the uber-vague Alcoholics Anonymous definintion, but that one actually capitalizes Higher Power, giving a strong hint as to what is meant.

This is surely hard to determine, but I wonder how influential AA has been in popularizing the term.

 

[Maxx]

Sorry if I offended you but ... Again, by the very definition, an atheist actively believes there is no single higher power in the universe. Everything in the many universes (and there are more than ours, btw and even our galaxy is way out on the outskirts of our own universe) all occurred by chance - Chaos Theory. Everything slams together enough times and something happens. You may subscribe to a more flexible interpretation but that is the strict definition of atheism.

Adding strict and very to your arbitrary redefinitions doesn't make them more convincing. I guess, in a nutshell, that suggests why notions like "higher power" (no matter how strict you make it you can't add altitude or energy to that idea) don't strike me as even remotely interesting.

How do you actively believe something like "there is no single higher power in the universe"? None of the terms make any particular sense. Why would a higher power have to be single? How is it higher? Why can't it be lower? What does this not-very-clearly-imagined power have the power to do? There's no way to actively disbelieve in something that cannot even be coherently formulated.

 

[Maxx]

Everything in the many universes (and there are more than ours, btw and even our galaxy is way out on the outskirts of our own universe)

How is it possible for a galaxy to be on the outskirts of a universe?

Observationally, the universe I'm in is the same in all non-timelike directions. There are no signs of any edges, no outskirts at all anywhere. Apparently your universe is quite different.

And what makes you think there are other universes?

 

[pegasus]

You may subscribe to a more flexible interpretation but that is the strict definition of atheism.

There is no such thing as a strict definition of any word -- and most especially any word which tries to define the entire thought of a human being.

Would you like to examine the nature of words and their definitions with me?

It could be helpful in your smithing efforts.

 

[pegasus]

I suppose we'll have to update the dictionaries...

You take the dictionaries. I'll work on the world's holy books.

 

[pegasus]

As for people arguing the "correct" definition of atheism...

When will the world shake itself awake and recognize that all my definitions are correct and all disagreement is mud?

 

[shelleyo]

If you'll forgive me saying so, I suspect that my experience with all things atheism runs a little deeper than your own.

Not trying to be ugly. Just saying that I have some pretty long-thought ideas about the meanings of atheism/agnosticism/etc.

Aww, it's not too cool to make assumptions about the experience of someone you don't know.

Actually, most atheists figure that we will never know, not even when we die.

That's still the textbook definition of agnosticism, and something I'd be surprised for most atheists to think. If you define your atheism differently than most after your extensive thinking and studying on the topic, that's fine. It doesn't change the standard definition in use, however.

Shelley

 

[Sarah Madara]

Actually, most atheists figure that we will never know, not even when we die.

That's still the textbook definition of agnosticism, and something I'd be surprised for most atheists to think.

I realize I'm a broken record here, but I'm just not sure everyone's being clear on how they are using certain terms.

My good ol' Webster's defines agnostic as: "one who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable."

Now, while I usually can clear most things up with a dictionary, this is a quandary. Unknowable by whom? If you interpret "unknowable" as relating only to human beings (which is how I always read it), then if it turns out there's a God and he greets you with a big smile when you die, that doesn't contradict agnosticism in life. When I self-identify as agnostic, that's what I mean. I'll never know while I'm alive. When I'm dead, maybe yes, maybe no.

However, if you mean that it is impossible for any human consciousness to EVER know God, even if there is a God, and even after death, then that makes agnosticism more like atheism. Frankly that's not how I've heard the term "agnostic" used in conversation among friends, but maybe philosophers have a more formal definition somewhere that includes post-death unknowability. If you're going to claim that, though, you'll need a link

Atheists might easily think that we'll never know, not even when we die, if they think that there is no proof either way. (I guess these folks would be the softer lack-o-belief atheists, not the hard-liners who already believe they know 100% certainty that there is no God or afterlife, etc.) Since they can't disprove God during life, and many, many atheists believe they won't exist in any conscious form in order to possess any knowledge when they die, it follows that they will never possess certain knowledge, not even when they die.

 

[pegasus]

Aww, it's not too cool to make assumptions about the experience of someone you don't know.

Actually that was just a curious little side issue. Instructing me in the proper meaning of ‘atheist’ vs. ‘agnostic’ is a bit like sitting the Pope down and explaining to him what a ‘Christian’ is.

But even if you’ve founded and served as president of three local atheist groups (against my two) and moderated atheist forums for thirty years (against my twenty), you still wouldn’t be in a position to instruct me on the meaning of ‘atheist’ and ‘agnostic.’ That’s my major point here.

In fact, there is no ‘meaning’ of those words. There is only each person’s personal opinion as to their meaning. They’re just like all other words in that respect except they’re extremists. They’re philosophical words which try to encapsulate a whole human mind, and of course no word can do that. I’ll be glad to say more, but I don’t want to go on and on unless someone asks.

That's still the textbook definition of agnosticism, and something I'd be surprised for most atheists to think.

I’ve known hundreds, maybe thousands, of people who called themselves atheists and had deep discussions with them. Virtually every one of them has thought as I do about what happens at death.

Will you argue that they were not actually atheist?

Of course, when the discussion goes deep enough, they usually acknowledge that they are both atheist and agnostic. How do you handle that... when a guy claims to be both atheist and agnostic?

Me, I just shrug and say, “Yeah, they’re only words, after all.”

If you define your atheism differently than most after your extensive thinking and studying on the topic, that's fine. It doesn't change the standard definition in use, however.

There’s no such thing as an atheist, shelleyo.

Really. It’s just a word.

 

[shelleyo]

you still wouldn’t be in a position to instruct me on the meaning of ‘atheist’ and ‘agnostic.’ That’s my major point here.

In fact, there is no ‘meaning’ of those words. There is only each person’s personal opinion as to their meaning.

Of course, when the discussion goes deep enough, they usually acknowledge that they are both atheist and agnostic. How do you handle that... when a guy claims to be both atheist and agnostic?

No, I really don't understand how someone can both not believe in god and not know whether there's a god at the same time. If I don't believe in something, I'm not still wondering whether it exists. If I'm wondering if something exists, I can't say definitively that I don't believe in it.

There’s no such thing as an atheist, shelleyo.

Except I am one, by the commonly used definition of it. I'm not agnostic, but I have no problem if others are.

I also think communication hinges on commonly accepted meanings of words, so I do like definitions. Without some sort of accepted meaning, there's not much point in discussing anything.

I’ve known hundreds, maybe thousands, of people who called themselves atheists and had deep discussions with them. Virtually every one of them has thought as I do about what happens at death.

Will you argue that they were not actually atheist?

Not at all. But stating that no one knows what happens after death or at the point of death does not necessarily have anything to do with belief or disbelief in a god. I wonder if we're talking about the same thing. Maybe I misread what your quote about not knowing was actually referring to? If so, my bad.

I don't know what happens after death. I have suspicions, of course, in a general sort of way, but there is no concrete evidence since no one has been brought back from the dead with evidence of what happens. (People who are revived have all sorts of stories, but that's another matter entirely, in my opinion.)

I'm still an atheist. I don't believe in any type of deity, or that any type of higher power does anything after human death. There's far more that I don't know than I ever will know. But I do not believe in the existence of any type of god. By that definition, I define my disbelief as atheism, just as many others do. To me, and by the generally accepted definition, someone who doesn't know whether there's a god (doesn't believe, doesn't disbelieve) and doubts anyone can ever know this, is agnostic. These are basic definitions. Are they comprehensive, including every possible shade of meaning? Probably not. But there has to be a definition for there to be meaning and communication.

Really. It’s just a word.

The thread really came about based on the slightly different shades of meaning two words might have. If the different meanings of words didn't matter, verbal communication would devolve pretty quickly, wouldn't it?

Words are my bread and butter, and their meanings fascinate, perplex and feed me, literally and figuratively. As a writer, I never really get the 'they're just words' thinking, especially among other writers.

I think we probably disagree more on the fundamental principle of whether or not words can have a commonly agree upon meaning and what that might be than we do anything else.

Shelley

 

[Jessianodel]

So - just curious - does that mean you believe in *something* more than just this life? Most atheists I know think that when you die, poof, you're gone. No more consciousness. In that case you would never ever find out that you were wrong.

Now, finding out you picked the wrong God to worship and the right one is mad about it... that's a real concern

Sorry I'm really late with replying!

Well that's sort of my point, there are so many gods how do you know which one is right? I don't. I don't know if there is even a god at all.

As for finding out if I'm right, well if I die and that's it, then I'm right because truthfully, I do lean to the "no god" side. And if I die and suddenly end up in Hell, well then I guess I have my answer.

I have a rather vain hope that there is something after because I don't want this to be it, but I'm not going to waste the only time I have talking about something I don't know about for sure. Does that answer your question ?

 

[Sarah Madara]

No, I really don't understand how someone can both not believe in god and not know whether there's a god at the same time. If I don't believe in something, I'm not still wondering whether it exists. If I'm wondering if something exists, I can't say definitively that I don't believe in it.

Belief and knowledge are not the same. That is the fundamental distinction between agnosticism and atheism. You could think of them as X and Y axes of worldviews. A lot of people think that they know everything they believe, but you'll never catch me saying that people in general are reasonable.

But stating that no one knows what happens after death or at the point of death does not necessarily have anything to do with belief or disbelief in a god. I wonder if we're talking about the same thing.

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I have to admit I'm wondering the same thing.

I wouldn't normally think of someone who believes in any hint of a shadow of an afterlife or continuing consciousness as an atheist, because I tend to think of atheists as rejecting all metaphysical ideas. But technically, you can believe in some mystical something without believing in any "gods" if you take a religion-based view of what the word god means. So I guess I see your point, although most people I know who embrace any sort of metaphysical anything don't call themselves atheists. Maybe it's regional. (Always a satisfying cop-out when arguing definitions )

To me, and by the generally accepted definition, someone who doesn't know whether there's a god (doesn't believe, doesn't disbelieve) and doubts anyone can ever know this, is agnostic.

You may be right about that being the generally accepted definition, but I do think there's value in making the distinction between lack of knowledge (agnostic) and lack of belief (atheist). It allows people to speak about a broader range of ideas with greater precision.

 

[Sarah Madara]

Instructing me in the proper meaning of ‘atheist’ vs. ‘agnostic’ is a bit like sitting the Pope down and explaining to him what a ‘Christian’ is.

You've never met a Christian who'd like to explain the concept to the Pope? And you're in the South? Okey-dokey.

Of course, when the discussion goes deep enough, they usually acknowledge that they are both atheist and agnostic. How do you handle that... when a guy claims to be both atheist and agnostic?

That's the distinction between knowledge and belief, isn't it? Atheists tend to pride themselves on being reasonable, in my experience, which means that many won't claim knowledge they can't prove, no matter how absurd the ideas might sound.

 

[veinglory]

If the conversation goes on long enough I normally say: okay, yes, whatever.

But I still don;t believe in god.

These labels are meant to describe how things are, not determine how they are. As such they are not used in a 'dictionary-based' or consistent manner.

Hence you have Catholics who don't believe in god, vegetarians that eat meat etc.

 

[pegasus]

These labels are meant to describe how things are, not determine how they are. As such they are not used in a 'dictionary-based' or consistent manner.

Yes, that's pretty much my point. And they're usually used to describe how 'I' am. For myself, I won't deny that a guy is Christian if he claims to be Christian. If he describes/labels himself as a Christian, then he does.

And it's interesting that you mention 'description' that way. Maybe I'm just carrying over my indoctrination from linguistics study, where we are taught to accept description rather than to attempt to correct. We study and describe how people use words. We don't argue over the correct meaning of words.

Hence you have Catholics who don't believe in god, vegetarians that eat meat etc.

And you have people who deny that such folks are Catholics or vegetarians. But not me. I might call him an odd Catholic, but I wouldn't deny that he's Catholic unless Catholics, like 'Americans', came with certificates.

 

[pegasus]

You've never met a Christian who'd like to explain the concept to the Pope? And you're in the South? Okey-dokey.

Umm... I've met many such Christians who believe themselves to own the only correct definition of 'Christian.' Not sure why you've guessed otherwise.

That's the distinction between knowledge and belief, isn't it? Atheists tend to pride themselves on being reasonable, in my experience, which means that many won't claim knowledge they can't prove, no matter how absurd the ideas might sound.

I see no distinction between belief and knowledge except that a knower usually claims greater psychological certainty than a believer -- though not always.

And I think that the word 'prove' has done more to confuse humanity than even the word 'god' and should be banned from all languages. Maybe mathematicians would be allowed to use it, but only if properly licensed.

 

[shelleyo]

I understand what you guys are saying about the meaning of words, but there's a point where a word's meaning is stretched far enough that to accept it makes it meaningless to have the word to start with. I don't believe atheism and agnosticism have narrow meanings, but they can't encompass each person's individual interpretation and retain much meaning, either. A core, generally accepted meaning has to be there, which has been my point all along.

Otherwise, I could call myself stunningly beautiful, brilliant, thin and tall, and everyone would have to accept that.

Maybe I shouldn't be arguing against this concept.

Shelley

 

[veinglory]

Yes, that's pretty much my point. And they're usually used to describe how 'I' am. For myself, I won't deny that a guy is Christian if he claims to be Christian.

Quite. When it comes to "identity" words I pretty much acknowledge whatever label the person sincerely feels applies to them.