Jump to content

Agnostic atheist, Gnostic atheist and anti-philosophy atheist?


science4ever
 Share

Recommended Posts

If there exists all these kind of atheists

apatheistic atheists, igtheistic atheists

agnostic atheists, gnostic atheists

then logically there can exist anti-philosophy atheist

 

Or do I do some kind of philosophy error there?

 

Maybe the word anti-philosophy is too strong?

 

What about unwilling atheist, reluctant atheist,

don't feel at home with the label atheist?

 

An adjective is a word that describe how the substantive is?

 

Agnostic atheist is adjective plus substantive.

Same with reluctant as adjective so how can it be wrong?

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reluctant

 

1. Unwilling; disinclined: reluctant to help.
2. Exhibiting or marked by unwillingness: a reluctant smile.
3. Offering resistance; opposing.

 

sounds very logical to me.

 

agnostic atheist describe an atheist that care about epistemology

and reluctant describe and atheist that unwillingly has to accept the lable

against their personal self identity.

 

[from Latin reluctārī to resist;

 

Have you heard of the Borg?

 

We are the Borg.

Resistance is futile!

 

that is how I feel against the philosophical definition that force me

to be an atheist agaibst my conscious will. I resist I am unwilling

I feel reluctant to accept it.

 

adjective explained like this

 

1. The part of speech that modifies a noun or other substantive by limiting,

qualifying, or specifying and ...

 

So I am a reluctant atheist or unwilling atheist.

Edited by science4ever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

deductive? Yes I have heard the word before

But I don't trust I can live up to being deductive.

 

I maybe is reductive :) Haha nope I am not deductive

maybe would be cool to have that talent or skill but that is not me.

 

 

3. The drawing of a conclusion by reasoning;
4. Logic
a. The process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the stated premises; inference by reasoning from the general to the specific.
b. A conclusion reached by this process.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that matters is whether you believe in a god or not, and to some extent 'why' you believe what you believe. Any adverb or adjective that goes with being an atheist doesn't matter. By 'why' I mean whether because you've seen Allah in a buttered toast, or the roof of the motel was torn off by a bright monster with a billion arms.

 

Do we go out of our way to sub-classify Republicans, Democrats, and Independents? No. You are either any one of those or you are not, and anything in between is put as personal difference in opinion. Some even go out of their way to NOT associate to any party and just believe the way they do.

 

I think this whole sub-classifying atheism is just a hipster movement rooted from the idea that atheism is some sort of social statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lightburst I disagree look here

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism

or here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

or here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism

 

So logically one can be a non-philosophical atheist.

 

the only reason they don't mention it is that these atheists love philosophy

and can not understand that one can be anti-philosophy.

 

I trust they lack the imagnitation that one can be skeptical to philosophy.

 

when I read what the Anthropology of religion writes

then it is clear as sky that humans make up their gods.

 

look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion

 

that every religion is a cultural product created by the human community that practices it

and Clifford Geertz definition further down describe how they create their religion with their God.

 

 

According to Geertz, religion is

(1) a system of symbols which acts to

(2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by

(3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and

(4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that

(5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic" (Geertz 1966).

(4) and (5) describe how they do it. That is how their God appear live and existing to them.

 

Philosophy does not even realize this and are so literal in it's reading that takes religious

tradition as if some real god existed outside of their community culture.

 

If one ask philosophy minded atheists about it then they say.

 

"but that is what the believer claim. That their God is existing"

 

That is why Clifford Geertz explain how the believers do it in practice.

 

"

(4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that

(5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic" (Geertz 1966)."

 

I wish Geertz had used less abstract language there but it is clear as sky if one get it.

 

Even my poor and confusing English get what Geertz really say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh god, anthropology.

 

I'm saying investing thought on the different sub-classes of atheism doesn't really add anything to anything except the satisfaction that your list of the different kinds of atheism is 1 entry longer.

 

Unless you're going to use this fact to deduce some new insight to the human psyche, it just becomes an arbitrary noun you (not 'you' you) can use in dinner parties to impress people.

 

But since you may be into this anthropologically, I guess you can just ignore me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I hereby happily ignore you.

your answers confirmed how hopelessly far out the philosophy atheists are.

 

I am no supporter of Anthropology because being soft science I don't trust them

to have done much experiment but the wikipedia has not been challenged for years

so most likely very few see any wrong with the fact side so I make use of it until some new info arrive.

 

If I ever forgot that I ignore you do remind me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another category of atheist, supplied by Richard Dawkins in his book "The God Delusion":

De Facto atheist: "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Bill, I've that category before and most likely I did buy that book too.

 

How many of the most active online in forum atheists are aware of it and use it?

 

Now that you remind me then I do remember that I have read it before

but I had no spontaneous access to it. I had to be reminded that I have known

but then forgotten about it. And Richard wrote that book very long time ago?

 

It confirms my experience that the online active atheists only care about

their own preferred definitions and see no value in suggestion neither from Dawkins

not you nor from me.

 

To the most active on forum atheists there are statistically only two options.

 

you are either atheist or theist. They don't accept that one can be agnostic only

to them one are only agnostic atheist and that is same as atheist. One can be agnostic theist

but that is theist to them they have only two categories.

 

I've been an aggressive Anti-theist all my life and that is acknowledge by wikipedia

but the on forum active atheists only saw that as another way to say atheist

 

to them there are no separate category anti-theists there are only atheists or theists.

 

So I trust that Richard Dawkins either have no time to read through atheist forums

so he was not aware of that nothing he write will have any impact on the active atheists.

 

I go do a google on this definition now

 

De Facto atheist: "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable,

and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." if the result is very defferent

from what I thought I get back and give links.


cool that Dawkins De facto atheist is mention in one of the wiki though.

Usually the on forum active atheists don't have high opinion on wiki AFAIK

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

 

 

In The God Delusion, Dawkins describes people for whom the probability of the existence of God is between "very high" and "very low" as "agnostic" and reserves the term "strong atheist" for those who claim to know there is no God. He categorizes himself as a "de facto atheist" but not a "strong atheist" on this scale.

I feel rather sure of that the on forum active atheists would complain that Dawkins is no philosopher.


Facebook has an automatic entry on De facto atheism

 

Spectrum of theistic probability. De facto atheist was merged with this page · Interest. 56 people like this topic. Wikipedia.

 

how many million atheist are active on Facebook. 56 likes is extremely few is it not?


Here is a gerenal Student forum with all kinds of topics

it is not an exclusive atheist forum they wrote about 2011

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1708418

 

and next in line is from 2010. The Happy Atheist Forum

 

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=5560.0

 

Just a former Catholic that introduce himself it created no comment on

his use of De facto atheists.

 

My wild guess is that the term is only known to those how care about what Dawkins writes

and they seems not to be very active in the most known atheist forums? Am I wrong?


did a search on http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/

 

People know about it through Dawkins but very few seems to support it?

 

 

De facto atheist definition "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

 

Believers admit that if God does not exist then the rest of their Religious culture is built on a land slide.

 

So atheists seems to concentrate on that fact that they make a claim. "I believe that God exists"

and then ask for evidence and the believers fail to give evidence that the atheists can accept.

 

My take then is that the claim that God exist is part of the religious tradition.

 

it is a kind of test for to get approved of for to be part of that religious tradition as a believer.

 

If you chose another way to see God than the official view then you are seen as a dissenter a heretic

and way back in time that mean you had to be killed and maybe that exist still in some traditions?

 

So to me there is something very odd about the extreme instrumental question.

 

"Do you believe that God exist? "

 

Logically they have no choice. They have to believe to be part of the religious culture.

If they chose to not believe they are seen as atheist or as a betrayal of the family tradition.

 

To claim that God exist is required of them they have no choice to not believe.

 

"You are either with us or against us" kind of dichotomy and the "cute" thing is

that atheists buy into this dichotomy instead of realising that there are numerous options

to chose among one of them is what Dawkins suggested.

 

Not once did any of the active on forum atheists suggest that I made use of Dawkibs definition

to them there where only two categories. You either believe in god are are the enemy or you lack believe

and are atheist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you are either atheist or theist. They don't accept that one can be agnostic only

to them one are only agnostic atheist and that is same as atheist. One can be agnostic theist

but that is theist to them they have only two categories.

 

Here you appear to have some misunderstanding of the terms because it looks like you are suggesting that agnostic lies somewhere between theism and atheism, a fence sitting position so to say. This is incorrect.

 

Theism is about the belief in one or more deities. One how has an affirmative belief that one or more deities exist is a theist by definition. Anyone that lacks such a belief is not theist, i.e. atheist since a- is simply a not modifier. By definition someone has an affirmative belief than one or more deities exist making the theist of they are atheist, i.e. not-theist.

 

Gnostic on the other hand is about knowledge, not belief. It is about the belief that certain things, like deities or the supernatural, are/are not within the realm of human knowledge. It is not a point on the axis of theism because it is not about the belief, or lack thereof, in the existence of one or more deities. Those that believe that man can know the absolute truth about things like deities are gnostic and those that believe man cannot know are not-gnostic, i.e. agnostic.

 

Those that believe in the existence of one ore more deities are theist regardless of their belief that man can or cannot know the truth. Those that claim that they know deities exist are gnostic theists because they believe man can know the truth and they believe that there are one or more deities. Those that believe in one or more deities but doubt man's ability to ever know for sure are agnostic theists.

 

Anyone that lacks belief that one or more deities exists is not-theist, i.e. atheist. They need not believe that deities do not exist to be atheist. If they also believe that man could never know the absolute truth then they are agnostic atheists. There are those that claim to know that there are no deities and they are gnostic atheists by definition.

 

In modern times people have tried to apply the agnostic label for those that lack affirmative belief in the existence of deities but its use is incorrect. Those that lack affirmative belief are not-theist and they cannot use agnostic to mean this, that's what atheist means. They are simply afraid of the negative effects that the atheist label carries with it.

 

Here's another relevant post from the past...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DoG thanks for caring about my confusing text.

 

I only tried to retell one year of daily discussions with atheists

 

So my confusing text shows how utterly bad I am at logic and to structure words.

 

I agree with what you wrote there. But the atheists that I talked to narrowed it down

to only two positions. you are either theist or atheist. They most likely knew what you

told me here too but they found that irrelevant because they wanted to force me to chose

 

So the whole gnostic and agnostic part was a distraction to them. Let us first get if you are theist or atheist

they demanded of me.

 

My position is that there is something very odd about that demand.

 

The believers have no choice at all.

Logically they can only claim that God exist or it looks like if they have no faith in God.

Their fellow believers would tell them but

if you don't believe that God exist then you are atheist and not one of us believers.

 

Do you see how it is set up?

The only logical choice a believer can make is to claim that God exist

or else they are seen as atheistic towards God. By both theists and atheists.

 

If you read my post above I try to make that claim with many confusing words.

 

what they maybe can do is to say they are De facto theist following Dawkins suggestion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability#Dawkins.27_formulation

 

  1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
  2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
  3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
  4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
  5. Leaning towards Agnosticism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
  6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
  7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Most atheists seems very disappointed with Dawkins saying he fail to get philosophy.

 

That is one of my main points. If atheist philosophy is so difficult

that one of the most known atheist fails at it then it is something odd about it?

 

He is an educated man and he has advisors and friends and they should have been able

to explain the extreme simple atheist definition that online active atheists make use of.

 

So why does he fail? I suggest it is because there is something very odd about atheist philosophy.

 

My naive point of view is that believers have no logical choice

but to make the claim that God exists. If they don't make it

then their fellow believers would ask them if the are atheist

and atheists would say these believers are atheists in disguise.

 

The logic of theism is set up that way. Church most likely wanted it that way.

Philosophy was seen as the most advanced of the sciences at that time.

 

Church wanted to force the doubting believer to chose faith in God

and thus they logically set it up so there where only two choices.

 

Then atheists kind of found that easy to adopt and atheists also force

the atheists to chose that there is no God.

 

That is why political Gods are of no significance to atheist philosophy.

That the political Gods have political power over millions is irrelevant

the atheists tells me.

 

The atheists told me that the only thing relevant is

if you believe that God exists or not. You are either with us

or against us. The same forced situation.

 

Maybe Dawkins wanted to find a solution to that forced situation.

Unfortunately he is not a good philosopher and seems to not read

online discussions about atheists or else he would know he would get

ridiculed for doing such crazy thing as trying to better a perfect set up?

 

Formally if one can use his suggestion then I am De facto atheist.

"De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero.

"I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable,

and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

 

I don't like the word agnostic it fails to work among atheists.

 

But my main take on gods if one go outside the formality of definitions is this:

 

1. Even if a god existed there would be no way for theists or atheists to know that God.

2. There is no evidence for a supernatural God to exist.

3. The only gods that atheists accept as real gods are faith in an existing supernatural God.

4. But even if such a god would exist there would be no way for anybody to know that God.

 

Do you see he it is set up? By definition there is no way to know a supernatural god.

By definition such a god can not be known. We are natural beings and can only know about

things that are natural. The supernatural we can know nothing about logically by definition.

 

So the whole thing is a kind of rhetoric logical trap set up by Church

way back in time when they realized they had to find the best rhetoric

availabe at that time and it worked for some thousand of years until

Holbach and the other atheists started to see through the logical flaws.

 

Sadly I am very bad at rhetoric and at logical structured text

but this trap set up by Church is being reused by atheists

to force people to chose an impossible thing.

 

Logically there is no way to know if there exists a god or not.

But many cultures have gods and that shows that politically gods

can be a kind of social tool. Why would that be irrelevant to atheists?

 

Is that not very odd?

Edited by science4ever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the whole gnostic and agnostic part was a distraction to them. Let us first get if you are theist or atheist

they demanded of me.

My opinion is much the same but for a different reason. My opinion is rooted in the etymology of the words and what they are intended to mean, not how today's society tries to evolve their meanings. For me the meaning of theism and atheism begins with theism because atheist literally means not-theist linguistically. This implies that the meaning of atheist depends on the meaning of theist thus:

 

 

 

theist (n.) dictionary.gif 1660s, from Greek theos "god" (see Thea) + -ist. The original senses was that later reserved to deist: "one who believes in a transcendant god but denies revelation." Later in 18c. theist was contrasted with deist, as allowing the possibility of revelation.

 

One that has an affirmative belief in the existence of a god is a theist. Anything short of that affirmative belief makes one an atheist. That means everyone that lacks and affirmative belief that there is at least one god to those that actively believe there most definitely are no gods are all atheists of varying degrees. For me theism is a binary position, you are either theist or not-theist.

 

I think Dawkins correctly deduces that there is a range of theist and atheist beliefs. There are very strong theists, those with the belief that they know there is a god. These are typically individuals who claim to have met god, talked with god, been talked to by god, etc.. Their gnostic belief increases their theist belief above those theists that think there is a god but man can never know for sure, the agnostic theist. The same is true of atheists which range from agnostic atheists to gnostic atheists.

 

I know you want a fence sitting position but for me there is not one. In my opinion anyone that wants to believe there is a god but honestly doubts there is one is atheist. To qualify as a theist you must have an affirmative belief that there is in fact one or more gods, you must meet the dictionary definition of theist or your are technically not-theist, i.e. atheist. Most people today that want to label themselves as agnostic are actually atheist and don't want to admit it. They say most often that they just don't believe one way or the other but this very fact, that they do not hold a belief in god is what makes them atheist. They want to believe that atheism means those that believe there are no gods but they want to ignore the fact that only a lack of belief in deities is all that's needed to be atheist by definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DoG wrote

 

I know you want a fence sitting position but for me there is not one. In my opinion anyone that wants to believe there is a god but honestly doubts there is one is atheist. To qualify as a theist you must have an affirmative belief that there is in fact one or more gods, you must meet the dictionary definition of theist or your are technically not-theist, i.e. atheist.

I think it is my poor command of words and English that makes it looks like that.

 

I don't want fence sitting at all. Like what the title of the thread indicate.

 

"anti-philosophy atheist?"

 

that is a bit too harsh or too strong but in the right direction.

I question the whole set up and I find it likely that the Church

due to competition from Philosophers wanted to be best at doing philosophy

so they came up with more and more fancy defence of their claims.

 

If one really study how religion works then it is more like this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion Anthropology of religion

 

These are scientists and claim this

 

that every religion is a cultural product created by the human community that practices it

that means that everything within religion is a cultural product. The way they refer to God

is part of their culture. Each religious tradition has their own particular culture about God.

 

That God is supernatural and that God exists is one such claim within these cultures.

It is part of how they set it up logically. The believers are given no choice other than

to believe that God is supernatural and that God exist or else they are not accepted as believers.

 

So the whole philosophy thing is part of the rhetoric to defend that culture.

It is a kind of logical trap set up by the religious culture to keep the members.

 

Now I am no supporter of Anthropology of religion but they do get that part right.

 

from same wikipedia text they quote on of the most famous guy in the field Clifford Geertz.

Sadly he uses an abstract way to define his view on religion but hopefully your Egnlish is on par?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion#Definition_of_religion

 

According to Geertz, religion is "

(1) a system of symbols which acts to

(2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by

(3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and

(4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that

(5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic" (Geertz 1966).

This part is most important I guess

 

"

(4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that

(5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic"

 

That is what I refer to as the rhetoric trick that the Church has set up.

Factuality. God has to be told about in a way that makes God look very factual.

They need to "cloth" the words so God seems uniquely realistic. It is a rhetoric trap

they force the believer to follow their logical set up or else they are seen as dissenters

and apostates and heretics and as atheists. What the Church do is politics. Keep people in line.

 

I fail to find good words for this but to me it is very embarrassing that atheists play along

with this logical trap and make the same forced situation instead of trying to at least

see religion from a scientific perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I question the whole set up and I find it likely that the Church

due to competition from Philosophers wanted to be best at doing philosophy

so they came up with more and more fancy defence of their claims.

 

For me the theist/atheist thing is more of a word game, not philosophy. The dictionary is pretty clear what the word theist means and language is pretty clear at negating things with a not- modifier. It's as simple as theists believe in god and everyone else is not-theist. It is not about the debate that there is or is not any gods, if they are supernatural or not, can we prove it or not, etc.. Believers are theist, everyone else is not.

 

If one really study how religion works then it is more like this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion Anthropology of religion

 

 

Religion is a separate but related subject that is not dependent on theism at all. Religion is a set of beliefs that one lives by and may or may not be related to one's belief in one or more gods. It is a philosophical debate though because you will find many that claim humanism and buddhism to be godless religions and others that claim they are not religions at all because they are godless. Some definitions simply list religion as 'life under monastic vows' while others define it as a system of life and worship of god. It is not so easily pinned down linguistically as theism is.

 

As an aside I am an agnostic atheist, a 6 on Dawkins scale. In my opinion a claim of 7 requires the ability to prove there cannot be any gods and since I believe such a proof to be impossible I am a 6. I list my religion socially as humanist and adhere to the Affirmations of Humanism in my life. It is a set of beliefs I live by and I consider that religious. I also consider myself a Jeffersonian Christian as a believer and follower in the doctrine of the man, Jesus of Nazareth. Like Jefferson I believe there was a man we call Jesus who espoused a humanist philosophy and morals to live by without any belief by me that he was any kind of god. FWIW, I find it more rewarding that letting my life and my decisions being influenced by the rewards or consequences of heaven or hell.

Edited by doG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.