Atheism - Revision history

imported>House Escalus: Begone Steve! You've done enough damage here!

2018-10-01T21:32:30Z

Begone Steve! You've done enough damage here!

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:32, 1 October 2018
Line 40:		Line 40:
	Hard atheism is the expressed or explicit belief that God or gods do not exist; The belief that the Universe is devoid of Gods. The assertion, claim, belief or position that God(s) do not exist... or that the proposition that God(s) exist is false... that theism is false, also known as philosophical, propositional, strong (not Dawkins' bizarre version) or explicit atheism.		Hard atheism is the expressed or explicit belief that God or gods do not exist; The belief that the Universe is devoid of Gods. The assertion, claim, belief or position that God(s) do not exist... or that the proposition that God(s) exist is false... that theism is false, also known as philosophical, propositional, strong (not Dawkins' bizarre version) or explicit atheism.

	Soft atheism (colloquial atheism) is lacking a belief that God(s) exist. (~~Also~~ known as weak or implicit atheism ~~sometimes~~)		Soft atheism (colloquial atheism) is lacking a belief that God(s) exist (sometimes known as weak or implicit atheism).

	Gnostic atheism (soft) is nonsensical as you can not assert a knowledge claim with out holding a belief about it first.		Gnostic atheism (soft) is nonsensical as you can not assert a knowledge claim with out holding a belief about it first.

imported>House Escalus at 21:29, 1 October 2018

2018-10-01T21:29:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:29, 1 October 2018
Line 37:		Line 37:
	The moral of the story: let people identify by whatever label they want, however they want. As long as we are clear on how we use our terms, we can still have productive conversations, even if we don't agree on the usage of these terms. In these conversations, what matters are peoples' positions, not the labels that those positions have.		The moral of the story: let people identify by whatever label they want, however they want. As long as we are clear on how we use our terms, we can still have productive conversations, even if we don't agree on the usage of these terms. In these conversations, what matters are peoples' positions, not the labels that those positions have.

	== Summary of ~~positions~~ ==		== Summary of Positions ==
	Hard atheism is the expressed or explicit belief that God or gods do not exist. The belief that the ~~universe~~ is devoid of Gods. The assertion, claim, belief or position that God(s) do not exist...or that the proposition that God(s) exist is false...that theism is false~~. (Also~~ known as philosophical, propositional, strong (not Dawkins bizarre version) or explicit atheism)		Hard atheism is the expressed or explicit belief that God or gods do not exist; The belief that the Universe is devoid of Gods. The assertion, claim, belief or position that God(s) do not exist... or that the proposition that God(s) exist is false... that theism is false, also known as philosophical, propositional, strong (not Dawkins' bizarre version) or explicit atheism.

	Soft atheism (colloquial atheism) is lacking a belief that God(s) exist. (Also known as weak or implicit atheism sometimes)		Soft atheism (colloquial atheism) is lacking a belief that God(s) exist. (Also known as weak or implicit atheism sometimes)
Line 44:		Line 44:
	Gnostic atheism (soft) is nonsensical as you can not assert a knowledge claim with out holding a belief about it first.		Gnostic atheism (soft) is nonsensical as you can not assert a knowledge claim with out holding a belief about it first.

	Gnostic atheism(hard) is the same as above including that it is not just just a belief position, but one of knowledge.		Gnostic atheism (hard) is the same as above including that it is not just just a belief position, but one of knowledge.

	Agnostic atheism(soft) is nonsensical, as you can not add an epistemic modifier to a non-doxastic claim. (You can not say something about being not a knowledge claim if it isn't a belief claim in the first place).		Agnostic atheism (soft) is nonsensical, as you can not add an epistemic modifier to a non-doxastic claim. (You can not say something about being not a knowledge claim if it isn't a belief claim in the first place).

	Agnostic atheism(hard) is redundant and superfluous as it is no different than just theism. (Hard atheism is strictly a belief claim, so it is redundant to reiterate it is only a belief (doxastic) position). (Can be taken to also mean a person who asserts God does not exist, but ''also'' has minimal positive epistemic claim...but not enough to turn that belief into a knowledge position or claim, however this is atypical and would have been how it would have been understood during Huxley's time, but not so much in modernity.)		Agnostic atheism (hard) is redundant and superfluous as it is no different than just theism. (Hard atheism is strictly a belief claim, so it is redundant to reiterate it is only a belief (doxastic) position). (Can be taken to also mean a person who asserts God does not exist, but ''also'' has minimal positive epistemic claim...but not enough to turn that belief into a knowledge position or claim, however this is atypical and would have been how it would have been understood during Huxley's time, but not so much in modernity.)

	== Sources: ==		== Sources: ==

imported>Steve McRae at 04:20, 1 October 2018

2018-10-01T04:20:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:20, 1 October 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Atheism ~~can be~~ defined as the ''BELIEF'' that [[God\|Gods]] do not exist. This is the case not only because [[Steve McRae]] says so, but also because [[Callzter]] agrees with him... and Callzter is a pretty hardcore Atheist ''AND ''th''e ''creator of this website (but please don't take this definition as gospel).		Atheism is defined as the ''BELIEF'' that [[God\|Gods]] do not exist. This is the case not only because [[Steve McRae]] says so, but also because [[Callzter]] agrees with him... and Callzter is a pretty hardcore Atheist ''AND ''th''e ''creator of this website (but please don't take this definition as gospel).

	== Semantics ==		== Semantics ==
Line 38:		Line 38:

	== Summary of positions ==		== Summary of positions ==
	Hard atheism is the expressed or explicit belief that God or gods do not exist. The belief that the universe is devoid of Gods. The assertion, claim, belief or position that God(s) do not exist...or that the proposition that God(s) exist is false...that theism is false.		Hard atheism is the expressed or explicit belief that God or gods do not exist. The belief that the universe is devoid of Gods. The assertion, claim, belief or position that God(s) do not exist...or that the proposition that God(s) exist is false...that theism is false. (Also known as philosophical, propositional, strong (not Dawkins bizarre version) or explicit atheism)

	Soft atheism is lacking a belief that God(s) exist.		Soft atheism (colloquial atheism) is lacking a belief that God(s) exist. (Also known as weak or implicit atheism sometimes)

	Gnostic atheism (soft) is nonsensical as you can not assert a knowledge claim with out holding a belief about it first.		Gnostic atheism (soft) is nonsensical as you can not assert a knowledge claim with out holding a belief about it first.

imported>Nesslig 20: /* Why it Really Doesn't Matter */

2017-12-08T14:07:38Z

Why it Really Doesn't Matter

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:07, 8 December 2017
Line 33:		Line 33:

	=== <u>'''Why it Really Doesn't Matter'''</u> ===		=== <u>'''Why it Really Doesn't Matter'''</u> ===
	If you (whether atheist or agnostic) want to argue the definition of "atheism", you should at least realize this: Since the majority of self-identified atheists don't hold the belief that there are no gods, they just don't believe there is one (they use the first or second definition) and since the majority of self-identified agnostics (are also atheists by the same standards, and thus) hold more or less the same position, there really isn't a significant difference between these two demographics, in terms of what they do and don't believe regarding the existence of deities. The only difference is the label that is used, but sometimes even THAT isn't a difference either, since many self-identified atheists are happy to identify themselves as agnostic too. They will say that they are atheists, because they don't accept the claim that there is a god - and that they are also agnostic, because they don't claim to know whether there is a [[god]] or not. Of course, some agnostics would argue that atheism (by the "strong" definition) and agnosticism are mutually exlcusive things, but that is beside the point, and that is where the difference lies...the mere difference in how these words are used, which is rather a silly point of contention. It's a shame that atheists and agnostics are divided in this way by mere labels, which gives the illusion that they are somehow very different things. It also makes achieving mutual goals, such as maintaining separation between church and state, much more difficult then it needs to be. And above all, it makes many discussions on the existence of deities a real pain ~~when it~~ de-~~evolves~~ in an argument over the definition of a label, rather than the positions themselves.		If you (whether atheist or agnostic) want to argue the definition of "atheism", you should at least realize this: Since the majority of self-identified atheists don't hold the belief that there are no gods, they just don't believe there is one (they use the first or second definition) and since the majority of self-identified agnostics (are also atheists by the same standards, and thus) hold more or less the same position, there really isn't a significant difference between these two demographics, in terms of what they do and don't believe regarding the existence of deities. The only difference is the label that is used, but sometimes even THAT isn't a difference either, since many self-identified atheists are happy to identify themselves as agnostic too. They will say that they are atheists, because they don't accept the claim that there is a god - and that they are also agnostic, because they don't claim to know whether there is a [[god]] or not. Of course, some agnostics would argue that atheism (by the "strong" definition) and agnosticism are mutually exlcusive things, but that is beside the point, and that is where the difference lies...the mere difference in how these words are used, which is rather a silly point of contention. It's a shame that atheists and agnostics are divided in this way by mere labels, which gives the illusion that they are somehow very different things. It also makes achieving mutual goals, such as maintaining separation between church and state, much more difficult then it needs to be. And above all, it makes many discussions on the existence of deities a real pain as they tend to de-evolve in an argument over the definition of a label, rather than the positions themselves.

	The moral of the story: let people identify by whatever label they want, however they want. As long as we are clear on how we use our terms, we can still have productive conversations, even if we don't agree on the usage of these terms. In these conversations, what matters are peoples' positions, not the labels that those positions have.		The moral of the story: let people identify by whatever label they want, however they want. As long as we are clear on how we use our terms, we can still have productive conversations, even if we don't agree on the usage of these terms. In these conversations, what matters are peoples' positions, not the labels that those positions have.

imported>Nesslig 20: /* Why it Really Doesn't Matter */

2017-12-08T14:05:37Z

Why it Really Doesn't Matter

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:05, 8 December 2017
Line 33:		Line 33:

	=== <u>'''Why it Really Doesn't Matter'''</u> ===		=== <u>'''Why it Really Doesn't Matter'''</u> ===
	If you (whether atheist or agnostic) want to argue the definition of "atheism", you should at least realize this: Since the majority of self-identified atheists don't hold the belief that there are no gods, they just don't believe there is one (they use the first or second definition) and since the majority of self-identified agnostics (~~who~~ are ~~at least "weak"~~ atheists) hold more or less the same position ~~as this~~, there really isn't a significant difference between these two demographics, in terms of what they do and don't believe regarding the existence of deities. The only difference is the label that is used, but sometimes even THAT isn't a difference either, since many self-identified atheists are happy to identify themselves as agnostic too. They will say that they are atheists, because they don't accept the claim that there is a god - and that they are also agnostic, because they don't claim to know whether there is a [[god]] or not. Of course, some agnostics would argue that atheism (by the "strong" definition) and agnosticism are mutually exlcusive things, but that is beside the point, and that is where the difference lies...the mere difference in how these words are used, which is rather a silly point of contention. It's a shame that atheists and agnostics are divided in this way by mere labels, which gives the illusion that they are somehow very different things. It also makes achieving mutual goals, such as maintaining separation between church and state, much more difficult then it needs to be. And above all, it makes many discussions on the existence of deities a real pain when it de-evolves in an argument over the definition of a label, rather than the positions themselves.		If you (whether atheist or agnostic) want to argue the definition of "atheism", you should at least realize this: Since the majority of self-identified atheists don't hold the belief that there are no gods, they just don't believe there is one (they use the first or second definition) and since the majority of self-identified agnostics (are also atheists by the same standards, and thus) hold more or less the same position, there really isn't a significant difference between these two demographics, in terms of what they do and don't believe regarding the existence of deities. The only difference is the label that is used, but sometimes even THAT isn't a difference either, since many self-identified atheists are happy to identify themselves as agnostic too. They will say that they are atheists, because they don't accept the claim that there is a god - and that they are also agnostic, because they don't claim to know whether there is a [[god]] or not. Of course, some agnostics would argue that atheism (by the "strong" definition) and agnosticism are mutually exlcusive things, but that is beside the point, and that is where the difference lies...the mere difference in how these words are used, which is rather a silly point of contention. It's a shame that atheists and agnostics are divided in this way by mere labels, which gives the illusion that they are somehow very different things. It also makes achieving mutual goals, such as maintaining separation between church and state, much more difficult then it needs to be. And above all, it makes many discussions on the existence of deities a real pain when it de-evolves in an argument over the definition of a label, rather than the positions themselves.

	The moral of the story: let people identify by whatever label they want, however they want. As long as we are clear on how we use our terms, we can still have productive conversations, even if we don't agree on the usage of these terms. In these conversations, what matters are peoples' positions, not the labels that those positions have.		The moral of the story: let people identify by whatever label they want, however they want. As long as we are clear on how we use our terms, we can still have productive conversations, even if we don't agree on the usage of these terms. In these conversations, what matters are peoples' positions, not the labels that those positions have.

imported>Nesslig 20: /* Why it Really Doesn't Matter */

2017-12-08T14:02:39Z

Why it Really Doesn't Matter

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:02, 8 December 2017
Line 33:		Line 33:

	=== <u>'''Why it Really Doesn't Matter'''</u> ===		=== <u>'''Why it Really Doesn't Matter'''</u> ===
	If you (whether atheist or agnostic) want to argue the definition of "atheism", you should at least realize this: Since the majority of self-identified atheists don't hold the belief that there are no gods, they just don't believe there is one (they use the first or second definition) and since the majority of self-identified agnostics (who are at least "weak" atheists) hold more or less the same position as this, there really isn't a significant difference between these two demographics, in terms of what they do and don't believe regarding the existence of deities. The only difference is the label that is used, but sometimes even THAT isn't a difference either, since many self-identified atheists are happy to identify themselves as agnostic too. They will say that they are atheists, because they don't accept the claim that there is a god - and that they are also agnostic, because they don't claim to know whether there is a [[god]] or not. Of course, some agnostics would argue that atheism (by the "strong" definition) and agnosticism are mutually exlcusive things, but that is beside the point, and that is where the difference lies...the mere difference in how these words are used, which is rather a silly point of contention. It's a shame that atheists and agnostics are divided in this way by mere labels ~~that creates~~ the illusion that they are somehow very different things. It also makes achieving mutual goals, such as maintaining separation between church and state, much more difficult then it needs to be. And above all, it makes many discussions on the existence of deities a real pain when it de-evolves in an argument over the definition of a label, rather than the positions themselves.		If you (whether atheist or agnostic) want to argue the definition of "atheism", you should at least realize this: Since the majority of self-identified atheists don't hold the belief that there are no gods, they just don't believe there is one (they use the first or second definition) and since the majority of self-identified agnostics (who are at least "weak" atheists) hold more or less the same position as this, there really isn't a significant difference between these two demographics, in terms of what they do and don't believe regarding the existence of deities. The only difference is the label that is used, but sometimes even THAT isn't a difference either, since many self-identified atheists are happy to identify themselves as agnostic too. They will say that they are atheists, because they don't accept the claim that there is a god - and that they are also agnostic, because they don't claim to know whether there is a [[god]] or not. Of course, some agnostics would argue that atheism (by the "strong" definition) and agnosticism are mutually exlcusive things, but that is beside the point, and that is where the difference lies...the mere difference in how these words are used, which is rather a silly point of contention. It's a shame that atheists and agnostics are divided in this way by mere labels, which gives the illusion that they are somehow very different things. It also makes achieving mutual goals, such as maintaining separation between church and state, much more difficult then it needs to be. And above all, it makes many discussions on the existence of deities a real pain when it de-evolves in an argument over the definition of a label, rather than the positions themselves.

	The moral of the story: let people identify by whatever label they want, however they want. As long as we are clear on how we use our terms, we can still have productive conversations, even if we don't agree on the usage of these terms. In these conversations, what matters are peoples' positions, not the labels that those positions have.		The moral of the story: let people identify by whatever label they want, however they want. As long as we are clear on how we use our terms, we can still have productive conversations, even if we don't agree on the usage of these terms. In these conversations, what matters are peoples' positions, not the labels that those positions have.

imported>Nesslig 20: /* Why it Really Doesn't Matter */

2017-12-08T14:01:23Z

Why it Really Doesn't Matter

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:01, 8 December 2017
Line 33:		Line 33:

	=== <u>'''Why it Really Doesn't Matter'''</u> ===		=== <u>'''Why it Really Doesn't Matter'''</u> ===
	If you (whether atheist or agnostic) want to argue the definition of "atheism", you should realize this: Since ~~many~~ self identified atheists don't hold the belief that there are no gods, they just don't believe there is one (they use the first or second definition) and since self-identified agnostics hold more or less the same position as this, there really isn't a significant difference between these two demographics, in terms of what they do and don't believe. The only difference is the label that is used, but sometimes even THAT isn't a difference either, since ~~some~~ self-identified atheists are happy to identify themselves as agnostic too. They will say that they are atheists, because they don't accept the claim that there is a god - and that they are agnostic, because they don't claim to know whether there is a [[god]] or not. Of course, some agnostics would ~~assert~~ that atheism (by the ~~third~~ definition) and agnosticism are mutually exlcusive things, but that is beside the point and that is where the difference lies. It is rather a shame that atheists and agnostics are divided in this way by mere labels~~, because it~~ makes achieving mutual goals, such as maintaining separation between church and state, much more difficult then it needs to be.		If you (whether atheist or agnostic) want to argue the definition of "atheism", you should at least realize this: Since the majority of self-identified atheists don't hold the belief that there are no gods, they just don't believe there is one (they use the first or second definition) and since the majority of self-identified agnostics (who are at least "weak" atheists) hold more or less the same position as this, there really isn't a significant difference between these two demographics, in terms of what they do and don't believe regarding the existence of deities. The only difference is the label that is used, but sometimes even THAT isn't a difference either, since many self-identified atheists are happy to identify themselves as agnostic too. They will say that they are atheists, because they don't accept the claim that there is a god - and that they are also agnostic, because they don't claim to know whether there is a [[god]] or not. Of course, some agnostics would argue that atheism (by the "strong" definition) and agnosticism are mutually exlcusive things, but that is beside the point, and that is where the difference lies...the mere difference in how these words are used, which is rather a silly point of contention. It's a shame that atheists and agnostics are divided in this way by mere labels that creates the illusion that they are somehow very different things. It also makes achieving mutual goals, such as maintaining separation between church and state, much more difficult then it needs to be. And above all, it makes many discussions on the existence of deities a real pain when it de-evolves in an argument over the definition of a label, rather than the positions themselves.

	The moral of the story: let people identify by whatever label they want, however they want. As long as we are clear on how we use our terms, we can still have productive conversations, even if we don't agree on the usage of these terms. In these conversations, what matters are peoples' positions, not the labels that those positions have.		The moral of the story: let people identify by whatever label they want, however they want. As long as we are clear on how we use our terms, we can still have productive conversations, even if we don't agree on the usage of these terms. In these conversations, what matters are peoples' positions, not the labels that those positions have.

imported>House Escalus at 20:32, 18 November 2017

2017-11-18T20:32:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:32, 18 November 2017
Line 35:		Line 35:
	If you (whether atheist or agnostic) want to argue the definition of "atheism", you should realize this: Since many self identified atheists don't hold the belief that there are no gods, they just don't believe there is one (they use the first or second definition) and since self-identified agnostics hold more or less the same position as this, there really isn't a significant difference between these two demographics, in terms of what they do and don't believe. The only difference is the label that is used, but sometimes even THAT isn't a difference either, since some self-identified atheists are happy to identify themselves as agnostic too. They will say that they are atheists, because they don't accept the claim that there is a god - and that they are agnostic, because they don't claim to know whether there is a [[god]] or not. Of course, some agnostics would assert that atheism (by the third definition) and agnosticism are mutually exlcusive things, but that is beside the point and that is where the difference lies. It is rather a shame that atheists and agnostics are divided in this way by mere labels, because it makes achieving mutual goals, such as maintaining separation between church and state, much more difficult then it needs to be.		If you (whether atheist or agnostic) want to argue the definition of "atheism", you should realize this: Since many self identified atheists don't hold the belief that there are no gods, they just don't believe there is one (they use the first or second definition) and since self-identified agnostics hold more or less the same position as this, there really isn't a significant difference between these two demographics, in terms of what they do and don't believe. The only difference is the label that is used, but sometimes even THAT isn't a difference either, since some self-identified atheists are happy to identify themselves as agnostic too. They will say that they are atheists, because they don't accept the claim that there is a god - and that they are agnostic, because they don't claim to know whether there is a [[god]] or not. Of course, some agnostics would assert that atheism (by the third definition) and agnosticism are mutually exlcusive things, but that is beside the point and that is where the difference lies. It is rather a shame that atheists and agnostics are divided in this way by mere labels, because it makes achieving mutual goals, such as maintaining separation between church and state, much more difficult then it needs to be.

	The moral of the story: let people identify by whatever label they want, however they want. As long as we are clear on how we use our terms, we can still have productive conversations, even if we don't agree on the usage of these terms. In these conversations, what matters are ~~people~~ positions, not the labels that those positions have.		The moral of the story: let people identify by whatever label they want, however they want. As long as we are clear on how we use our terms, we can still have productive conversations, even if we don't agree on the usage of these terms. In these conversations, what matters are peoples' positions, not the labels that those positions have.

	== Summary of positions ==		== Summary of positions ==

imported>Steve McRae at 19:45, 18 November 2017

2017-11-18T19:45:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:45, 18 November 2017
Line 48:		Line 48:
	Agnostic atheism(soft) is nonsensical, as you can not add an epistemic modifier to a non-doxastic claim. (You can not say something about being not a knowledge claim if it isn't a belief claim in the first place).		Agnostic atheism(soft) is nonsensical, as you can not add an epistemic modifier to a non-doxastic claim. (You can not say something about being not a knowledge claim if it isn't a belief claim in the first place).

	Agnostic atheism(hard) is redundant and superfluous as it is no different than just ~~hard~~ theism. (Hard atheism is strictly a belief claim, so it is redundant to reiterate it is only a belief (doxastic) position). (Can be taken to also mean a person who asserts God does not exist, but ''also'' has minimal positive epistemic claim...but not enough to turn that belief into a knowledge position or claim, however this is atypical and would have been how it would have been understood during Huxley's time, but not so much in modernity.)		Agnostic atheism(hard) is redundant and superfluous as it is no different than just theism. (Hard atheism is strictly a belief claim, so it is redundant to reiterate it is only a belief (doxastic) position). (Can be taken to also mean a person who asserts God does not exist, but ''also'' has minimal positive epistemic claim...but not enough to turn that belief into a knowledge position or claim, however this is atypical and would have been how it would have been understood during Huxley's time, but not so much in modernity.)

	== Sources: ==		== Sources: ==

imported>Nesslig 20: /* Semantics */

2017-11-18T17:52:21Z

Semantics

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:52, 18 November 2017
Line 2:		Line 2:

	== Semantics ==		== Semantics ==
	Just like with any word that fuels so much controversy, a heated discussion between two or more people, who use the word "atheism" or "atheist" differently, can quickly devolve into a meaningless and endless discussion on ''"what-words-mean"''. In order to conserve a meaningful discussion, it should be agreed upon that the label of a position is rather unimportant compared to the position itself, because labeling a position by a different word wouldn't change the position. <nowiki/>		Just like with any word that fuels so much controversy, a heated discussion between two or more people, who use the word "atheism" or "atheist" differently, can quickly devolve into a meaningless and endless discussion on ''[https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium "what-words-mean"]''. In order to conserve a meaningful discussion, it should be agreed upon that the label of a position is rather unimportant compared to the position itself, because labeling a position by a different word wouldn't change the position. <nowiki/>
	=== '''<u>Different Usages</u>''' ===		=== '''<u>Different Usages</u>''' ===
	[[File:Atheism venn diagram.png\|thumb\|362x362px\|This venn-diagram illustrates the relationships of the different usages of atheism, with the broadest definition of atheism that includes all the "implicit/explicit" and "strong/weak" subsets. ]]		[[File:Atheism venn diagram.png\|thumb\|362x362px\|This venn-diagram illustrates the relationships of the different usages of atheism, with the broadest definition of atheism that includes all the "implicit/explicit" and "strong/weak" subsets. ]]