As long as I'm making serious, potentially dramatic posts...

[shadesofmauve]

I have been more vocal recently about being an atheist, mostly because the creationists and want-to-be-theocrats are surprisingly loud. Because I've been more upfront about it, I've encountered a lot of people who don't understand what it means.

Specifically: The statement "I don't believe in god(s)" is not equal to the statement "I believe there is/are no god(s)."

I just saw this explained very well, and I'm posting it here for general edification and my own reference.

The theism-atheism spectrum is belief-based and the gnostic-agnostic spectrum is knowledge-based. Belief and epistemic knowledge are not the same thing and should not be confused.

1. Do you believe in god(s)?
Yes = theist
Not yes = atheist

"Not yes" includes I don’t know, I don’t care, and I choose to suspend judgment.

2. Is the existence of god(s) a justified, true belief? (Or in lay terms: Can a god hypothesis be proven/disproven by an empirical or rational argument?)

Yes = gnostic
Not yes = agnostic

Using these definitions, you can be an atheist, without a belief in any particular gods, and also be agnostic towards gods in general. In addition, you can hold a gnostic position towards specific, easily disprovable gods like Prince Philip the volcano god.

Huxley, who coined the term agnostic, was an atheist: he did not believe in any gods. However, he articulated an agnostic position towards the Abrahamic god; he didn’t think it was possible to logically or scientifically prove or disprove it.

quoted from commenter "Noah the epistemic pinata" on this Pharyngula post.

Like Huxley, I am an agnostic atheist. Telling me "But you can't KNOW!" when I say "I'm an atheist" will net you a "Well, duh."

Unless we're talking about Prince Philip the volcano god.

Comments

[stasia]

Ooooh, really?

I'm an atheist. Atheism Wiki Agnosticism Wiki

I'm not sure at all that I agree with your statement that 'atheist' is "not yes". I have always understood 'atheist' to be "No", and "agnostic" to be "not yes or no".

... 'Gnosis', of course, being knowledge, I can see a-gnosis being unknowing, or not knowing one way or the other.

A-theism ... following the definitions, would mean NON-belief.

***

And, following all of this, it's nice to meet you, another atheist, of whatever stripe you are. Hi! *grin*

Stasia

[shadesofmauve]

I agree that there are definite differences in term usage. It might be better to say "This is how I use these words to apply to myself, and I am far from the only one."

Agnostic is used commonly as 'undecided', but the guy who coined it definitely mean 'unable to be known/proven'.

It can get thorny to discuss shades of meaning, but here goes...

'theos' is actually 'god', rather than belief, so A-theism is 'without god(s).' But you can be 'without' god because you think there is no god(s), because you believe there is no god(s), because you've decided the whole god thing isn't worth your time*, or because you've suspended judgment.

I was surprised by the last one, honestly, but checking the wiki page you linked, it could definitely fall under the rubric of 'weak atheism.' "Suspended judgement" still implies you don't believe in god. (It could also be theological noncognitivism, which opens a whole new can of very meta worms and it's too late at night).

Also, usually I wouldn't be such a stickler for definitions, especially historical ones (words change!), but I'm rather tired of being confronted by religious people telling me that I'm not what I say I am. Especially the "atheism takes just as much faith as belief in god" argument. You don't have to have positive belief in the null hypothesis.

Yes, it is nice to know of others out there! *waves* I hadn't realized how unaccepted it was until I started actually using the word. People don't seem to have the same problem with "not religious".

*Someone coined 'apatheist' for this. I'd be a happy apatheist if I wasn't so concerned about people shoving their religion onto others politically.

[stasia]

I've had violently angry responses when I've "admitted" to atheism.

(Sometimes the responses I get are funny. Once, in a polisci class, we were discussing the separation of church and state. The teacher asked people to say what religion they were - she called out the Big Three and various people raised their hands. At the end of this, I raised my hand and asked about people who weren't any of those three. So, she asked me what I am and I said I'm an athiest.

Some of the people in the class had never heard the word before. Several didn't believe me, all of them had to have it defined and described. One guy, and I give him some leeway - he was African (as in from Africa) and strongly English As A Second Language, ... anyway, he needed a slow, clear definition (which I gave as not-a-believer in any god at all. A-Theist.) He looked at me for a minute, then said, in baffled tones, "But you believe in Jesus Christ, right?"

I didn't laugh. (It was a near thing.) I was really proud of myself for not laughing. I just said no.

Anyway, I'm always confused and dismayed by the reactions I get. Why is my non-belief so threatening to them?

I LOVE the word apatheist! That's great!!

Another odd thing about atheism is the current movement of Atheism Groups. People are calling it Free Thinking and having conferences about and talking about it and ... well, it makes me all sorts of uncomfortable to listen to some of the people talking. So many of them sound like they're preaching and I just want to back up.

Atheism isn't necessarily about joining groups, it's about not being part of several groups. Many of the people in the Free Thinking Groups are ... 'recovering' theists and they seem to be Anti-religion rather than simply not a believer on their own.

*sigh*

I do think that organized religions have had hugely negative effects on human societies, but that's a much more inflammatory thing to say.

Stasia

[shadesofmauve]

So far, my most dumbfounding reaction was from my sweetie's mom. I said "I'm an atheist" and she said, "No, you're not!"

It's like being told you're wrong about your favorite color or something.

There are a bunch of prominent atheists who are part of the movement whom I really don't like, and the idea of going to conventions pretty much baffles me. On the internet, though, I've been following that community more and appreciating it more for political reasons. I don't think atheism should have anything to do with being part of an in-group, but if you want to fight for secularism in law and evolution in classrooms, you do need to team up, and it's kind of a natural grouping that way.

I read (and usually really enjoy) Pharyngula -- he's very much aware of social justice issues and the political stuff.

I don't know about quite where your discomfort levels are for people talking, but I strongly recommend listening to the TED talks by Dan Dennett. He's one of the big names I find really, really solid.

Like I said, I'd be apatheist if it wasn't for politics. It's kind of "I wouldn't be anti-religion if you'd stop poking me! (and my gay friends, and the environment, and frequently your own children, and...)" Everyone can think whatever they want, but they shouldn't get to harm others.

[stasia]

I've had people say stuff like that to me. "You just don't want to admit it." or "You don't really mean that." I never know what to respond. It is like being told one is wrong about one's favorite color or one's height. No, really, I AM this thing. *sigh*

It's not the talking about atheism that I don't like, it's the implication that I'm not Really An Atheist if I don't join their group. As if group-membership were the telling point rather than my personal lack of belief in god, any god, all gods.

(Which is where I am, actually. I just ... don't think or believe that there are any. I'm a hard-science girl. I like physics. I also don't like saying things like, "My god is physics, and boy is she a bitch." because that implies a belief in a god, and that's not the right idea, for me.)

Anyway, I'll look up Pharyngula, and I keep an eye on BlagHag and I should be paying more attention to this, really. The political implications of what the Other Side is doing (and yes, they wouldn't BE the 'other side' if they'd just quit fucking poking things that don't belong to them, dammit) are terrifying. This creeping, invasive, ugly, paternalistic Big Brother crap is my personal nightmare hell, all in real life.

Stasia

[shadesofmauve]

Yes, I like my critical reasoning capacity, thanks. The contention that atheists have darwin as their god or similar foolishness is really irritating (luckily the only time I've encountered atheists saying that they've been joking). An appreciation for science is a belief in using our senses and our noggins and figurin' shit out.

...now I kinda want to make a t-shirt I could never wear out of the house that says: "SCIENCE! I'm going to figure the hell outta some shit!"

Like I said, there will probably be things on the blog you don't agree with, but it is a pretty good way to keep abreast of important issues and occasionally learn random things about cephalopods.

And, relevant comic is relevant:

[shadesofmauve]

I'm rather glad you revived the dead thread, partly because it's interesting, and partly because if you'd caught it when it was first alive, my brain would have been too full.

At some level discussions of the idea of knowledge and truth at this level always leave me wanting to throw my hands in the air and go back to 'real' things, like a nice long bike ride or gardening. It reaches a level of meta-analysis that has no impact on my already full daily world. Still, it's interesting to dive into in small doses.

In this case it becomes relevant simply because so many theists challenge atheism in these terms (usually with a mismatch of colloquial and more strict usages).

[westrider.livejournal.com]

Specifically: The statement "I don't believe in god(s)" is not equal to the statement "I believe there is/are no god(s)."

I remember a number of huge arguments back when flemco was still active on LJ because he and a number of his buddies just could not get that distinction.

Of course, he's at the very far end of the spectrum, a Gnostic Atheist, an Anti-Theist, actually. That probably has some effect on his lack of distinction about the finer points on the middle of the spectrum.

[shadesofmauve]

In a way, it's splitting hairs. On the other hand, given how many theists think all atheism is anti-theism, and how many argue that skeptics are "Just as closed minded as the religious, really!" it seems like a worthwhile distinction to make.

I mean, functionally, I can't really imagine any situation where I could be convinced of an abrahamic-type deity. When you get to "Well, there's no evidence in the physical world so you have to take it on faith" I figure "Okay, so... if there is a god, it's basically irrelevant?" I don't feel wishy-washy.

[westrider.livejournal.com]

Yep, that's exactly why I kept arguing for that distinction over there. I helps keep the spectrum from looking monolithic and polarized.

[t-c-da.livejournal.com]

As a practicing Catholic, I'd say I'm a Theist, but there are many times when I have real problems with Religion, which I'd differentiate from Belief.

I often wonder in my private mind how Jesus would reconcile his "to be great you must be servant of all" with many practices of the Roman Curia over the years down to the current day.

For me, belief works for me, but I'm heavily not into ramming my beliefs down other folk's throat, and I shake my head in dis-belief in the goings on that so-called "Land of the Free". I guess us Kiwis and Okkers are a little more laid back about such things.

[shadesofmauve]

Belief/Relgion seems like a pretty meaningful distinction to me.

There are plenty of people here who are equally laid back, but there is a very vocal group that isn't, and they're somehow convinced that "not being able to oppress everyone else" means that they're oppressed. I think it's fear driven, like so much of our politics over the past ten years, but I'm not sure -- the whole mindset is very alien to me.

There are places where I'm intolerant of Religion, and they all involve actual actions that effect other people -- letting sick kids die because you only believe in prayer, failing to prosecute abusers because they're church-protected -- everyone should be able to believe what they want, but it shouldn't protect their actions from the law.

Re: Hello from Pharyngula!

[shadesofmauve]

Hello, and thanks for dropping in!

I've always thought that a group's word for themselves should be considered first definitionally. We let the babtists define being a baptist. Still, societally it's not really a surprise that for the majority of the population, atheism is defined by the religious. That's sociolinguistics at work.

Thanks for teaching the word Omphalos -- I was familiar with the concept, but didn't have a succinct way to phrase it. I'm in complete agreement, by the way -- of course it's impossible to prove or disprove, but that very lack of impact on anything we can perceive makes it uninteresting and irrelevent. Deists have basically rendered their god moot in an effort to make him logically impervious.

I wouldn't normally point that out to them, though, because in a day-to-day situation, I find it to be a much easier to work with stance on religion, and for many people it's the easiest step away from something more fundamentalist.