Apatheism

First time I ever heard that.. Interesting..

 

What's the difference between that and agnosticism?

 

When someone is agnostic that basically means they are admitting that they don't know. There is a spectrum or scale if you will regarding theists and atheists. Their are gnostic theists: those who claim to know that their is a god. Agnostic or de facto theists: admit that they do not know for sure if a god exists but believe in one anyway. Agnostic or de fact atheists: do not claim to know that there are no gods but have concluded that the existence of one is highly unlikely. Finally, there are Gnostic Atheists: claim to know that there are no gods.

 

Agnosticism does not include a belief in spirits or any specific belief it is a position of neutrality. Atheism is the belief that at least it is unlikely there is a God. Of course like all things this is a matter if how the individual wants to identify themselves.

Ps: nothing wrong with being a sceptic cynic that's a different matter lol

---------- Post added 6th Aug 2015 at 04:25 PM ----------

The final category is actually very rare if the person knows what they are talking about usually goes along with logical positivist type thinking when it does

 

All these terms are starting to sound as diverse as sexualities!

 

They are. I've had quite the time trying to figure out at around age 15 what my belief(s) were on god until I finally figured out that I was an agnostic atheist. Little did I know that I was going to have to figure out on another issue for what I was again regarding sexuality and gender identity. It certainly was an adventure, but alas, I finally found those out too, and I have to say that the process of figuring out my belief(s) (or lack thereof) felt exactly the same as when I was figuring out my sexuality and gender identity.

 

Actually its not one scale/spectrum, it's two.
And agnosticism and atheism are not on the same line, nor synonymous.
Voila:


---------- Post added 7th Aug 2015 at 12:07 PM ----------

False. Atheism is exactly what it says on the tin: A- = without, theism = belief in god(s).
Atheism is the absence of belief in gods.
There are atheists who also beleive there are none, but that is not atheism, which is the absence of belief in deities.

 

Sorry that is as said above Gnostic atheism. Atheism is the belief that on the balance of evidence a God is highly unlikely. Otherwise you deny atheism to any scientific thinker no true scientist thinking scientifically would ever say they know for certain there is no God, because that would Be an absolute, based solely upon lack of evidence which you wouldn't (especially with Deism) even expect to see. God is an invisible elf.

Incidently to pull you up on a very common misunderstanding... Atheism is a belief, it's just not a belief system. A lack of belief doesn't make logical sense, except as being neutral.

 

But that's exactly what atheism is: the null hypothesis, the neutral position.
If anyone, you're the one caught in a common misunderstanding.
It is not a belief, it's absence of one.
And yes that is rational as we have plenty of words in the English language that describes the absence of things: darkness, silence, blindness etc, etc.

Again, atheism is exactly what it says on the tin:
a- = without
theism = belief in deities.

It's not an -ism, but the absence of one. That's what the a- is for.
And the absence of a belief cannot be a belief by definition.

---------- Post added 7th Aug 2015 at 12:20 PM ----------

To emphasize why atheism makes sense as absence of belief: if there were not theists, there'd be no atheists either.

 

Just for the record here, I am not claiming any credentials directly for privacy reasons, but on top of being a musician I am also pretty knowledgeable in these issues. Particularly as such pertain to christians, philosophy and science. There are a lot of misconceptions surrounding these issues, certainly when one gets into the etymology and vernacular usage of words. If you want to get technical you can draw atheism back to kind of your meaning in that it is against theism, but that doesn't imply being a complete none believer in God's per say, rather in the revelation of such gods and the theology based upon which. Deism remains untouched. But this is not the vernacular usage of the word. It is a scale ranging from ceramic disbelief and considering it unlikely. Agnosticism is when you are unwilling to say either way, or that you think the very question has no meaning because we have no way to answer it. Note the big difference. An agnostic does not hold a firm point of view on the issue, they hold no belief. Whereas an atheist holds that in varying degrees of confidence that there is no God. That us equally a belief therefore because a claim is being made, but this belief can very in strength of conviction just like it can on the other side

Eta: however unlike religion it is not a belief system. It's a singular statement that the speaker considers to be likely true, not a set of beliefs.

 

Please read my answer above which I was typing when you posted this

Atheism is not a neutral position because a claim is being made.

 

I think you've got that confused. There is a positive belief in god (theism) and a negative belief in god. (I'll use the term antitheist for this example) While belief there is no god (antitheism) entails atheism, the lack of belief in god (atheism) does not necessarily entail belief in the non existence of god. (antitheism / the null hypothesis) You can still be an atheist that doesn't have a belief in god's non existence either. All that being an atheist means is that you don't have a belief in god/gods. While the null hypothesis makes sense pragmatically, it doesn't make sense, however, to believe or claim you know based on that null hypothesis.

 

So am I.

Ditto.

It was originally used as atheos, those without god, against pagans.
Grammatically, in the modern English language, it translates/reads as a-theism.

The only relevant point is that the only thing all atheists have in common, is the absence of belief in deities.
Some believe none exist, some claim to know none exist and some don't do either.
Still they are all atheists because they are not theists (or deists).

Not really, deism is a variation of theism, only in that case the god is non-personal/non-interfering.

False.
That's what theist apologists keep trying to make it so they can shif the burden of proof.
Atheism and theism are two opposites of a coin.
Both deal with belief, not knowledge or certainty.

False.
Firstly agnosticism literally means, without knowledge.
(a)theism deals with belief, not knowledge.
Secondly there is no middle ground.
One either has a belief in gods, or one doesn't.
You can't believe and not believe at the same time.
Finally, as someone knowledgeable about philsophy, surely you realise that not believing X =/= believing not X.

That's because agnosticism does not deal with belief in the first place, see the graphic representation above.
And if you don't believe, you're not a theist, which is English can be simply put as atheist.
Not-a-theist = atheist.

False, no matter how many times your repeat it.
I do not believe the defendant is guilty.
That does not mean I believe he is innocent to some degree.
Just that his guilt has not been demonstrated.
The same applies to atheism.
I do not believe a god or gods exist. Because I consider the god hypothesis unproven. That does not mean I believe gods are innocent, ie do not exist.

Again, being knoweldgeable about philosophy, you should be aware that not believing X =/= believing not X.

---------- Post added 7th Aug 2015 at 12:51 PM ----------

NervousAsHeck, watch this:
[YOUTUBE]sNDZb0KtJDk[/YOUTUBE]

 

Taking this even more technical and you can fibdvthis in any good text

There are basically two meaning to the word belief that are widely used academically

1) something you would consider to be the case
2) something you would consider to be the case without evidence to back it up. The later is one that is kind of vernacular, but is also being misused here

In order to provide evidence such that atheism would be inference rather than belief, that is in order to demonstrate that God is empirically false, they would have to be falsifiable, which they are not.therefore no scientific evidence can be brought to the table except against those areas of the holy book that do make such predictions. At which point one can start to demonstrate that the book is inaccurate and yes this is no longer a belief under the second definition but inference.

However God is not and thus holding that they don't exist classified as belief.

It's not actually a null hypothesis really, a null hypothesis makes no claims. By stating there IS no God you are making a claim.

Let's look at it this way , someone tells you there us an invisible elf in their garden. The proper answer is 'demonstrate it is there'. But you are only safe from belief so long as you don't claim it's not there, at which point you equally have to back up your claim.

 

Taking this even more technical and you can find this in any good text

There are basically two meaning to the word belief that are widely used academically

1) something you would consider to be the case
2) something you would consider to be the case without evidence to back it up. The later is one that is kind of vernacular, but is also being misused here

In order to provide evidence such that atheism would be inference rather than belief, that is in order to demonstrate that God is empirically false, they would have to be falsifiable, which they are not.therefore no scientific evidence can be brought to the table except against those areas of the holy book that do make such predictions. At which point one can start to demonstrate that the book is inaccurate and yes this is no longer a belief under the second definition but inference.

However God is not and thus holding that they don't exist classified as belief.

It's not actually a null hypothesis really, a null hypothesis makes no claims. By stating there IS no God you are making a claim.

Let's look at it this way , someone tells you there us an invisible elf in their garden. The proper answer is 'demonstrate it is there'. But you are only safe from belief so long as you don't claim it's not there, at which point you equally have to back up your claim.

---------- Post added 7th Aug 2015 at 03:14 AM ----------

I will watch when I am on a computer, but if its telling you this then it is philosophically inaccurate if relating to atheism. You can not believe and yes that is not a belief, but atheism as you describe is not a lack of belief, it's an active claim that there is not. That is the distinction you are not seeing

 

You accidentally double posted.

1 is justified (true) belief, the second is called faith.

If it's unfalsiable it's effectively meaningless.
Not to mention that the vast majority of religions and theist do make falsifiable claims about their gods.

It's not just scientific evidence, it's reason.
If you cannot provide rational arguments for your belief in the existence of a god, why should I believe it?

Except, for the umpteenth time, atheism is not the believe that God doesn't exist.
Which is in itself an Abrahamically biased phrasing.
(a)theism deals with gods in general, not just 'G'od.

:lol:
Atheism makes no claims, except that the person being an atheist is not a theist.

A rational discussion only works when both interlocutors actually read the others posts and adress what they post.
I've repeatedly pointed out to you that atheism is not "I believe there is no God.'
Firstly this betrays an Abrahamic bias.
Secondly atheism is non belief in the existence of god(s).
It's a- theism, without belief in gods.

And atheism in this analogy is "I do not believe your claim."
And again, as someone knolwedgeable about philosophy, you should be aware that not believing X =/= believing not X.

Again NervousAsHeck, watch the video I linked to above, it adresses many of the miconceptions and fallacies on which your arguments are based.

 

Oh I am well aware that this kind of thing gets abused by apologists, I am also well aware of how this gets abused by atheists as well. So lets get technical

A none belief in the Christian faith is not a belief unless you make the claim that it is wrong is the hypothesis.

The point comes when you make the objective claim . It is no longer a null hypothesis. Such would be 'that there us no reason to suggest that it's the case, but we can't prove it wrong'. This makes no claims. Contrast with 'there is no evidence so it is not the case'. The two are fundamentally different. In the former you assert nothing except that there is no reason currently to assert. The latter you are asserting.

Do you see the distinction I am making here. And one that does come straight from texts, not one of my own making.

Therefore whether or not it's a belief or not depends entirely on your position on the issue. A ceramic atheist is a believer in the none existence of God as it's sonethingbthey hold to be the case. Not sonething they are neutral on.

 

It really doesn't.

Have you watched the video yet?

Atheism is not non belief in the Christian faith.
It's non-belief in the existence of god(s).
Atheism is the statement: I do not believe the claim "God(s) exist."
That's it.

Not as an atheist.
As a skeptic, rationalist, empericist, perhaps, but not as an atheist.
Nor do all atheist bother making claims about gods.

Atheism is. It's the theism specific skeptical position.

Seriously NervousAsHeck, I'm trying to have pleasant and rational discussion with you.
This will be impossible if you insist attributing claims and positions to me I have not taken.

I have no objection to the distinction, I have an objection to you attributing claims and positions to me and other atheists that we have not taken.

False.
Please watch the videos and return me the courtesy of adressing my points, like I have yours.
The only thing all atheists have in common is the absence of belief in gods.
Some believe they don't exist, some claim to know they don't exist, some think the question nonsense, some hold no strong position either way, some have diffrerent positions depending on the specific god claim. The only thing they all are is not theists. They all do not believe a god or gods exist.