4 ms·

You're thinking of agnosticism. Atheism is the assertion there is no God. A-theism. But it's a highly debated topic itself (as most things are in this realm).

You're thinking of agnosticism. Atheism is the assertion there is no God. A-theism. But it's a highly debated topic itself (as most things are in this realm). In general though, people mean it as they don't believe in God, and use agnosticism to indicate they do not believe one way or another.

honkycat 5y ago
People can interpret Athiesm in different ways, and I was a bit clumsy by asserting anything about Athiesm in a broad sense, since there is no category or group of people who all have the same opinions and interpretations of Athiesm. However, by dictionary definition and from citing Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities." Anti-theism is the assertion there is no god. The prefix "a" can mean "not" or "without." "anti" means "against", "opposite of." So no, it is not the assertion there are no deities. It is an absence of the belief in any deities. The perspective I am arguing from is that there is no other coherent argument to be made about the existence of deities. We cannot currently prove there is no god. We cannot currently prove there is a god.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  As I said it's a debated topic, you have to use the interpretation of what people mean, not the broadest one. Wikipedia's first sentence is the broadest definition but not the de-facto, the second sentence you left out shows that. If you don't want confusion you'd want to use atheism for belief no God exist and agnosticism to indicate you don't feel one way or another. Which I believe is what most people do. Otherwise you start a semantic debate which is as pointless as a religious one. If you want to communicate the nuance of your beliefs without much explanation, use the two different words, otherwise use atheism as an umbrella term, which is what the "broadest sense" wikipedia is hinting at.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - honkycat 5y ago
    I'm not a philosopher by any means but the interpretation of Atheism I presented above is widely used. Specifically by Matt Dillahunty and a lot of modern Atheist. I wouldn't be against an interpretation of agnosticism that is functionally identical to my interpretation of atheism, but at a certain point one word to describe a world-view is never going to be sufficient and explanation of the nuance is going to be required. You can say "Christianity" and you would be referencing both the Westborough Baptist Church and Christian Unitarian Universalists. I already described in detail in my first comment my interpretation of Atheism so I don't know where confusion could possibly come in. Therefore, I reject your premise that I "have to use the interpretation of what people mean, not the broadest one" because: - that varies from person to person and I cannot read people's minds. - Your interpretation is not universal - the interpretation I presented is actually quite widely understood and common. So while you are correct that I cannot assert "Atheism is X", you are wrong that I am wrong. Also you are the one having the pointless semantic debate about something I already explained and clarified in my first comment. Call me agnostic I don't care, even though an interpretation of agnosticism is that god CANNOT be proven, which is NOT what I said.
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      You started the semantic debate with GP. > So while you are correct that I cannot assert "Atheism is X" Yes, that is my point. You said "Atheism is (not an assertion that there is no god = X)" > you are wrong that I am wrong. You are wrong that GP is wrong. Everyone is also right.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    > If you don't want confusion you'd want to use atheism for belief no God exist and agnosticism to indicate you don't feel one way or another. Which I believe is what most people do. If you don't want confusion you spell out exactly what you mean instead of just using labels, since both "atheism" and "agnosticism" cover broad ranges of beliefs. With that said, "strong atheism" is generally understood to be a positive belief that there are no gods, "weak atheism" is understood as a passive lack of believe in the existence of god(s)—but with a bias against their existence in the absence of compelling evidence. "Agnosticism" meanwhile can be either a synonym for weak atheism (mostly through misuse IMHO) or the belief that it is impossible for anyone to know whether or not god(s) exist—with the connotation that equal weight should be given to both possibilities. The most scientific of the three positions is weak atheism. Strong atheism makes claims which can't be supported by the available evidence, or possibly by any amount of evidence, while granting equal weight to mundane and extraordinary claims runs counter to the scientific principle of seeking the simplest possible explanation consistent with the observations.
- nybble41 5y ago
  > Anti-theism is the assertion there is no god. The prefix "a" can mean "not" or "without." "anti" means "against", "opposite of." Anti-theism, read literally, seems more like the position that god(s) exist and should be opposed. It's not a common belief system, but one can put together a plausible storyline where God is just a supremely powerful entity with neutral or negative disposition toward humanity but with a good Public Relations system. Given the claims of omniscience and omnipotence, how could one distinguish perfect propaganda from truth? One work of fiction I recall described a belief system which was a mirror image of Christianity holding that Satan actually rebelled against a negligent or malicious God for humanity's sake, fighting on our side but losing in the end—but as they say, history is written by the victors. It's an interesting thought exercise, anyway.
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    Gnosticism, for example, might be considered anti-theist by some.
  - psyc 5y ago
    > Satan actually rebelled against a negligent or malicious God for humanity's sake I doubt it's the one you're thinking of, but this was also the gist of Memnoch the Devil, the 5th Vampire Chronicles book.
    - nybble41 5y ago
      Not the same one, no. I was referring to a passage from chapter 4 of March to the Stars by David Weber and John Ringo[0] where the character Kosutic attempts to explain how a version of Satanism became the majority religion of his home planet, which had originally been settled by mostly Roman Catholics, following a religious schism. If you're interested, you can find a free copy of March to the Stars in the Baen CD which accompanied Storm from the Shadows, available here[1]. (These CDs were issued along with certain printed books, with a license from the publisher to redistribute them, as a means of advertisement.) Unfortunately there is no longer a direct link to the book available on this site; you have to download the full CD. [0] https://www.baen.com/march-to-the-stars.html https://www.baen.com/march-to-the-stars.html [1] https://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/ https://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

honkycat 5y ago

People can interpret Athiesm in different ways, and I was a bit clumsy by asserting anything about Athiesm in a broad sense, since there is no category or group of people who all have the same opinions and interpretations of Athiesm. However, by dictionary definition and from citing Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities." Anti-theism is the assertion there is no god. The prefix "a" can mean "not" or "without." "anti" means "against", "opposite of." So no, it is not the assertion there are no deities. It is an absence of the belief in any deities. The perspective I am arguing from is that there is no other coherent argument to be made about the existence of deities. We cannot currently prove there is no god. We cannot currently prove there is a god.

hunterb123 5y ago
As I said it's a debated topic, you have to use the interpretation of what people mean, not the broadest one. Wikipedia's first sentence is the broadest definition but not the de-facto, the second sentence you left out shows that. If you don't want confusion you'd want to use atheism for belief no God exist and agnosticism to indicate you don't feel one way or another. Which I believe is what most people do. Otherwise you start a semantic debate which is as pointless as a religious one. If you want to communicate the nuance of your beliefs without much explanation, use the two different words, otherwise use atheism as an umbrella term, which is what the "broadest sense" wikipedia is hinting at.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- honkycat 5y ago
  I'm not a philosopher by any means but the interpretation of Atheism I presented above is widely used. Specifically by Matt Dillahunty and a lot of modern Atheist. I wouldn't be against an interpretation of agnosticism that is functionally identical to my interpretation of atheism, but at a certain point one word to describe a world-view is never going to be sufficient and explanation of the nuance is going to be required. You can say "Christianity" and you would be referencing both the Westborough Baptist Church and Christian Unitarian Universalists. I already described in detail in my first comment my interpretation of Atheism so I don't know where confusion could possibly come in. Therefore, I reject your premise that I "have to use the interpretation of what people mean, not the broadest one" because: - that varies from person to person and I cannot read people's minds. - Your interpretation is not universal - the interpretation I presented is actually quite widely understood and common. So while you are correct that I cannot assert "Atheism is X", you are wrong that I am wrong. Also you are the one having the pointless semantic debate about something I already explained and clarified in my first comment. Call me agnostic I don't care, even though an interpretation of agnosticism is that god CANNOT be proven, which is NOT what I said.
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    You started the semantic debate with GP. > So while you are correct that I cannot assert "Atheism is X" Yes, that is my point. You said "Atheism is (not an assertion that there is no god = X)" > you are wrong that I am wrong. You are wrong that GP is wrong. Everyone is also right.
- nybble41 5y ago
  > If you don't want confusion you'd want to use atheism for belief no God exist and agnosticism to indicate you don't feel one way or another. Which I believe is what most people do. If you don't want confusion you spell out exactly what you mean instead of just using labels, since both "atheism" and "agnosticism" cover broad ranges of beliefs. With that said, "strong atheism" is generally understood to be a positive belief that there are no gods, "weak atheism" is understood as a passive lack of believe in the existence of god(s)—but with a bias against their existence in the absence of compelling evidence. "Agnosticism" meanwhile can be either a synonym for weak atheism (mostly through misuse IMHO) or the belief that it is impossible for anyone to know whether or not god(s) exist—with the connotation that equal weight should be given to both possibilities. The most scientific of the three positions is weak atheism. Strong atheism makes claims which can't be supported by the available evidence, or possibly by any amount of evidence, while granting equal weight to mundane and extraordinary claims runs counter to the scientific principle of seeking the simplest possible explanation consistent with the observations.
nybble41 5y ago
> Anti-theism is the assertion there is no god. The prefix "a" can mean "not" or "without." "anti" means "against", "opposite of." Anti-theism, read literally, seems more like the position that god(s) exist and should be opposed. It's not a common belief system, but one can put together a plausible storyline where God is just a supremely powerful entity with neutral or negative disposition toward humanity but with a good Public Relations system. Given the claims of omniscience and omnipotence, how could one distinguish perfect propaganda from truth? One work of fiction I recall described a belief system which was a mirror image of Christianity holding that Satan actually rebelled against a negligent or malicious God for humanity's sake, fighting on our side but losing in the end—but as they say, history is written by the victors. It's an interesting thought exercise, anyway.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  Gnosticism, for example, might be considered anti-theist by some.
- psyc 5y ago
  > Satan actually rebelled against a negligent or malicious God for humanity's sake I doubt it's the one you're thinking of, but this was also the gist of Memnoch the Devil, the 5th Vampire Chronicles book.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    Not the same one, no. I was referring to a passage from chapter 4 of March to the Stars by David Weber and John Ringo[0] where the character Kosutic attempts to explain how a version of Satanism became the majority religion of his home planet, which had originally been settled by mostly Roman Catholics, following a religious schism. If you're interested, you can find a free copy of March to the Stars in the Baen CD which accompanied Storm from the Shadows, available here[1]. (These CDs were issued along with certain printed books, with a license from the publisher to redistribute them, as a means of advertisement.) Unfortunately there is no longer a direct link to the book available on this site; you have to download the full CD. [0] https://www.baen.com/march-to-the-stars.html https://www.baen.com/march-to-the-stars.html [1] https://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/ https://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]