3 ms·

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 defini

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.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  > If you don't want confusion you spell out exactly what you mean instead of just using labels That's why I said "If you want to communicate the nuance of your beliefs without much explanation". Weak/strong atheism is another label too though, just a less known one. "Spelling it out" would be an explaining it. I've never heard of the strong/weak qualifiers and I would assume there are less people that have than have heard of agnosticism. It's a good classification of the spectrum of theism, but you would have to explain it, which is fine if you want an even higher degree of nuance vs the broader atheist / agnostic terms. You don't always need to communicate the nuance, sometimes you just need a quick general statement "oh no I'm atheist/agnostic" when asked if you're part of a religion or a similar scenario.

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.

hunterb123 5y ago
> If you don't want confusion you spell out exactly what you mean instead of just using labels That's why I said "If you want to communicate the nuance of your beliefs without much explanation". Weak/strong atheism is another label too though, just a less known one. "Spelling it out" would be an explaining it. I've never heard of the strong/weak qualifiers and I would assume there are less people that have than have heard of agnosticism. It's a good classification of the spectrum of theism, but you would have to explain it, which is fine if you want an even higher degree of nuance vs the broader atheist / agnostic terms. You don't always need to communicate the nuance, sometimes you just need a quick general statement "oh no I'm atheist/agnostic" when asked if you're part of a religion or a similar scenario.