Is there another category?

[jimmo100]

These definitions I'm quoting/paraphrasing from dictionary.com:

 

A theist is one who believes in the existence of a god or gods.

An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.

An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.

A Gnostic is a member of any of certain sects among the early Christians who claimed to have superior knowledge of spiritual matters, and explained the world as created by powers or agencies arising as emanations from the Godhead.

 

 

My question is isn't there another category?

 

Using the above definitions, theists believe, atheists deny, Gnostics claim superior knowledge and agnostics claim one cannot know anything about these things.

What about someone who admits to having no certainty on the subject of the existence of god or gods but who is open to persuasion?

 

[DCLugi]

Is there anything that this person would not be open to persuasion to?

[Will Torbald]

What do you mean by persuasion? If you mean open to reason and evidence, every rational person is open to it. Even an atheist would have to submit to the evidence of a god if there were such a thing.

[jimmo100]

 

Is there anything that this person would not be open to persuasion to?

 

No.

What do you mean by persuasion? If you mean open to reason and evidence, every rational person is open to it. Even an atheist would have to submit to the evidence of a god if there were such a thing.

What I mean by persuasion is having an increased knowingness and with that a high level of certainty.

 

So a person who claims to have no knowledge or certainty of the existence of a god or gods. But concedes there may some evidence that he has yet to see. Since one does not have all knowledge when entering the world and one does of course accumulate knowledge, awareness and certainty as he lives his life and makes observations for himself.

 

It seems to me he is very much like an agnostic i.e. one who does not claim knowledge, except he is unwilling to take the additional step of asserting he cannot know just because he does not know.

 

 

[dsayers]

Saying atheists deny is begging the question.

 

So a person who claims to have no knowledge or certainty of the existence of a god or gods. But concedes there may some evidence that he has yet to see.

This is either a superfluous position. We replaced the earth-centered model of the solar system when something that more accurately described the real world came along. If better evidence comes along, a rational thinker accepts this because he is committed to the truth, not one specific claim.

 

"has yet to see" is meaningless. Suppose ghosts exist. Either they will impress upon our senses or they will not. If they will, then we can measure and substantiate them. If they will not, then whether they exist or not would be functionally identical. A person who claims a deity exists makes many claims, not the least of which is that it INTERVENES. Because if it didn't, then for it to exist or not would be meaningless. And if it intervenes, this would be the evidence.

 

This very simple proof also serves to reveal that an agnostic is either cowardly or lazy. That is, either cowardly to denounce a deity out of fear of retribution from that deity, or too lazy to process that very simple proof. Not that it matters, but I once identified as agnostic, so this is not to throw stones, but speak truth.

[jimmo100]

Saying atheists deny is begging the question.

 

So, I take it you don't use this definition of atheist, then.

 

I was going to ask you to define an atheist so I know what you're talking about when you use the term but it may be better to start with your definition of 'theist'.

 

Is it(your definition of theist) any different to the one I quoted from dictionary.com?

[shirgall]

 

So, I take it you don't use this definition of atheist, then.

 

I was going to ask you to define an atheist so I know what you're talking about when you use the term but it may be better to start with your definition of 'theist'.

 

Is it(your definition of theist) any different to the one I quoted from dictionary.com?

 

A theist is one who makes the extraordinary claim that a god or gods exist. Atheists do not make such a claim.

[MrNlul77]

As I understand it,

 

A theist rejects logic and reason in their conclusion of the existence of a deity/god and uses faith as their basis.

 

An atheist bases their conclusion of the non existence of a deity/god on empirical evidence(lack of), logic and reason. If "evidence" of a deity were to exist then the atheist position would no longer be rational/valid.

 

My adoption of the atheist position is not my choice, its my acceptance of the nature of reality.

[Koroviev]

As Stef pointed out in one of his older videos (I think in the intro to philosophy series..maybe?) the word atheist comes from ancient Greece which was a religious society thus not believing in god/gods was against the norm. Therefore the word itself has negative connotations.

 

As for OPs question read I think the category you are looking for would be coward (see Against the Gods https://freedomainradio.com/free/).

[Will Torbald]

No.

What I mean by persuasion is having an increased knowingness and with that a high level of certainty.

 

So a person who claims to have no knowledge or certainty of the existence of a god or gods. But concedes there may some evidence that he has yet to see. Since one does not have all knowledge when entering the world and one does of course accumulate knowledge, awareness and certainty as he lives his life and makes observations for himself.

 

It seems to me he is very much like an agnostic i.e. one who does not claim knowledge, except he is unwilling to take the additional step of asserting he cannot know just because he does not know.

 

 

 

I think that the category you are looking for can be called "weak agnostic". There are "strong theists" and "weak theists". A strong theist would "know for sure" there is a god. A weak theist would "believe it on faith" there is a god. Same with strong atheists and weak atheists, where a strong would know for sure there is no god, and a weak would say there is no god, but he can't be sure a hundred percent. A strong agnostic would say he can't know whether there is or isn't, and a weak agnostic would say he doesn't know but could know.

[jimmo100]

A theist is one who makes the extraordinary claim that a god or gods exist. Atheists do not make such a claim.

 

Shirgall,

 

What, if anything, do you propose be done about such extraordinary claims?

I'm not trying to back you into a corner, here, just trying to get clarity for my own benefit. One of my all time heroes, the late Thomas Szasz, was a self-proclaimed atheist but I can't say for sure whether I know exactly what it means because even on this short thread there is more than one definition being used. Yours appears to be passive in the sense it a) makes no counter-claim and b) carries/is followed by no prescription for what ought to be done about extraordinary claims.

[Mister Mister]

I think I understand.  By a "Gnostic", you are referring to direct mystical experience, spiritual enlightenment, etc.  There's no question to me that this is a real phenomena, which I myself have briefly experienced, and I don't know how well it is understood.  But to me the problem lies in  what conclusions you draw from this kind of experience.  For example, Plato believed that the privileged few who experienced this mystical illumination, could not communicate it to the masses, and therefore had to rule as Philosopher Kings.  This kind of authoritarianism is very dangerous, and is the basis of most religions, from the Gurus of the Hindus, to Zoroaster or Christ or Buddha or Mohammed, they all believe that "their guy" had the divine revelation that we should all follow.  But the problem is that they didn't all say exactly the same thing?  So how do we deal with differences of opinion between mystics?  Without reason and evidence, how do you settle these disagreements?

If on the other hand, you believe you gained insights from your inner experiences, that you can then demonstrate to others, great!  The history of science is full of weird stories of random inspirations and epiphanies, that people later tested, and turned into real world results.  Similarly, many artists have turned these experiences into products that they believe can inspire others.  Here, the test is the market, how well people respond to it.  But that's the difference, they tested it.  If it can't be tested, it has no validity or usefulness in the real world.

[DCLugi]

No.

What I mean by persuasion is having an increased knowingness and with that a high level of certainty.

 

So a person who claims to have no knowledge or certainty of the existence of a god or gods. But concedes there may some evidence that he has yet to see. Since one does not have all knowledge when entering the world and one does of course accumulate knowledge, awareness and certainty as he lives his life and makes observations for himself.

 

It seems to me he is very much like an agnostic i.e. one who does not claim knowledge, except he is unwilling to take the additional step of asserting he cannot know just because he does not know.

 

 

By definition, god is outside of existence. Doesn't this answer whether god exists? If so then evidence doesn't apply because it's within the category of existing. 

[shirgall]

What, if anything, do you propose be done about such extraordinary claims?

 

 

Nothing. It's not my responsibility to tackle every extraordinary claim that comes along. Extraordinary claims require justification from those who make them.

 

If people use extraordinary claims to justify their actions towards others (especially me), that's a different matter.

[shirgall]

[jimmo100]

Nothing. It's not my responsibility to tackle every extraordinary claim that comes along. Extraordinary claims require justification from those who make them.

 

If people use extraordinary claims to justify their actions towards others (especially me), that's a different matter.

Okay. Interesting. But that is not what I was getting at.

 

What I meant was how or in what form would any tackling take place?

 

Again, you say extraordinary claims 'require' justification from those who make them, so what exactly are you proposing, should that justification not be forthcoming?

 

And you mention using extraordinary claims to justify actions towards others and yourself is different in the sense you would 'tackle' the claim.

 

Not trying to wind you up. I hope you don't think I am. But do you see what I'm trying to get at? There is something which is all important in my view which is not coming through in your narrative.

By definition, god is outside of existence. Doesn't this answer whether god exists? If so then evidence doesn't apply because it's within the category of existing. 

 

Ah. The first attempt to define god. (on this thread I mean, of course)

 

I think it is true that some people claim there are physical gods in existence. Both on this planet and elsewhere. You're aware of that, right? That there are those who specifically claim that their god is inside existence, to use your term. Of course this doesn't by itself invalidate your definition, I'm just pointing out that people have their own definition of god and hence there is more than one.

 

Using yours, I would say this definitely does answer the question, a priori. Although, as I say, others define god as existing, either physically or non-materially, too.

I think I understand.  By a "Gnostic", you are referring to direct mystical experience, spiritual enlightenment, etc.  There's no question to me that this is a real phenomena, which I myself have briefly experienced, and I don't know how well it is understood.  But to me the problem lies in  what conclusions you draw from this kind of experience.  For example, Plato believed that the privileged few who experienced this mystical illumination, could not communicate it to the masses, and therefore had to rule as Philosopher Kings.  This kind of authoritarianism is very dangerous, and is the basis of most religions, from the Gurus of the Hindus, to Zoroaster or Christ or Buddha or Mohammed, they all believe that "their guy" had the divine revelation that we should all follow.  But the problem is that they didn't all say exactly the same thing?  So how do we deal with differences of opinion between mystics?  Without reason and evidence, how do you settle these disagreements?

 

If on the other hand, you believe you gained insights from your inner experiences, that you can then demonstrate to others, great!  The history of science is full of weird stories of random inspirations and epiphanies, that people later tested, and turned into real world results.  Similarly, many artists have turned these experiences into products that they believe can inspire others.  Here, the test is the market, how well people respond to it.  But that's the difference, they tested it.  If it can't be tested, it has no validity or usefulness in the real world.

Rosecodex, I largely agree with you. Especially when you say the market is the test.

 

But I must add, I hope you are postulating, here. The market *should* be the test. But there are huge distortions in the current market, as far as I can see.

 

'So how do we deal with differences of opinion between mystics?  Without reason and evidence, how do you settle these disagreements?'

 

The answer I think is to shift the burden of responsibility (for knowing or suffering the consequences of not knowing and not mitigating against market risk) from the state(theocratic or otherwise) onto the individual, where it belongs.

 

So it's fine if you want to believe that a unicorn will appear in front of you wherever you may be every third new moon 10 minutes after the high-tide has turned, but if you swerve on the highway to avoid running it over and you acidently kill someone else, you are not excused from being punished under the law. You can't claim religious immunity under the mental health act (yes.... the mental health lobby really does want to define religious adherence as a 'mental illness'). The state has always wanted arbitrary rule.... it will happily give you all the freedom you want, as long as you get its permission first.

 

In my view, all non-coercive religions are fine.... because, where property rights are properly defined and defended, the price for bad decision making cannot be externalized onto others.

 

This is the goal, it is not where we are. There are elements which show these incentives work in our current system but markets are not free, currently. Not sure if you agree.

[A4E]

On wiki for Agnosticism, section 1.3 (types) you can read about strong and weak. Is that what you are looking for?

 

There is also agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism. And there is nontheism.

[jimmo100]

On wiki for Agnosticism, section 1.3 (types) you can read about strong and weak. Is that what you are looking for?

 

There is also agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism. And there is nontheism.

 

It may be what I'm looking for.

 

Which wiki is that? Could you post a link, please?

[dsayers]

 

So, I take it you don't use this definition of atheist, then.

 

I was going to ask you to define an atheist so I know what you're talking about when you use the term but it may be better to start with your definition of 'theist'.

 

Is it(your definition of theist) any different to the one I quoted from dictionary.com?

Pointing out that the definition is begging the question has nothing to do with me. Yet here you are trying to personalize it. Chronologically, the question would be why you would accept/repeat a definition that is problematic?

[A4E]

It may be what I'm looking for.

 

Which wiki is that? Could you post a link, please?

 

Agnosticism

[Troubador]

@RoseCodex Gnosticism is one of those fancy classical words for knowledge, in much the same way they had different words to define love phile being a love between friends that you see tacked on with things like audiophile, you even see it with the word philosophy meaning "friend or lover of wisdom". Agape being a divine love gnosis is a form of divine knowledge.

 

In a historical context the gnostic sect of Christianity the cathars believed the abrahamic God was in fact more akin to the devil and had control of the material world, but there was some sort of benign and compassionate divinity outside of creation that sought to pierce people's delusions and illusions to achieve liberation, which is almost eastern in it's approach to spirituality.

 

I see you are talking about an individual's personal direct experience of the divine, which is of course a qualification of gnosis. That is also coincidentally the vector I experience my own beliefs from, I believe because I have experiences that have led me there, not because an old book tells me or a supposed holy man tells me it is so.

 

Two additional things it is worth pointing out at this stage 1. I have form for being wrong about things. 2. There is the very real problem that I may very well be balls to the wall apeshit spaceman insane. Therefore I'd say anything I say on the subject of spiritually should be taken with a massive dose of scepticism.

 

I am personally quite irreligious, we have all seen how bad things can get when blind faith is used by the powerful to hoodwink the impressionable, perhaps counter intuitively the best reaction to people like me should be to view us as the archetypal fools/madmen spouting nonsense on hilltops...

[jimmo100]

Pointing out that the definition is begging the question has nothing to do with me. Yet here you are trying to personalize it. Chronologically, the question would be why you would accept/repeat a definition that is problematic?

 

dsayer, I'm not personalizing it by asking for the definition you personally use, am I?

 

Why would I accept or repeat a definition that is problematic?

 

Well, I have never properly looked into the atheist position. That is to say this is the first time I'm actively engaging with atheists to understand their position.

 

I'd like to think most people agree that a back and forth on an atheist forum should help to iron out any inconsistencies and fallacies.

 

If I had all the answers I wouldn't have bothered starting the thread.

 

Work with me on this. More clarity is my goal. If you are worried I'm out to attack you, you may have to take that(my goal) on faith for the moment.

 

Definitions differ occasionally. Right? I'm not deliberately trying to mischaracterise your position.

 

Others have dived in and offered me theirs. That diving in works for me. I get a better sense of where atheists are coming from and also where I can or do not relate. That's all.

 

So, please, can you give me your definition of atheism (the definition you use or you think is the proper one to use). Otherwise, how would I know what your position is?

Agnosticism

Okay, thanks.

 

I'd say that, the definition: 'Agnosticism is the view that, the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable'

 

is one at odds with the one I quoted from dictionary.com: 'An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.'

 

Do you agree that these are very different from one another?

 

The first one says 'perhaps' unknowable. It would not lead to criticism of honest speculation or inquiry. Using this definition, even a theist should be free to make unsubstantiated claims. 'Perhaps' it is possible to know.

 

The second 'it is impossible to know' could lead to over-defensive behaviour in that it is rather more prescriptive. It tells others the way it is.

 

Do you have any thoughts on that?

@RoseCodex Gnosticism is one of those fancy classical words for knowledge, in much the same way they had different words to define love phile being a love between friends that you see tacked on with things like audiophile, you even see it with the word philosophy meaning "friend or lover of wisdom". Agape being a divine love gnosis is a form of divine knowledge.

 

In a historical context the gnostic sect of Christianity the cathars believed the abrahamic God was in fact more akin to the devil and had control of the material world, but there was some sort of benign and compassionate divinity outside of creation that sought to pierce people's delusions and illusions to achieve liberation, which is almost eastern in it's approach to spirituality.

 

I see you are talking about an individual's personal direct experience of the divine, which is of course a qualification of gnosis. That is also coincidentally the vector I experience my own beliefs from, I believe because I have experiences that have led me there, not because an old book tells me or a supposed holy man tells me it is so.

 

Two additional things it is worth pointing out at this stage 1. I have form for being wrong about things. 2. There is the very real problem that I may very well be balls to the wall apeshit spaceman insane. Therefore I'd say anything I say on the subject of spiritually should be taken with a massive dose of scepticism.

 

I am personally quite irreligious, we have all seen how bad things can get when blind faith is used by the powerful to hoodwink the impressionable, perhaps counter intuitively the best reaction to people like me should be to view us as the archetypal fools/madmen spouting nonsense on hilltops...

I like that.

I think that the category you are looking for can be called "weak agnostic". There are "strong theists" and "weak theists". A strong theist would "know for sure" there is a god. A weak theist would "believe it on faith" there is a god. Same with strong atheists and weak atheists, where a strong would know for sure there is no god, and a weak would say there is no god, but he can't be sure a hundred percent. A strong agnostic would say he can't know whether there is or isn't, and a weak agnostic would say he doesn't know but could know.

Ah, that is much clearer.

 

Although the use of 'weak' and 'strong' could alienate some. I tend to think of weak as ineffectual. Which of course is not necessarily an insult, but it would probably be taken as such by an effective communicator who makes a concerted effort to refrain from making assertions he hadn't carefully and dutifully thought through. Such refrain might take hard work and come at some cost and hence could be considered to require some strength of character, courage even.

 

Saying I don't know, at least leaves the door open to further exploration, speculation investigation. That to me is more honest. More effectual, if you really want to get to the point where you *can* say you know.

 

Claiming knowledge prematurely kinda shuts that door and keeps it shut because you are from then on on the defensive.

 

Nicely put, though, Will. Thanks

[dsayers]

Deny in the context of determining truth means to be presented with facts and reject them for no rational reason. What facts does an atheist reject? If you cannot answer this, then you must concede that saying that atheists deny is problematic.

[jimmo100]

Deny in the context of determining truth means to be presented with facts and reject them for no rational reason. What facts does an atheist reject? If you cannot answer this, then you must concede that saying that atheists deny is problematic.

 

Okay, but now we're on to defining what atheism isn't. Wouldn't it be easier to define what it is?

 

I can't know what facts an atheist would reject if I don't know what your definition of 'atheist' is.

 

ps. at no point did I say I accept dictionary.com's definition as valid or broadly representative. I just used it as a starting point. I made no assertion that it was accurate.

[shirgall]

Okay, but now we're on to defining what atheism isn't. Wouldn't it be easier to define what it is?

 

I can't know what facts an atheist would reject if I don't know what your definition of 'atheist' is.

 

ps. at no point did I say I accept dictionary.com's definition as valid or broadly representative. I just used it as a starting point. I made no assertion that it was accurate.

 

We've given a definition in this thread already. "A theist is one who makes the extraordinary claim that a god or gods exist. Atheists do not make such a claim."

[Will Torbald]

Okay, but now we're on to defining what atheism isn't. Wouldn't it be easier to define what it is?

 

I can't know what facts an atheist would reject if I don't know what your definition of 'atheist' is.

 

ps. at no point did I say I accept dictionary.com's definition as valid or broadly representative. I just used it as a starting point. I made no assertion that it was accurate.

 

An atheist is a person who doesn't have the belief that a personal god created the universe, life, and all natural things. It just means that, an absence of belief. In that sense, even an agnostic is an atheist since that person doesn't believe in a god either.

[AccuTron]

Shirgall,

 

What, if anything, do you propose be done about such extraordinary claims?

I'm not trying to back you into a corner, here, just trying to get clarity for my own benefit. One of my all time heroes, the late Thomas Szasz, was a self-proclaimed atheist but I can't say for sure whether I know exactly what it means because even on this short thread there is more than one definition being used. Yours appears to be passive in the sense it a) makes no counter-claim and b) carries/is followed by no prescription for what ought to be done about extraordinary claims.

What is to be done about the claims of the existence of the Easter Bunny?  Oh me oh my, what shall I do?  Oh well, if I had kids I'd send them to Easter Bunny schools because they do good at readin' and writin'.

[dsayers]

A theist is one who makes the extraordinary claim that a god or gods exist. Atheists do not make such a claim.

This is why I abhor labels in the first place. Like, how useful would it be to anybody if I was labeled a non-Santa Clausist? Summing somebody up based on how they process one thing is the epitome of imprecision.

[shirgall]

This is why I abhor labels in the first place. Like, how useful would it be to anybody if I was labeled a non-Santa Clausist? Summing somebody up based on how they process one thing is the epitome of imprecision.

 

Is there any other attribute that unifies atheists than that they do not make the claim that gods exist?

[dsayers]

No, I agree with your definition, and upvoted that post for being concise and accurate.

[jimmo100]

We've given a definition in this thread already. "A theist is one who makes the extraordinary claim that a god or gods exist. Atheists do not make such a claim."

Shirgall, the reply you quoted was meant for dsayers, specifically.

 

He took specific exception to the dictionary.com definition of atheist, so I was asking for a definition he was happy to use.

 

I see he has now - apparently as of a few minutes ago - made his understanding/interpretation clear i.e. he agrees with your definition.

 

p.s. Up until now I wasn't sure you spoke for him.

[jimmo100]

An atheist is a person who doesn't have the belief that a personal god created the universe, life, and all natural things. It just means that, an absence of belief. In that sense, even an agnostic is an atheist since that person doesn't believe in a god either.

Yes, I hear you, Will.

 

It seems there is some overlap. That is to say it is not clear enough. And I wonder if this overlap in definitions isn't preventing any potential agreement from being reached.

 

Some atheists are clearly taking the additional step of saying, 'not only am I not claiming there is a god, but I am also making the explicit claim that there is no god.'

 

It is this extra step I don't relate well to. But only in so far as it is followed up by the implication that the NAP be justifiably violated in response to extraordinary claims. Which is why I raised the question earlier, about what, if anything, ought to be done about such claims.

 

Should someone be free, legally to make extraordinary claims, assuming for the sake of the argument that the society - in which these claims are being made - has laws/rules which can be used to punish or deter theft and violence?

[shirgall]

Some atheists are clearly taking the additional step of saying, 'not only am I not claiming there is a god, but I am also making the explicit claim that there is no god.'

 

It is this extra step I don't relate well to. But only in so far as it is followed up by the implication that the NAP be justifiably violated in response to extraordinary claims. Which is why I raised the question earlier, about what, if anything, ought to be done about such claims.

 

Should someone be free, legally to make extraordinary claims, assuming for the sake of the argument that the society - in which these claims are being made - has laws/rules which can be used to punish or deter theft and violence?

 

 

People can make extraordinary claims, but they have to justify them.

 

For example, when one makes a claim of self-defense, one is making the claim, "Yes, I harmed that person, but I was right to do so." The burden of proof shifts to you.

 

When one has to prove a negative, "gods do not exist" they take on the burden of proof. Now, some things are easy, like when theists have a series of claims that when taken together are contradictory and therefore impossible, but other things are harder. The so-called "strong" atheists claim there can be no gods, but that basically assumes that every definition of "gods" is self-contradictory. Proving that is a lot of groundwork with no tangible reward.

[Will Torbald]

People can make extraordinary claims, but they have to justify them.

 

For example, when one makes a claim of self-defense, one is making the claim, "Yes, I harmed that person, but I was right to do so." The burden of proof shifts to you.

 

When one has to prove a negative, "gods do not exist" they take on the burden of proof. Now, some things are easy, like when theists have a series of claims that when taken together are contradictory and therefore impossible, but other things are harder. The so-called "strong" atheists claim there can be no gods, but that basically assumes that every definition of "gods" is self-contradictory. Proving that is a lot of groundwork with no tangible reward.

As a strong atheist advocate I'd say it's not a lot of groundwork to do when a god that isn't contradicting or supernatural is indistinguishable from a space alien. In that case all you'd have to do is point that out.

[jimmo100]

People can make extraordinary claims, but they have to justify them.

 

For example, when one makes a claim of self-defense, one is making the claim, "Yes, I harmed that person, but I was right to do so." The burden of proof shifts to you.

 

When one has to prove a negative, "gods do not exist" they take on the burden of proof. Now, some things are easy, like when theists have a series of claims that when taken together are contradictory and therefore impossible, but other things are harder. The so-called "strong" atheists claim there can be no gods, but that basically assumes that every definition of "gods" is self-contradictory. Proving that is a lot of groundwork with no tangible reward.

Assuming someone is free, legally, to make extraordinary claims about the existence of a god, there is no burden of proof.

 

A burden of proof is only ever required in the case of a violation or alleged violation of the NAP.

 

Making claims as to the existence of a god or gods does not violate the NAP, therefore there is no burden of proof on the person making the claim.