The definitions of these terms are the starting point to any discussion on the subject. We can't have a meaningful conversation if each person is defining the terms differently. However, it can be thoroughly exhausting to keep going back to this basic question over and over and over again. Unfortunately, it seems there is very little understanding of these terms and definitions in the general population so the problem isn't going to go away unless we someone educate the world. Will that happen? I doubt.

In the intro thread to this new forum a new BookTalk.org members made a comment about the definitions of atheism vs. agnosticism. I've never even heard anyone present such a perspective so I found it interesting. I've never heard anyone attempt to define atheism or agnosticism in terms of "like" or "dislike" of a deity. Neither atheism or agnosticism have anything to do with how we "feel" about a deity.

This makes me realize that the closest term matching the definition of "doesn't like" God is Satanist. People that believe in God but reject him because they feel he doesn't represent their best interest or their personal values are often Satanists. I'm aware that Anton LaVeyian Satanists don't necessarily believe in an actual entity called God.

Agreeing on a definition would be nice, Chris, but can we expect anything very specific? I'm just thinking that even for the word "Christian," there are different takes on what that essentially is. People have a way of customizing "Christian," so that, as strange as it might seem, belief in the divinity of Christ might not be present in a "Christian." I think social roles are a more important element than any absolute definition that might be claimed for a term. Atheists are not going to have the same view of what they are all about. There will be a "family resemblance," though, a kind of unity in diversity.

"Agnosticism" typically refers to lack of knowledge of God's existence while "atheism" has to do with lack of belief of God's existence. So the terms address two different things.

Not long ago I came up with a model of belief which we've discussed here before, but maybe is worth bringing up again. My model is in the form of a spectrum or continuum of beliefs based on two dimensions: gnosticism/agnosticism (i.e., certainty or uncertainty) and theism/atheism (i.e., belief or non-belief).



Thus, according to this model:

Gnostic Theist - claims certain knowledge that God exists.
Agnostic Theist - knows there is no evidence to support the notion that God exists, but chooses to believe anyway.
Agnostic Atheist - knows there is no evidence to support the notion that God exists, and therefore chooses to not believe in God.
Gnostic Atheist - claims certain knowledge that God does not exist.

Granted, I'm misusing the word "gnostic" here.

I would argue that the two middle positions are the most reasonable because they acknowledge that we simply don't have evidence to support belief in a deity. The "gnostic" positions are more fundamentalist, governed by black-and-white thinking. A Fundamentalist Christian, for example, has very definite ideas about the God they believe in, i.e. as depicted in the Bible. And a "gnostic" atheist would have very definite ideas that there is no possibility of a God.

Just food for thought.

I love this chart, Geo.

DWill, you're right that there are as many ways to define atheism and agnosticism as there are people it seems, but we cannot avoid the discussion altogether. We might never find common ground with the definitions, but at least we know, by broaching the subject, that we're defining the terms differently.

I enjoyed the chart as well. I would like to add that my comments at the beginning of this forum (in refuting that atheists "dislike" god) should probably be found here. I included my definition of religion as my (probably personal) type of atheism includes the fact that I don't believe in religion, which is why I included a definition of religion. I also find that it seems that, in America, atheism is apllied frequently to meaning not believing in the Christian god whereas I certainly extend it to its full meaning of not believing in ANY god.
Agnostics tend to stay on the safe side and say that, given some legitimate proof, they are willing to sit back and re-group and contend that there is a god whereas atheists -- at least me-- cannot logically conceive of any proof ever being available and thus reject the idea of god entirely.
Oooooh, going to enjoy this forum! (I see the need for somePR here, especially if someone thinks atheism is "disliking or being against" god).

To be fair, by definition, no one can have "knowledge" of the existence of a higher being or lack thereof. I used to consider myself an atheist until I took a Critical Theory class and realized that to not believe is a lot harder to prove than it is to prove it. If I considered myself anything it would be an agnostic- having no knowledge of a God - because it is, like I said, by definition impossible to have knowledge that there is no God. Instead, I choose to consider myself an Evolutionist Realist, because I have first hand knowledge that it exists and there is empirical proof to back it up. I know this is sort of confusing, but it's just my take on it.

We might need to take into account that some people have a concept of "God" that believers would consider atheistic. Stephen Hawking speaks of finding "the mind of God," but this doesn't make him a theist. Dawkins made it clear that he wasn't addressing these philosphical concepts that people might want to call God. He, and I think we, are talking about a creator who then assumed a master-controller and monitor role for every human being.

A sticking point regarding my own stance has been that, while I'm certain in my own mind that there is no God out there, that I don't have a noncorporeal soul, and that my bodily death ends it for me, I don't feel comfortable with extending this personal certainty outward, saying that this is also the reality for you and you. This could be from a lack of assertiveness, I guess, but I also have a liberal attitude toward what people choose to believe. It doesn't matter to me that my neighbor believes in God. There's no harm in it, and for him it even seems to be a good thing. This is essentially Thos. Jefferson's position ("it matters not to me whether my neighbor believes in no god or twenty").

Some atheists, however, think that belief in God is not benign or even neutral, but harmful, and that therefore they need to speak out against it. Others, probably the majority, are okay to live and let live, but just want to be able to say they don't believe without being reviled by religious people. That isn't asking much, it seems, but at least in the U.S. it's a long way off. It was a hopeful sign that Pres. Obama included nonbelievers in his plea for tolerance back when he was inaugurated.

DWill, that is a really good stance on things, I have often felt the same way about the idea of souls and death. I also acknowledge that even amongst the atheist and agnostic groups, everyone has a different idea about things.

I have also never been an anti-christian person. I have lots of friends that believe strongly in the idea of a God or higher power, and I really like hearing their takes on things, makes for great debate and conversation. The only time I am ever opposed to religion and God however is when it comes to the Evangelical movement (I just posted a new topic about it, if you want to read more) and if this is hypocritical, I guess it just is, because I can't help but feel that religion is great, until it is being changed into a hate movement. It seems that when it becomes a rally against the masses, it is no longer a religion, would God approve of what they do? I have no idea.

hmrush,
I agree with your saying religion is interesting as long as no hate comes out of it. I find it fascinating and would be a fool not too considering how it forms and influences so many aspects of culture, inc.language. I have friends and family from several different religions. What we accept about each other is respect for each other and each other's beliefs/ non-beliefs and getting a different take on things, on life. And I think that may be the key.

hmrush wrote:To be fair, by definition, no one can have "knowledge" of the existence of a higher being or lack thereof. I used to consider myself an atheist until I took a Critical Theory class and realized that to not believe is a lot harder to prove than it is to prove it. If I considered myself anything it would be an agnostic- having no knowledge of a God - because it is, like I said, by definition impossible to have knowledge that there is no God. Instead, I choose to consider myself an Evolutionist Realist, because I have first hand knowledge that it exists and there is empirical proof to back it up. I know this is sort of confusing, but it's just my take on it.

I see this as a semantic dodge from using the word "atheist" which is so repugnant in our Christian-slanted society. Most atheists would probably agree with you completely that since there is no knowledge of God there is no reason to believe in one. Many people choose to call themselves "agnostic" for this very reason, but if you look at the word "a-theist" all it means is without belief. It doesn't mean actively disbelieving, nor does it mean one who attacks believers. If some actual evidence came along to support the existence of a deity, most atheists would change their tune as well because their beliefs simply have to be based on something. In fact, the "gnostic atheist" on the chart above is probably a rare breed. I'm pretty sure I've never talked with one, whereas we've all come into contact with Fundamentalists who have a very rigid notion of God based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

DWill wrote:A sticking point regarding my own stance has been that, while I'm certain in my own mind that there is no God out there, that I don't have a noncorporeal soul, and that my bodily death ends it for me, I don't feel comfortable with extending this personal certainty outward, saying that this is also the reality for you and you. This could be from a lack of assertiveness, I guess, but I also have a liberal attitude toward what people choose to believe. It doesn't matter to me that my neighbor believes in God. There's no harm in it, and for him it even seems to be a good thing. This is essentially Thos. Jefferson's position ("it matters not to me whether my neighbor believes in no god or twenty").

Some atheists, however, think that belief in God is not benign or even neutral, but harmful, and that therefore they need to speak out against it. Others, probably the majority, are okay to live and let live, but just want to be able to say they don't believe without being reviled by religious people. That isn't asking much, it seems, but at least in the U.S. it's a long way off. It was a hopeful sign that Pres. Obama included nonbelievers in his plea for tolerance back when he was inaugurated.

Yes, this is a distinction amongst atheists, those have a live-and-let-live attitude and those who feel religion is actively harmful. From my own perspective, I have something of a knee-jerk reaction against the mindless bias against atheists that is so prevalent in our society. I feel that people are free to believe in whatever they want and that such beliefs are highly personal. A person's spiritual beliefs are actually no one's business at all. However, we see a prevailing attitude of Christian group think in our country that should NOT be tolerated. There is something of a movement by certain Fundamentalist sects to teach creationism and intelligent design in the schools, to say Christian prayers at city council meetings (which they do in the town I live), hand out Bibles to children in the classroom (which they still do in Tennessee), and say prayers before children's sports games which I find just plain offensive. And there are certain politicians who are willing to pay lip service to various Christian ideologies and even use religion to justify certain actions such as war. I think reasonable people, whether they are theists or atheists, should firmly come down on these kinds of behaviors. Many mention Richard Dawkins as being fervently anti-religion, but I think most of what he does is fight against status quo, the tacit special considerations given to religion that we don't even think about.