RCAlyra2004

I have searched and found a lot of talk about what people beleive but this thread is meant to be a little different.

I would like to propose three definitions for three terms often discussed in this forum. Please debate freely on the definitions I offer up here, but remember this thread is NOT about whether or not you beleive or don;t beleive or doubt etc. It's about the definitions we use.. and defining them clearly. I hope that it will help make some of these threads a little clearer.

1.Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively disbelieving in the existence of deities. Atheism is not necessarily an entrenched position against a deity, but it can be. Atheism is often described as "not seing any evidence for" any deities.

2. Agnosticism is the philosophical and theological view that spiritual truths, such as the existence of God, gods or deities, is either unknown or inherently unknowable. Like atheism it is not necessarily an entrenched position against a deity, but it can be. (eg. the statement "We can never know for sure") Agnosticism is often described as being in a position of logically refusing to accept evidence, perceived or real. It is also described as "just not knowing for sure".

3.Theism is the belief in one or more gods or goddesses. More specifically, it may also mean the belief in God, a god, or gods, who is/are actively involved in maintaining the Universe. This is most often an entrenched position where the beleiver in the deity(s) states why they beleive, including the perceived or real evidence that the diety(s) exist and interact with the universe.

So there the definitions are... lets have at it. I'd love to hear your opinion.

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

Hain

These would be correct as I see them. However, agnosticism I feel is slightly off or maybe I lean mine closer to that of the atheist, but I have always felt that Gods or not, it does not matter if I believe or not because nothing will exist to prove or disprove the existence of deities. I believe that there is a god, goddess, higher power, what have you, but that existence has little meaning to me. So I became a transcendentalist! It's all about the human spirit for me.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

Master_Shake

I don't object to those definitions, I think they are pretty accurate.

Did you consult any dictionaries or other sources for those definitions, or did you piece them together yourself?

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

flstf

The definitions can probably be shortened to something like:

Atheism - I don't believe in god or higher beings
Agnosticism - I don't know
Theism - I do believe in god or higher beings

But I'm a simple person.

RCAlyra2004

It's a bit of Both, I consulted four different dictionaries before I put them together. Beleive me some of the dictionaries show bias! ... in my humble opinion.

I figured that the definitions would seem reasonable to most people.

The reason I wanted to create the definitions in common wording is to ensure that we define each term broadly enough to develop a deeper understanding or each other and ourselves... Some of us are pretty entrenched and accusing of others "perceived" error.

For Example: a statement like, "I will never beleive there is a god!" could be described as a closed minded Atheist. Perhaps(?)one that is fanatical. While the statement "I have not yet seen any evidence of a God." is a statement that is more open minded, although still atheistic.

On the other hand when person says "There is a God, his name is Jesus and I will never change my mind." they are being just as closed minded as the Atheist, unless of course they have actally "seen" God and are satisfied with the evidence put forth. - A softer statement would be "I beleive that Jesus Christ is Lord even though I have not seen any direct evidence" or "I beleive the eye witness testimony presented in scripture.", indicates a willingness to listen to and contemplate the views of others presenting argument.

So this is part of my rationale... with the broad definitions explained we can have a more intelligent conversation!

P.s. Personally I am an Atheist... but hate being labelled as a fanatic as much as, I am sure, any Christian would hate it.

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

Seeker

Yep, I like this too. Quite simply, I'm Agnostic

__________________
To those who wander but who are not lost...

~ Knowledge is not something you acquire, it is something you open yourself to.

tecoyah

I think the definitions put forth are pretty accurate......But, I still prefer to be called Pagan...heh

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Yakk

So, where would logical positivists fall on this spectrum?

Roughly and in my understanding, a logical positivist holds that any statement that has no empirical implications has no meaning.

A statement has an implication if disproving the thing it implies proves the statement is false.

A yes/no question for which both answers are meaningless is a meaningless question.

If a logical positivist believes the question "is there a god?" is meaningless, does that make that logical positivist an atheist or an agnostic?

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Seeker

Hey Yakk, it's late so I don't even know why I am even trying to understand your question. Is it a riddle?

I'm thinking agnostic because you can't disprove the thing it implies.
Wouldn't that be - I don't know because it's a meaningless question?

__________________
To those who wander but who are not lost...

~ Knowledge is not something you acquire, it is something you open yourself to.

Janey

Yakk, I have always considered empiricists (including logical positivists) to be by nature agnostic. Unless we (oops they) have proof, faith is not enough to convince us (them). It is simply that we (they) are from Missouri.

Isn't Paganism a term coined by Christians to refer to people who believed in gods other than the Christian god? Is it a term that would be used similar to Muslims employing the term infidel? Therefore pagans would be theists.

Both theists and atheists are faith driven, in that neither group requires empirical proof of their stance. Agnostics are proof driven.

cellophanedeity

Deists should be listed too!

They believe that there was a general "creator" but not in the Christian sense. More like, a "Hey Joe, lets say we start this Ball rolling then go get a beer" sort of sense.

__________________
who am I to refuse the universe?
-Leonard Cohen, Beautiful Losers

Janey

so they would be included in the group who believe in gods, creators, higher beings etc, right? (theists)

cellophanedeity

I guess you're right!

I misread your definition, and took the "More specifically, it may also mean the belief in God, a god, or gods, who is/are actively involved in maintaining the Universe." bit without the "May"

__________________
who am I to refuse the universe?
-Leonard Cohen, Beautiful Losers

Dancr

A theist is someone who is convinced, for whatever reason, that there is or are or was or were one or more beings that operate outside natural law. Everybody else is not a theist. Two precisely equivalent terms for being "not a theist" are "non-theist" and "atheist". This includes all agnostics, as well as everybody else who does not fit the above definition of a theist.

If somebody "thinks" or "believes" there's a diety (or more than one), in the sense that they are not quite "sure", then they are a non-theist. If they vasilate between being sure that there is or are one or more gods, and not being sure, then they are a theist at the times of being convinced, and an atheist at all other times.

A person can be convinced by evidence. It doesn't have to be good evidence. It can be thoroughly flawed evidence. As long as they're convinced, they're a theist. They can also decide to remain convicted despite any and all evidence that might ever be presented contrary to their conviction. That's faith.

A person can claim to be what they are not. The most bible-toting, Jesus-quoting, never-miss-a-prayer-breakfast politician could be atheist. The televangalist who cries and says "I have sinned" could be atheist. A person can also SEEM to be what they are not. The most dedicated soup-kitchen volunteer could be atheist. The mom homeschooling for religious reasons could be atheist. The group "Atheists for Jesus" is another pretender bender.

We won't have a good count until people stop losing their jobs or being killed for leaving the "wrong" impression.

Yakk

Dancr, you are attempting to define the middle away. I don't see the usefulness of this.

There is a simple, natural, 4 way split:
A: There are people who are convinced in the existance of a God.
-A: There are people who are convinced in the non-existance of a God.
~A: There are people who are not convinced in the existance of a God.
~-A: There are peope who are not convinced in the non-existance of a God.

It is pretty clear that "A" are theists.
It is pretty clear that "-A" are atheists.

You seem to want to place "~A" into the atheist label as well.

On top of this, we have the fact that in reality the middle is never excluded.

#A: There are people who are somewhat convinced in the existance of a God.
and
@A: There are people who are convinced in the somewhat existance of a God.

which leaves us with, at the very least:
A -A ~A #A @A
-~A -#A -@A ~#A ~@A #@A
-~#A -~@A ~#@A
-~#@A

if you assume order doesn't matter. I assume I missed something. =)

(edit: added a 15th)

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Dancr

Except that I don't know what is denoted by a "somewhat existance" I would say that, of the fourteen categories of people you listed, only "A" is a theist. In my understanding the two terms 'theist' and 'atheist' are mutually exclusive and exhaustive.

RCAlyra2004

YUP... You seems to have it correct.. at least in my opinion...

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

RCAlyra2004

The reason why it is VERY important to define a middle way is simply this:

"People" are involved in the discussion.

The whole point of the thread is to help PEOPLE to see that there are shades of grey in the philisopical debate over the existance of god. I actually met a person who was "fanatically ambiguous" about their beleif in God. (say what?) If you had met him HE would have told YOU what he does or does not beleive, rather than have YOU classify his beleifs.

There is a middle way, there always has been a middle way and there are those who simply would not agree with the statements you have made.

How about I tell you what "I" beleive.

I'll gladly listen to you too!

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

RCAlyra2004

Yes a theist.. is a deist... more or less. They beleive in some sort of a diety.

Often people confuse a persons beleif in a God who is omnipresent, or omniscient with the person being agnostic or theistic. It is unfair and damaging to do that to any person.

I'll try to give an example of what I mean, tell me if I have made my point well or not.

If I beleive that God created the world but beleive he is not all knowing, or not ever present, It does not change me from a theist to an agnostic. Many christians will try to tell you it does. In fact they will cast you in a negative light as a person for not haveing a strong faith like theirs. (not all christians are like this)

If I beleive the powerless Ball point pen sitting on my desk is a God (silly thought isn't it?) then I am a theist. The classification system presented by Yakk belongs for the purpose of classifying theists only, in my opinion.

So back to my main point... there are only three main classifications... as mentioned in my first post.

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity