On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:55:48 -0800, "sAnToLiNa" <mystery@babylon.com>
said in alt.atheism:

In truth, there really isn't a meaningful difference between agnosticism

most atheism.

In truth atheism is lack of belief in any gods and agnosticism is not
making pronouncements about things for which one has no evidence -
they have nothing to do with each other.

What may be confusing you is that most atheists are agnostic.

Even though all propositions require justification,
it is fair that the one who claims the default and "obvious" position
should not carry the same burden to justify her claim as the one who

otherworldly claims. Even though I agree with this desire I think a
definition is not the place to enforce it.

I think the mere fact that atheists are participating in this forum

You would expect atheists to participate in alt.religion.*? Or would
you expect theists to participate in alt.atheism?

You completely missed the error of his statement, that being that
existentially positive assertions require evidence.

In this post I suggest what I believe are better definitions. I start

showing some failings in the application of www.infidels.org

According to this definition the following statements are true:

1. A new-born baby is an atheist.

Wrong, see below. I understand that some atheists may erroneously claim
this.

Does a newborn baby have a belief in any god or gods? If not, it's
trivially an atheist.

3. A Roman Catholic Pope who is brain-dead but kept alive on life

is an atheist.

Wrong, because there is a presumption of adult will in the definition.

But it's not a necessary condition.

This would be like claiming that the newborn becomes a christian as soon

dragged to church by its parents and baptized.

Some Christian sects DO claim this. Some claim that if they baptize
the formerly-non-Christian deceased, that person becomes Christian.
Since there's no single universally-accepted definition of Christian,
who's to say that either one is wrong?

All philosophical position
statements that are not mere word games make the presumption that we are
talking about functioning adults who have thought through the

"Atheist" describes a state, not a philosophical position.

I think that www.infidels.org (see:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html) describes atheism and
agnosticism in terms that are not quite straightforward and that
consequently create a lot of noise in alt.atheism. The definition in
question is the often quoted "Atheism is characterized by an absence of
belief in the existence of gods". I think this definition appears to be
motivated by:

I think that www.infidels.org (see:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html) describes atheism and
agnosticism in terms that are not quite straightforward and that
consequently create a lot of noise in alt.atheism. The definition in
question is the often quoted "Atheism is characterized by an absence of
belief in the existence of gods". I think this definition appears to be
motivated by:

a) The desire to find a definition that covers both atheism and
agnosticism. This is not quite fair to agnosticism I think, as it wouldn't
be fair if a theist were to define theism as the non-denial of the
existence of gods.

b) The desire, as a practical matter, to avoid the need for atheists to
justify their position. Even though all propositions require justification,
it is fair that the one who claims the default and "obvious" position
should not carry the same burden to justify her claim as the one who makes
otherworldly claims. Even though I agree with this desire I think a
definition is not the place to enforce it.

In this post I suggest what I believe are better definitions. I start by
showing some failings in the application of www.infidels.org definition.
According to this definition the following statements are true:

1. A new-born baby is an atheist.
2. An imbecile in a psychiatric hospital is an atheist.
3. A Roman Catholic Pope who is brain-dead but kept alive on life support
is an atheist.

Personally I don't think any of the three statements is reasonable, for
they ridicule and diminish atheism. If one is forced to accept them because
of this particular definition of atheism maybe it's a good idea to find a
better definition. I would like to suggest the following definitions and
comments:

Atheists are people who after encountering the concept of god and reasoning
about it arrive at the conclusion that no such beings or entities exist.
Not all atheists are alike. Some of them simply think that gods probably or
very probably do not exist; others, for all practical purposes, are certain
that gods do not exist. Some atheists studied the notion of god in depth
before arriving at their conclusion. Other atheists judged the basic idea
of gods so absurd that it did not deserve such effort on their part.
Atheists should not be confused with agnostics.

Agnostics are people who after encountering the concept of god and
reasoning about it fail to reach any conclusion that would give them some
confidence in the existence or non-existence of gods. Some agnostics
believe that it is in principle impossible to come to such a conclusion
based on reason alone. Agnostics refuse to believe anything not based on
reason alone, so in this case they refuse to believe either in the
existence or the non-existence of gods. An agnostic keeps the same distance
from theists and atheists, and claims allegiance to neither group, even
though she recognizes that agnostics and atheist are alike in their
insistence that only reason based on evidence can justify belief. .

People who have never heard or were never curious about the concept of god
or who for some other reason have not thought about this concept and
therefore came to no conclusion whatsoever form a different group that may
be called uninformed in the question of god. For this group (which is very
small as far as the general concept of god is concerned) we may coin the
name "whotheists", like in: "Question: Do you believe in the existence of
god? Answer: Who?"

There are many concepts of gods. Sometimes it is assumed by default that
any god must be personal, i.e. be a conscious being of free will, and not
some kind of impersonal principle. This can give rise to some confusion as
one can claim to be both religious and atheist, if one's religion does not
claim the existence of a personal god (but rather of an impersonal absolute
principle) as is the case in Buddhism and Taoism, for example.

Most atheists and agnostics find a common denominator in all gods and hold
the same position towards all gods. It is possible though that the same
person is an atheist in some particular concept of god and agnostic or
uninformed in some other concept. For example a person may be an atheist to
the concept of the god called YHWH as literally described in the Old
Testament but may be agnostic or uninformed about the concept of god as the
impersonal "the ground of all being" or the concept of god as "the perfect
conscious being".

For completeness I would like to cover theism too:

A theist is a person who believes (i.e. holds true) that at least one god
exists. Under "god" theists understand a being that a) is a person, i.e.
has independent consciousness and will, b) is supernatural, i.e. is not
exclusively a physical being that forms part of physical reality and is
subject to its laws, c) is relevant, i.e. does affect physical reality or
our experience of physical reality in some way. All followers of the great
monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam also believe that
d) there is only one god of limitless power who has created and sustains
physical reality as part of some plan. The use of reason based on evidence
appears not to be a requirement for most theists.

"God" in upper-case is usually reserved by theists as the name of the one
god the three monotheistic religions believe in. Some confusion arises from
the fact that atheists and agnostics sometimes use the word "god" in
lower-case as synonymous to "concept/view of god" and sometimes as
synonymous to "the being purported to exist under some concept/view of
god". Under the first meaning an atheist may actually claim "There are many
gods." Under the second meaning an atheist may say to a theist "Which god
do you refer to?" or may say "There are many gods called 'God'."
Monotheists do not normally use the word "god" in lower-case or in plural
(except when denoting a god of some polytheistic religion), but speak only
of God, even though they accept that there are differing views about what
this being is. The use of language by theists can be elucidated by
comparing it to the use of language by scientists. Scientists too accept
that there are differences in their precise individual views about physical
reality, but they all name physical reality "the universe". Therefore when
one scientist makes a particular claim it makes little sense for the other
to ask "which universe are you referring to?" for they both base their
dialog on the premise that only one physical reality exists. In a dialog
between theists and atheists it is a good idea if both sides keep in mind
the other side's worldview in order to understand the other side's use of
language.

Religion is a vague concept that expresses the organization of the common
beliefs and that a group of people hold about ultimate reality, which they
perceive to be larger or deeper ordered than physical reality as understood
by science. The concept of religion also covers the customs, literature,
temples, and symbols that people establish to celebrate their common
beliefs. As we saw, not all religions are theistic religions.

To finish I would like to suggest a principle of discourse:

There are probably as many positions about the question of the existence of
gods are there are thinking people around. What every person believes is
ultimately her own individual choice. The principle of freedom of thought
requires that each person respect each other person's beliefs as well as
how each person arrives at these beliefs. Nevertheless as we hold evident
that there is only one truth which all thinking people desire to reach,
dialog in these matters is to be encouraged as long as it does not become
coercive or violent in any way.

In this post I suggest what I believe are better definitions. I start by
showing some failings in the application of www.infidels.org definition.
According to this definition the following statements are true:

1. A new-born baby is an atheist.
2. An imbecile in a psychiatric hospital is an atheist.
3. A Roman Catholic Pope who is brain-dead but kept alive on life support
is an atheist.

I think that www.infidels.org (see:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html) describes atheism and
agnosticism in terms that are not quite straightforward and that
consequently create a lot of noise in alt.atheism. The definition in
question is the often quoted "Atheism is characterized by an absence
of belief in the existence of gods". I think this definition appears
to be motivated by:

a) The desire to find a definition that covers both atheism and
agnosticism. This is not quite fair to agnosticism I think, as it
wouldn't be fair if a theist were to define theism as the non-denial
of the existence of gods.

b) The desire, as a practical matter, to avoid the need for atheists
to justify their position. Even though all propositions require
justification, it is fair that the one who claims the default and
"obvious" position should not carry the same burden to justify her
claim as the one who makes otherworldly claims. Even though I agree
with this desire I think a definition is not the place to enforce it.


In this post I suggest what I believe are better definitions. I start
by showing some failings in the application of www.infidels.org
definition. According to this definition the following statements are
true:

1. A new-born baby is an atheist.
2. An imbecile in a psychiatric hospital is an atheist.
3. A Roman Catholic Pope who is brain-dead but kept alive on life
support is an atheist.

Personally I don't think any of the three statements is reasonable,
for they ridicule and diminish atheism. If one is forced to accept
them because of this particular definition of atheism maybe it's a
good idea to find a better definition. I would like to suggest the
following definitions and comments:

Atheists are people who after encountering the concept of god and
reasoning about it arrive at the conclusion that no such beings or
entities exist. Not all atheists are alike. Some of them simply think
that gods probably or very probably do not exist; others, for all
practical purposes, are certain that gods do not exist. Some atheists
studied the notion of god in depth before arriving at their
conclusion. Other atheists judged the basic idea of gods so absurd
that it did not deserve such effort on their part. Atheists should not
be confused with agnostics.

Agnostics are people who after encountering the concept of god and
reasoning about it fail to reach any conclusion that would give them
some confidence in the existence or non-existence of gods. Some
agnostics believe that it is in principle impossible to come to such a
conclusion based on reason alone. Agnostics refuse to believe anything
not based on reason alone, so in this case they refuse to believe
either in the existence or the non-existence of gods. An agnostic
keeps the same distance from theists and atheists, and claims
allegiance to neither group, even though she recognizes that agnostics
and atheist are alike in their insistence that only reason based on
evidence can justify belief. .

People who have never heard or were never curious about the concept of
god or who for some other reason have not thought about this concept
and therefore came to no conclusion whatsoever form a different group
that may be called uninformed in the question of god. For this group
(which is very small as far as the general concept of god is
concerned) we may coin the name "whotheists", like in: "Question: Do
you believe in the existence of god? Answer: Who?"

There are many concepts of gods. Sometimes it is assumed by default
that any god must be personal, i.e. be a conscious being of free will,
and not some kind of impersonal principle. This can give rise to some
confusion as one can claim to be both religious and atheist, if one's
religion does not claim the existence of a personal god (but rather of
an impersonal absolute principle) as is the case in Buddhism and
Taoism, for example.

Most atheists and agnostics find a common denominator in all gods and
hold the same position towards all gods. It is possible though that
the same person is an atheist in some particular concept of god and
agnostic or uninformed in some other concept. For example a person may
be an atheist to the concept of the god called YHWH as literally
described in the Old Testament but may be agnostic or uninformed about
the concept of god as the impersonal "the ground of all being" or the
concept of god as "the perfect conscious being".

For completeness I would like to cover theism too:

A theist is a person who believes (i.e. holds true) that at least one
god exists. Under "god" theists understand a being that a) is a
person, i.e. has independent consciousness and will, b) is
supernatural, i.e. is not exclusively a physical being that forms part
of physical reality and is subject to its laws, c) is relevant, i.e.
does affect physical reality or our experience of physical reality in
some way. All followers of the great monotheistic religions of
Judaism, Christianity and Islam also believe that d) there is only one
god of limitless power who has created and sustains physical reality
as part of some plan. The use of reason based on evidence appears not
to be a requirement for most theists.

"God" in upper-case is usually reserved by theists as the name of the
one god the three monotheistic religions believe in. Some confusion
arises from the fact that atheists and agnostics sometimes use the
word "god" in lower-case as synonymous to "concept/view of god" and
sometimes as synonymous to "the being purported to exist under some
concept/view of god". Under the first meaning an atheist may actually
claim "There are many gods." Under the second meaning an atheist may
say to a theist "Which god do you refer to?" or may say "There are
many gods called 'God'." Monotheists do not normally use the word
"god" in lower-case or in plural (except when denoting a god of some
polytheistic religion), but speak only of God, even though they accept
that there are differing views about what this being is. The use of
language by theists can be elucidated by comparing it to the use of
language by scientists. Scientists too accept that there are
differences in their precise individual views about physical reality,
but they all name physical reality "the universe". Therefore when one
scientist makes a particular claim it makes little sense for the other
to ask "which universe are you referring to?" for they both base their
dialog on the premise that only one physical reality exists. In a
dialog between theists and atheists it is a good idea if both sides
keep in mind the other side's worldview in order to understand the
other side's use of language.

Religion is a vague concept that expresses the organization of the
common beliefs and that a group of people hold about ultimate reality,
which they perceive to be larger or deeper ordered than physical
reality as understood by science. The concept of religion also covers
the customs, literature, temples, and symbols that people establish to
celebrate their common beliefs. As we saw, not all religions are
theistic religions.

To finish I would like to suggest a principle of discourse:

There are probably as many positions about the question of the
existence of gods are there are thinking people around. What every
person believes is ultimately her own individual choice. The principle
of freedom of thought requires that each person respect each other
person's beliefs as well as how each person arrives at these beliefs.
Nevertheless as we hold evident that there is only one truth which all
thinking people desire to reach, dialog in these matters is to be
encouraged as long as it does not become coercive or violent in any
way.