All babies are atheists....?

Originally posted by divegeester
I don't understand "hard atheist". Surely a person is either a theist or not; conversely; atheist or not?

"Hard atheist" is typically used for people who supposedly claim to 'know' that god does not exist. It is often claimed that there are some of these around, but I've never seen one.

But you are correct, when it comes down to it, one is either a theist or an atheist. Anything else is just hair-splitting.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Agnostic?

Agnostics deal with epistemology, what is known/knowable; atheists, at least "hard" ones, deal with ontology, what is/is not.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Self-styled? Why do you say that? While there may be argument as to the definition of the term 'atheist', the term 'agnostic' is quite clearly defined.

I have disdain for self-styled agnostics because they are typically among the most vocal in misrepresenting atheism as being necessarily synonymous with so called "hard atheism."

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
As I see it, you have three possible positions. It seems logical therefore to have three different labels.

I am inferring from your use of language a certain disdain towards those who take an agnostic position - would I be correct in assuming that this is the basis for your semantic position regarding this term?

I disagree with you. There is only one basic position, which is theism. Once you have been exposed to that position, you either accept it or you don't (which makes you an atheist). Atheism is a reactive appraisal of the theistic position. It has no content of its own and stakes out no position on its own. If there were no theists then there would be no use for the term 'atheist.' People who style themselves as agnostics are not theists*. Therefore they are actually atheists. Their agnosticism is a modifier they apply to that atheism to distinguish themselves from so called "hard atheists."

*Unless they are agnostic theists, in which case they typically just use the term 'theist'.

Originally posted by rwingett
I disagree with you. There is only one basic position, which is theism. Once you have been exposed to that position, you either accept it or you don't (which makes you an atheist). Atheism is a reactive appraisal of the theistic position. It has no content of its own and stakes out no position on its own. If there were no theists then there would be no use ...[text shortened]... nless they are agnostic theists, in which case they typically just use the term 'theist'.

The agnostic position is not a rejection of the theist's position. To 'style' one's self thus is to accept the possibility that the theist may be correct in his beliefs. As I previously suggested, you are creating a false dichotomy when you insist that one must either accept or not accept the theistic position.

Originally posted by rwingett
As far as I'm concerned, what so called "agnostics" really are is agnostic atheists. But they somehow feel the need for a separate term to distinguish themselves from the "hard atheist" bogeymen.

I don't buy into agnosticism either. There are those, I suppose, who just haven't "put much thought" into whether a god exists or not, but deep down they almost certainly have a proclivity one way or another. Too, being "agnostic" seems more socially acceptable, as you have intimated; they can say they're "neutral" or are "keeping an open mind".

Originally posted by JS357
Agnostics deal with epistemology, what is known/knowable; atheists, at least "hard" ones, deal with ontology, what is/is not.

Yes, in theory I suppose. At least as regards the existence of a god, and even more specifically, the existence of a certain God. Generally the terms atheism and agnosticism don't go beyond that particular, narrow issue.

More broadly there is scientism, which broadens the agnostic approach to all realms of inquiry.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
The agnostic position is not a rejection of the theist's position. To 'style' one's self thus is to accept the possibility that the theist may be correct in his beliefs. As I previously suggested, you are creating a false dichotomy when you insist that one must either accept or not accept the theistic position.

As an atheist, *I* accept that the theist may be correct in his position. It is impossible to 'know' either way.

I do NOT insist that one either accept or reject the theistic position. All that is relevant is whether one accepts it or not. If you do not accept it as being true, then it doesn't matter whether you reject it or not. You're still an atheist.

Originally posted by Soothfast
I don't buy into agnosticism either. There are those, I suppose, who just haven't "put much thought" into whether a god exists or not, but deep down they almost certainly have a proclivity one way or another. Too, being "agnostic" seems more socially acceptable, as you have intimated; they can say they're "neutral" or are "keeping an open mind".

I hardly see agnosticism as being a socially acceptable position. In this forum, as in most arenas, the naive and ignorant delight in their attempts to belittle anybody who doesn't share their opinion, and those who are prepared to claim themselves agnostic invariably fall into a small minority. And as for your patronising assertion that I may not have 'put much thought' into the matter, well, you are entitled to an opinion even if it is colossally arrogant, ill-informed and incorrect. The existence or non-existence of god is not provable. It is entirely rational therefore to accept that both possibilities exist, and that is, in a nutshell, the definition of the term 'agnosticism'.

Originally posted by rwingett
As an atheist, *I* accept that the theist may be correct in his position. It is impossible to 'know' either way.

I do NOT insist that one either accept or reject the theistic position. All that is relevant is whether one accepts it or not. If you do not accept it as being true, then it doesn't matter whether you reject it or not. You're still an atheist.

You are, of course, entirely free to choose the 'fuzzy' definition of the word rather than the precise.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I hardly see agnosticism as being a socially acceptable position. In this forum, as in most arenas, the naive and ignorant delight in their attempts to belittle anybody who doesn't share their opinion, and those who are prepared to claim themselves agnostic invariably fall into a small minority. And as for your patronising assertion that I may not ha ...[text shortened]... possibilities exist, and that is, in a nutshell, the definition of the term 'agnosticism'.

That is absurd. If the existence or non-existence of anything is not provable, then there is no reason to believe in it. If you do not "believe" in a god, then you are an atheist. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist, whether you "believe" in god's non-existence or not.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
You are, of course, entirely free to choose the 'fuzzy' definition of the word rather than the precise.

Sorry, but you'll have to be more precise about what I'm supposedly being fuzzy about.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I hardly see agnosticism as being a socially acceptable position. In this forum, as in most arenas, the naive and ignorant delight in their attempts to belittle anybody who doesn't share their opinion, and those who are prepared to claim themselves agnostic invariably fall into a small minority. And as for your patronising assertion that I may not ha possibilities exist, and that is, in a nutshell, the definition of the term 'agnosticism'.

I wasn't aware you were even claiming to be agnostic. I wasn't even referring to you or your posts. I don't even think you're one not to think, judging from the posts from you that I have read in the past. I was just making a blanket statement about the agnostic position, which is that I think most self-described agnostics are really just atheists. Since an agnostic claims to not have committed himself to believing in god, that puts him (at least provisionally) in the atheist category.

Damn, you're sure sensitive.

Originally posted by rwingett
That is absurd. If the existence or non-existence of anything is not provable, then there is no reason to believe in it. If you do not "believe" in a god, then you are an atheist. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist, whether you "believe" in god's non-existence or not.

See my previous post. You choose to define 'atheist' as encompassing what I would call 'atheist' in addition to what I would call 'agnostic'. The definition which you choose to follow is therefore wider and thus less precise than that which I follow.

Originally posted by Soothfast
I wasn't aware you were even claiming to be agnostic. Wasn't even referring to you or your posts. Don't even think you're one not to think, judging from the posts from you that I have read in the past. Was just making a blanket statement about the agnostic position, which is that I think most self-described agnostics are really just atheists. Since an ...[text shortened]... puts them (at least provisionally) in the atheist category.

Damn, you're sure sensitive.

I am amused that you find me sensitive. Why do you imagine that Huxley went to the trouble of coining the term 'agnostic' in the first place?