Theism vs. Atheism vs. Agnosticism (atheist, God, religion, islam)

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Kay

I'm not a theist, at least not in the popular sense of the term, but I'm not an atheist, at least not towards the possibility of a Divine Source.

I'm an atheist as regards Yahweh. I do not think that God, as described in the Bible, exists. I'm an atheist as regards any of the polytheistic pantheons. I do not think that any of those gods and goddesses literally exist.

However, I'm willing to say that if you scramble up all the gods and goddesses and avatars and mythologies into one big gooey mess, that the sum total might point toward a divine Ground of Being.

Personally, I consider myself an atheist and feel atheism to be the most logical or reasonable position, but I define atheism as "without theisim"... i.e. I consider it an umbrella term for any belief, or lack of belief, with regard to deities other than explicit belief in some form of deity. As such, atheism is the default position: if you flat-out believe that no god exists without a shadow of a doubt, then you're an atheist; if you're leaning toward no god existing, but you aren't 100% sure, then you're an atheist; if you throw up your hands and say "I have no clue", you're an atheist; at the moment you're born, when you don't have the mental capacity to recognize your own limbs as your own, let alone formulate opinions on the supernatural, you're an atheist.

Since atheism is the only position that does not require a positive claim (NB: I consider agnosticism to be the belief that the existence of god is either currently or permanently unknowable, and therefore is a positive claim), in the absence of evidence that indicates one alternative over another, e.g. our current situation, atheism is the only position that can be held defensibly, IMO.

Of course, if anyone has some other evidence not available to everyone (a divine encounter or mystical experience, for example), this could affect the balance of evidence for them. Wild stories told to me, though, don't work very well as evidence for me, because to me, they're just stories.

[lunamoth]

I think agnosticism is the only logical position. Thank God we don't base our lives just upon logic!

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

Since atheism is the only position that does not require a positive claim ...

Slippery nonsense ...

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by MoonWater

Which do you feel is the most logical standpoint to have: Theism, Atheism, or Agnosticism?

Each, and neither.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Jay

Slippery nonsense ...

Use all the emoticons you like... it's still true.

[truehyuga]

True, weak Atheism
True Aheism is the lack of belief in God until shown proof.
Weak atheism is the idea that God does not exist, but the atheist is open to the possibility that he can be wrong.

This gives us a rational way of looking at religion as we look at all things in the same way.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

Use all the emoticons you like... it's still true.

Not quite. If you think about it, there is a positive claim about God that only the Agnostic can make: "I do not know if there is a God."
Edit: Or, "Absolute knowledge of God is unattainable."

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Willamena

Not quite. If you think about it, there is a positive claim about God that only the Agnostic can make: "I do not know if there is a God."

My point was that the three categories of belief in question can be characterized as follows:

- theism: God/gods/a god exists - a positive claim
- agnosticism God/gods/a god is unknowable - a positive claim
- atheism: ... - nothing. No claims at all.

This is not to say that an atheist can't make positive claims about theistic things (after all, many atheists do positively claim that God does not exist), just that a person can be an atheist without making a positive claim.