Theism, Agnosticism, & Atheism: Which Is Logically The Weakest?

[ChristineM]

See my post #161.

If that makes you happy, it still makes no difference to misrepresentation of the definition of atheism to suite your personal sensibilities. The OP showed bias, no excuses will change that

 

[Dash Balderson]

This is not even worthy of comment, but let me just say that it's truly a shame that you have to resort to ad hominem attacks instead of acting like an adult.

In a later post, I'll explain why I have used definitions that more clearly differentiate between "atheism" and "agnosticism" and their definitions. We normally use in English more than one word to differentiate between two or more items that are not exactly the same.

So, this had me going back to read what was going on here and what was so bad, and I get it. But then, upon reading the post fully, I have to say I am curious about what rebuttal you have for the actual on-topic content of the post - because it left me wondering where it goes from there. Note: I haven't attacked you in any way, nor am I trying to be argumentative, I am sincerely curious as to what a believer/theist might respond to the point made about the claim that theism is more logical, given the comments in the (non-offensive) part of that post (#46).

Even trying to think through it myself, doing "the maths" as it were - let's accept your definition for atheism entirely and state that atheists are those who state that "God doesn't exist." If we then say that they are wrong, then they are wrong (and therefore "pretending" or "making-up") one thing, or one aspect of the world, that is incorrect, and doesn't jive with reality. So, that one thing they get wrong and have to pretend, is that "God doesn't exist."

Then, going devil's advocate, "belief in a deity" does come along with having to define at least some attributes of that deity, as far as I am aware, otherwise you're not really committing to much, right? And a great many of those attributes would probably have to be things we can't come across in "real life". So, if the theist is incorrect, and their views and assertions about God don't jive with reality, then that does end up being a whole slew of things that were "pretended" or "made-up" in order to hold the position.

And that's where I am stuck. It does seem less logical to have to pretend knowledge of more. And I don't feel that atheists can be pegged with anything more than 1 item under your definition. "Not believing in God."

 

[Desert Snake]

I've read posts of yours. Have never been impressed. Just being honest.

And you presume, of course, you are presumption based, that Im trying to 'impress' or that your opinion means anything, regarding that, etc.

You aren't refuting the fact that you presented 'your own idea' of how theists believe, and it isn't representative of anything besides your own [generally false, idea concerning that.

 

[Ponder This]

I pose the question of the title, and then I'll have to wait for your responses until Saturday as I'm outta town tomorrow. First, to define terms:

Theism: a belief that there is at least one deity.

Agnosticism: not knowing if there's a deity or deities.

Atheism: a belief there are no deities.


Which is logically the weakest and why? I say it's the latter by far.

See yas Saturday, so play nice now.

What a strange question!

There's no such thing as a logically strong or weak position.

There are only logically strong or weak arguments.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your utter failure to explain how you "know" is a big factor in that.

It's also a big factor in me not giving any weight at all to your claims to know.

I have explained how I know, but since you do not look at the evidence the same way I look at it, you cannot understand how I know what I know.

 

[metis]

So, you believe the theist is superior because it is based on something. Very amusing, thank you

I didn't say "superior"-- I said "logical". But I also explained that there are many theists, no doubt, that have a "blind faith", which I defined, so the stereotype you used doesn't fit.

 

[metis]

If that makes you happy, it still makes no difference to misrepresentation of the definition of atheism to suite your personal sensibilities. The OP showed bias, no excuses will change that

I've already explained why I limited the definition to "atheism" so as to differentiate it from "agnosticism", and this had nothing whatsoever to do with my supposed "sensibilities" or my supposed "bias".

Anyhow, believe what you want to believe, I guess, but I know what my motive was and I've explained it several times.

 

[metis]

So, this had me going back to read what was going on here and what was so bad, and I get it.

Thanks.

Then, going devil's advocate, "belief in a deity" does come along with having to define at least some attributes of that deity, as far as I am aware, otherwise you're not really committing to much, right?

Because a belief in a deity or deities may be based on something whereas atheism (using the definition in the OP) is based on nothing.

It does seem less logical to have to pretend knowledge of more.

But how do you know a theists knowledge is supposedly "pretend"?

I gotta go but will be back shortly.

 

[charlie sc]

but I tend to think that the joke is on them.

I want to sincerely apologise to metis. I did not mean to cause any harm or the like. I think his reply was humorous and it seemed like he was laughing in the quote so I didn't take it too seriously.
Metis sent a message to me but blocked me so I couldn't respond. At any rate, I did not mean to offend. I genuinely thought what he said was funny.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have explained how I know, but since you do not look at the evidence the same way I look at it, you cannot understand how I know what I know.

I look at evidence rationally. I don't think I could be persuaded to look at it irrationally, no.

 

[ChristineM]

I've already explained why I limited the definition to "atheism" so as to differentiate it from "agnosticism", and this had nothing whatsoever to do with my supposed "sensibilities" or my supposed "bias".

Anyhow, believe what you want to believe, I guess, but I know what my motive was and I've explained it several times.

That is not limiting, that is deliberate misrepresentation

You have not explained why you misquoted the definition of atheism.

Your motive was to misrepresent atheism to give yourself a stronger argument. Misrepresentation to back up an argument never works

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've already explained why I limited the definition to "atheism" so as to differentiate it from "agnosticism", and this had nothing whatsoever to do with my supposed "sensibilities" or my supposed "bias".

Anyhow, believe what you want to believe, I guess, but I know what my motive was and I've explained it several times.

Agnosticism and atheism aren't differentiated. A person can be both. If you define them to make them mutually exclusive, you've misdefined them.

 

[metis]

There's no such thing as a logically strong or weak position.

Actually there is in science as we differentiate between a "hypothesis", "theory", and "axiom". Not all concepts have the same degree of evidence to support them.

 

[metis]

That is not limiting, that is deliberate misrepresentation

You have not explained why you misquoted the definition of atheism.

Your motive was to misrepresent atheism to give yourself a stronger argument. Misrepresentation to back up an argument never works

Now you are being disgustingly dishonest by putting ulterior motives into my mind that simply are not and were not there, which has been explained to you several times. I no longer am going to deal with your dishonesty.

 

[Dash Balderson]

But how do you know a theists knowledge is supposedly "pretend"?

I gotta go but will be back shortly.

So, I suppose I have to say that I don't know that any of the knowledge is truly "pretend", however, whether or not the theist can even have 100% fact-based/reality-based foundations for that knowledge is more what I would mean to put forward. To the point that, if it isn't possible for you to know what you are saying you know, then you are, more or less, "pretending" to know.

A lot of assertions tend to be made to account for various aspects of God, or to assign abilities to God to account for the various tasks that the theist wants to credit God for (like creating the universe, or being able to "know what's in a person's heart" for some examples). But at the end of the day - how does one know those are correct? I understand that The Bible provides the basis for some of it, and that The Bible is a piece of evidence of some caliber, but even The Bible doesn't actually explain how God does any of it. And that component being missing is sort of a "red flag" that what we may be looking at isn't exactly hard and fast "truth."

Besides any of this (and I understand why this may have been missed), I put forth the "if wrong" condition for both parties. So, if the atheist is wrong - they end up wrong about 1 assertion - that "God does not exist." However, if the theist is wrong - they end up being wrong about a boat load of assertions. And I would posit that, because there is this "boat load", it is very much more likely that some of those assertions are wrong anyway - even if ultimately the theist is right about God's existence in general. The more specific assertions you make about things that can't be observed or verified in "real life", the more likely you are to be wrong about some of them. When you've only got one, sure you can be wrong, but you're only wrong once.

 

[metis]

To the point that, if it isn't possible for you to know what you are saying you know, then you are, more or less, "pretending" to know.

It's not necessarily and either/or dichotomy. Sometimes we may witness or experience something that we don't fully comprehend, or only partially comprehend, or maybe even miscomprehend.

But at the end of the day - how does one know those are correct?

We often don't, and in science we also face this a lot, let me tell ya, as not everything is black & white.

 

[Audie]

You are applying your own rigid definition to the word "unknowable" and assuming that most agnostics irrationally think that way.

Millions of anecdotal claims are not evidence of existence but they are evidence of the possibility. That's one reason why agnostics allow the possible existence that atheists deny. It's the atheist who logically denies that any of those anecdotal claims might be true not the agnostic.

Anecdotes about Elvis sightings point to the possibility. In the so-what dept.

Atheists do not "deny the possibility".
That is made up bs from you.
God-believers, though. That is where
possibility-deniers are thick as hairs
on a dog's back.

 

[Audie]

I want to sincerely apologise to metis. I did not mean to cause any harm or the like. I think his reply was humorous and it seemed like he was laughing in the quote so I didn't take it too seriously.
Metis sent a message to me but blocked me so I couldn't respond. At any rate, I did not mean to offend. I genuinely thought what he said was funny.

He got huffy and blocked me too! Frankly I am quite stressed
and hurt! This is the worst thing that has ever happened!!

 

[Audie]

That is not limiting, that is deliberate misrepresentation

You have not explained why you misquoted the definition of atheism.

Your motive was to misrepresent atheism to give yourself a stronger argument. Misrepresentation to back up an argument never works

It seems quite convincing to the misrepresentationalist.
To those not quite so easy 'n eager to be gulled, it is
tiresome and, of course, dishonest.

 

[ChristineM]

Now you are being disgustingly dishonest by putting ulterior motives into my mind that simply are not and were not there, which has been explained to you several times. I no longer am going to deal with your dishonesty.

It has never been explained why you misrepresented atheism by misquoting the definition. So i challenge you to be honest and quote the post numbers addressed to me in which you say you have explained your motives to me. Then we can see who is being honest.