agnostics = weak atheists

[KarlVonMox]

No! And you have nicely encapsulated my problem. I know that I don't know.

I don't 'believe' in any gods as I have never had any personal experience of any; I am not a theist.
I don't disbelieve in the Anglican Christian God (my local religion) as several people I trust do claim personal experience; I am not an atheist.
I don't disbelieve in other Gods/beliefs as I am certain that there are many devout and sincere people who claim personal experience.
I don't belive that gods are neccesarily unknowable; I am not agnostic.

Can I have a label for what I am please?

I think you are confusing yourself a little. Its not as complicated as it seems. If you dont believe in any gods (for whatever reason), you are an atheist. It doesn't matter if others claim personal experience - this is all about you.

As I have been given no strong evidence to make the assumption that God or gods exist, my default stance is to not believe that a God or gods exist. The possibility exists that God might exist; however, until I am given a reason to believe, belief simply is not a rational choice. I am atheist by default.

I have been labeling it "agnostic atheism" simply to distinguish from those who claim with certainty "God does not exist."

I mainly agree with this logic, but I have one thing to add.

Like many discussions I see on this board (and everywhere), the current talk on this thread fails to identify and define exactly what a "god" is before discussing the possibility of a "gods" existence. The word "god" has MANY definitions, and none of them exactly make sense. One needs to know exactly what a "god" is before you can ask for evidence of a gods existence.

Unfortunately, no theist is able to answer this question in any satisfactory way. The concept of a god is messy. Its intangible. Its vacuous and mired in hopeless contradictions.

This is why I CAN say that "god does not exist" with certainty, just like I can say a square circle doesn't exist with certainty.

 

[gnostic]

I would have to agree with Wandered Off's statement that agnosticism is all about knowing, while atheism is about belief.

 

[gnostic]

Absence of belief is having no belief of whatsoever.

Atheism does have a belief, and they don't believe in god. As oberon said, atheism is disbelief in any deity, not absence of belief. He is right in saying that disbelief is still a belief.

In order to have absence of belief, then you will have no belief in god's existence at the same time having no belief in god's non-existence.

Theists have strong positive belief. Atheists have equally strong positive belief, but which is opposite to theist's stance.

 

[KarlVonMox]

Absence of belief is having no belief of whatsoever.

Atheism does have a belief, and they don't believe in god. As oberon said, atheism is disbelief in any deity, not absence of belief. He is right in saying that disbelief is still a belief.

In order to have absence of belief, then you will have no belief in god's existence at the same time having no belief in god's non-existence.

Theists have strong positive belief. Atheists have equally strong positive belief, but which is opposite to theist's stance.

Its unfortunate that no matter how many times this incorrect assertion about atheism is rebutted and corrected, someone new always comes along and repeats it.

This "atheism is a belief, atheism requires faith" nonsense is entrenched among those who wish to build up strawman arguments against atheism, like "atheists are unhappy" or "atheists are really just in denial". I think its really in the interest of atheists to make sure people understand exactly what atheism is, because that is half the battle.

Once again: atheism has nothing to do with belief. Theists are the ones making the positive assertion about the existence of something (god(s)), therefore the burden of proof is on them. A rejection of this claim is atheism. This INCLUDES agnostics in the sense it is usually applied, who have also rejected the claim (they dont believe).

Do not quote what Oberon said, because he has been wrong since the beginning of the thread. Disbelief is not a belief. It is the ABSENCE of belief. Atheists LACK belief in any god(s). Agnosticism only emerges as a "third" option when the definition of atheism is narrowed to include only those that say positively "God does not exist". But when atheism is defined in the broader CORRECT sense, Agnosticism disappears as a third option.

Agnosticism is not an escape clause. You are either an atheist or a theist. Period.

Now, I wait for the next person to repeat what Oberon said.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

....snip....
Once again: atheism has nothing to do with belief. Theists are the ones making the positive assertion about the existence of something (god(s)), therefore the burden of proof is on them. A rejection of this claim is atheism. This INCLUDES agnostics in the sense it is usually applied, who have also rejected the claim (they dont believe).

Do not quote what Oberon said, because he has been wrong since the beginning of the thread. Disbelief is not a belief. It is the ABSENCE of belief. Atheists LACK belief in any god(s). Agnosticism only emerges as a "third" option when the definition of atheism is narrowed to include only those that say positively "God does not exist". But when atheism is defined in the broader CORRECT sense, Agnosticism disappears as a third option.

Agnosticism is not an escape clause. You are either an atheist or a theist. Period.

Now, I wait for the next person to repeat what Oberon said.

To consider a term broadly ("CORRECTLY" as you would say) is to not cherry-pick only one of several definitions the term might have. Rather you must consider all of the ramifications of the term. For "atheism" that includes "denying the existance of any and all God(s)."

Only if you exclusively cherry-pick out the phrase "lacks belief in god(s)" from the full/broad definition of atheist do you get Agnosticism to 'disappear'.

I stand by what I've said before. Many of the people here, and elsewhere who describe themselves with the word "Atheist" are actually better described as "Agnostic".



Theist - 'Some God or gods do exist.'
Atheist - 'You're wrong!'
Agnostic - 'Does either one of you have proof?'

 

[Kilgore Trout]

To consider a term broadly ("CORRECTLY" as you would say) is to not cherry-pick only one of several definitions the term might have. Rather you must consider all of the ramifications of the term. For "atheism" that includes "denying the existance of any and all God(s)."

Cherry-picking? You mean like picking just one of several possible definitions, and deciding that that is the correct one? That kind of cherry-picking?

 

[gnostic]

This "atheism is a belief, atheism requires faith" nonsense is entrenched among those who wish to build up strawman arguments against atheism, like "atheists are unhappy" or "atheists are really just in denial".

Once again: atheism has nothing to do with belief. Theists are the ones making the positive assertion about the existence of something (god(s)), therefore the burden of proof is on them. A rejection of this claim is atheism. This INCLUDES agnostics in the sense it is usually applied, who have also rejected the claim (they dont believe).

Actually atheism is a personal belief that there are no god(s). It is positive assertion of the direct opposite to theist's stance, KarlVonMox.

However, I AM NOT ASSERTING that atheism is a religion, KarlVonMox, if that's what you think I am saying. Belief in something doesn't turn it into a religion. Nor am I calling atheism as being the system of faith. Far from it.

Now if we were talking about absence of evidence with regarding to the existence of god, this would be different.

The theists use this argument to say that atheists and agnostics can't prove the existence of their god, so that is a proof that there is a god. Now, I would call this A LOAD OF CRAP NONSENSE.

You either have evidence that support the existence of a deity, or you have evidence to support that the deity doesn't exist. But since there are ABSENCE OF EVIDENCES from either side, then it stands to reason that this is proof that there are no deities whatsoever, until the theists provide evidences to support their stance.

 

[dogsgod]

Absence of belief is having no belief of whatsoever.

Atheism does have a belief, and they don't believe in god. As oberon said, atheism is disbelief in any deity, not absence of belief. He is right in saying that disbelief is still a belief.

In order to have absence of belief, then you will have no belief in god's existence at the same time having no belief in god's non-existence.

Theists have strong positive belief. Atheists have equally strong positive belief, but which is opposite to theist's stance.

All I know is that god is a belief, and I don't take part in such beliefs. Not only do I have no belief, I don't even know what you mean by 'god' since everyone has their own idea as to what god is, so I don't even know what makes me an atheist other than the fact that I have an absence of belief in these gods. I don't partake, nor do I have a strong positive belief.

 

[gnostic]

But you are confusing "belief" with religion and faith.

Do not equate religion with belief, because anyone can have personal belief, and this doesn't mean that yours or mine personal belief is automatically promoted to religion.

For example, there are people who believe in UFO and alien abduction, and some of these people do turn this into cult, so it is religion-like. But what about those people who don't believe in UFO and alien abduction? Does that mean the anti-UFO people have anti-UFO religion? No, they don't.

Disbelief is still believe, but just the opposite.

Since there are no evidences (absence of evidences) to support the UFO and alien abduction, then it is safe to say that there are none of these alien flying objects or abduction.

And since there are evidences to support the existence of god, then that's proof that there are no god.

Knowing and believing are two different things, however they sometimes co-exist, and sometimes they don't co-exist.

For me, knowing is more important than belief. If I know that something are true, then belief or disbelief can exist.

Theists and religions on the other hand, belief and disregard knowing for certainty and replace certainty (knowing) with faith. They rather trust their belief than evidences and objective experiences.

 

[gnostophiliac]

... Not only do I have no belief, ...

At least, that's what you devoutly believe.

 

[dogsgod]

I'm not confusing anything. I don't even know what it is that doesn't supposedly exists because I don't waste my time defining these gods. That is for the believer to ponder. All I know is that I'm atheist as it pertains to such matters due to my absence of belief.

 

[Jackytar]

At least, that's what you devoutly believe.

You see Daemon? This is what I was talking about. This is Huxley's legacy.

Jackytar

 

[KarlVonMox]

Only if you exclusively cherry-pick out the phrase "lacks belief in god(s)" from the full/broad definition of atheist do you get Agnosticism to 'disappear'.

I am not cherry picking. This IS the definition of atheism. a-theism. Without theism. Without belief. It really cant get any simpler than that. There is nothing to justify narrowing the definition of atheism down to the single positive assertion of "God does not exist". This is a variety of atheism, but its not the only one.

One can be an agnostic atheist. This is someone who does not believe in God because he maintains that any supernatural deity is unknowable, including the existence of such deities. These are the "agnostics" on this forum. BUT THEY ARE STILL ATHEISTS. They lack belief in any god(s).

I grow tired of this debate because I often repeat myself.

Theist - 'Some God or gods do exist.'
Atheist - 'You're wrong!'
Agnostic - 'Does either one of you have proof?'

Disbelief is still believe, but just the opposite.

Its impossible to produce evidence for the non-existance of something. You could make this argument about anything. Prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. Prove that invisible pink unicorns don't exist.

The only person that has to produce evidence here is the theist.

But really, this argument is beside the point because it assumes once again that atheists are only making positive assertions about the non-existence of any deities. They are not.

 

[Willamena]

Atheism is whatever the person who utilizes it means for it to be. What it it means to others should only be significant if they, each, together, must utilize it in harmony.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Cherry-picking? You mean like picking just one of several possible definitions, and deciding that that is the correct one? That kind of cherry-picking?

I picked the whole tree, not just one berry. If one of those cherries is not so palatable........tough. It's still part of the whole shabang.

You see Daemon? This is what I was talking about. This is Huxley's legacy.

Jackytar

:yes: I don't so much blame him, as I hold most of humanity to blame for not being able to live with the vast uncertainty of it all hanging over their heads.
A placenta and a galaxy are tiny, fragile things next to the enormity of the universe. People gotta stop thinking that they know it all.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Atheism is whatever the person who utilizes it means for it to be. What it it means to others should only be significant if they, each, together, must utilize it in harmony.

Actually, my dad is Episcopalean, and my mom is (was) atheist. (later she became agnostic, and recently she's changed to Unitarian Universalist.)
Most of the time that she stated she was "Atheist" she espoused Agnostic beliefs. I pointed out the difference to her several years ago, and that is when she made her first shift.

P.S. - I like your avatar's winter fashion.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I picked the whole tree, not just one berry. If one of those cherries is not so palatable........tough. It's still part of the whole shabang.

So, you do accept that "not holding a belief in god" is a valid definition of atheism? I must have missed the post where you admitted your error.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

So, you do accept that "not holding a belief in god" is a valid definition of atheism? I must have missed the post where you admitted your error.

:biglaugh:
It's one of several. I.e. It is a narrow and limited (cherry-picked) definition.
Look, it's a simply mathematical ruling.
There are two statements carried by almost all dictionaries....
1 -- an atheist is a person who does not hold a belief in god.
2 -- an atheist is a peron who denies the existance of any god or gods.

I and many others connect these two defining staements with the word "AND" (thus making our definition broader and more inclusive): while you and some others insist on.....
i -- connecting them with the word "OR",
....AND....
ii -- utterly ignoring the second definition and repeatedly and unerringly picking only the first statement.

Watching this display over and over again is like watching a bank robber defending himself in a court of law using the following logic....
Prosecutor summary: "We have shown that the defedent did walk into the bank, and produce a pistol. He then proceeded to threaten the teller, demand money, and then drive away in this car."
Defendent (you): "Ha! So you admit that I walked into the bank! There you have it. And as we all know, there is nothing illegal about walking into a bank! This legal farce is over! Case closed!! Bailiff? Uncuff me!"

 

[Kilgore Trout]

:biglaugh:
It's one of several. I.e. It is a narrow and limited (cherry-picked) definition.
Look, it's a simply mathematical ruling.
There are two statements carried by almost all dictionaries....
1 -- an atheist is a person who does not hold a belief in god.
2 -- an atheist is a peron who denies the existance of any god or gods.

I and many others connect these two defining staements with the word "AND" (thus making our definition broader and more inclusive): while you and some others insist on.....
i -- connecting them with the word "OR",
....AND....
ii -- utterly ignoring the second definition and repeatedly and unerringly picking only the first statement.

Your use of the word "broad" is interesting.

Additionally, when several definitions of a word are listed in the dictionary, it does, in fact, mean "or." If it mean only "and," then that means an atheist would be a person who both believes there is no god, and also holds no belief in god. This is obviously nonsensical.

I'm not ignoring both definitions. For some, atheism is a belief. For others, like myself, it is not.

Watching this display over and over again is like watching a bank robber defending himself in a court of law using the following logic....
Prosecutor summary: "We have shown that the defedent did walk into the bank, and produce a pistol. He then proceeded to threaten the teller, demand money, and then drive away in this car."
Defendent (you): "Ha! So you admit that I walked into the bank! There you have it. And as we all know, there is nothing illegal about walking into a bank! This legal farce is over! Case closed!! Bailiff? Uncuff me!"

You need more practice with analogies.

 

[Oberon]

Education=Fail.

There are certainly agnostics that believe in god and there are agnostics who do not. You haven't the slightest idea what agnosticism and gnosticism mean. Please go to your nearest wiki page and educate yourself, lest you look like a fool. :slap:

I would look like a fool if I used wiki. Instead, I read greek, so I know the roots of these words. I am also familiar with Huxley, who coined the term agnostic. Finally, I am familiar with the study of logic (both philosophical and applied) so I know that disbelief in X means belief in non-X (read up on logic and epistemic modality for further info. I'll give you the references).

Agnostics who say they believe in god aren't agnostics. If I say I am a christian who doesn't believe Jesus ever existed or that god is real, I'm not a christian. What individuals say doesn't matter. Plenty of people use words incorrectly all the time. An agnostic is simply one who doesn't know about god. An atheist believes god doesn't exist.

For one, I don't even know how you define God so I don't even know what it is I'm supposed to believe doesn't exist.

You speak english, and being familiar with your posts I would bet as a primarily language. The word "god" in english is construed in a fairly consistent manner. As an english speaking atheist, you are familiar enough with how "god" is used to determine that you believe that s/he doesn't exist.

I'm an atheist because I don't share in the belief of the theist

Wrong. Because that wouldn't differentiate you from an agnostic or even a buddhist. You are an atheist because you believe that no theos exists.

it's simply an absence of belief

Study logic and epistemology. The absence of belief= belief in something else.