Strong Atheism doesn't exist

[ArtieE]

I will not go about telling them to stop labeling themselves as such, but yes I consider it a contradiction in terms.

Can you clarify? Why can't a theist say "I don't know whether gods exist or not but I believe they do."

 

[Michael Colton]

Can you clarify? Why can't a theist say "I don't know whether gods exist or not but I believe they do."

Because a knowledge claim has nothing to do with atheism or theism. Claiming to 'know' is not a requirement for either. So if you believe in a deity you are a theist. If you do not, you are an atheist.

Adding agnostic to either is entirely unnecessary - and in the case of theism, it contradicts the secondary definition of agnostic. As defined by the Oxford English Dictionary: "a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." A theist does claim faith or belief in a god. It is a contradiction.

The definition in its entirety (not espousing faith or unfaith plus not claiming to know one way or the other) is a term for someone who is unsure of their worldview regardless of what it is. It is for someone that cannot rightfully respond whether they have faith or not - typically after deeper discussion they turn out to be an insecure atheist, but regardless the definition is the description of someone without belief or unbelief. It is a sort of limbo. As I said, I will not tell people to stop using the term for themselves - it is none of my business - but using it in the manner of 'agnostic theist' is ignoring part of the definition.

 

[Willamena]

Sorry, but I can't make sense of that post. Would you rephrase it please?

Using the term 'atheist' in any non-specific sense renders it meaningless. If atheism is taken to mean a belief that no gods of any description known or unknown exist anywhere in the universe, then it becomes a nonsense term as opposed to a useful distinction.

All that's necessary is to tie the term atheist to the concept of god, rather than to any, each, or all known "gods."

We each hold a concept of a thing that is an image in our minds of its definition. The concept of a horse is not tied to any particular horse or to all specific horses, but rather stands alone to represent each and all of them, from the modern-day Arabian to the horse-like zebra and donkey, to the ancient ancestor of horsekind. No one particular represents the concept, but the concept represents all particulars.

When we use the term 'god' intellgibly in a sentence or in another term, we've utilize the concept of god. Conversely, the term needn't be tied to any particular to make sense of it.

 

[ArtieE]

Because a knowledge claim has nothing to do with atheism or theism. Claiming to 'know' is not a requirement for either. So if you believe in a deity you are a theist. If you do not, you are an atheist.

True. Therefore a theist claiming he believes but doesn't know is an "agnostic theist". A theist who claims to believe but says nothing about knowing or not knowing anything is just a theist.

Adding agnostic to either is entirely unnecessary - and in the case of theism, it contradicts the secondary definition of agnostic. As defined by the Oxford English Dictionary: "a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

There is nothing stopping an agnostic from being a theist too. "Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism]Agnostic theism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia One ten word line from a dictionary is simply not sufficient to explain this correctly read some more comprehensive explanations.

 

[Michael Colton]

True. Therefore a theist claiming he believes but doesn't know is an "agnostic theist". A theist who claims to believe but says nothing about knowing or not knowing anything is just a theist.There is nothing stopping an agnostic from being a theist too. "Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism]Agnostic theism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia One ten word line from a dictionary is simply not sufficient to explain this correctly read some more comprehensive explanations.

As I said, I am not going to go around telling people to stop using the term. I am aware of what they mean when they say it. I merely think it is a circumstance where people unfortunately redefined a term to label a very specific and niche concept that is in contradiction with the standard use of the word.

 

[ArtieE]

As I said, I am not going to go around telling people to stop using the term. I am aware of what they mean when they say it. I merely think it is a circumstance where people unfortunately redefined a term to label a very specific and niche concept that is in contradiction with the standard use of the word.

The definition of agnosticism is "the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable." It says nothing about belief just about knowledge. The problem has been that people have been confusing the two and applied belief or lack of to agnosticism too. The simple rule is: gnosticism/agnosticism = knowledge, theism/atheism = belief. Just don't mix them up.

 

[Sapiens]

There is not belief in atheism, just an understanding of stochasticity and an understanding that the odds of gods are rather slim.

 

[Michael Colton]

The definition of agnosticism is "the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable." It says nothing about belief just about knowledge. The problem has been that people have been confusing the two and applied belief or lack of to agnosticism too. The simple rule is: gnosticism/agnosticism = knowledge, theism/atheism = belief. Just don't mix them up.

I already quoted another definition that does include lack of belief in agnosticism. It is far from the only source that does so. It is not as cut and dry as you claim. But I will repeat again that I am not going to try to argue people out of self-describing themselves as an 'agnostic theist.' I was asked why I consider it a contradiction in terms and I provided the reason. Since I am not trying to convince people to stop using the term, I do not see the point in continuing this.

And as Sapiens said, there is no belief element in atheism.

 

[s2a]

This has nothing to do with what you call the "atheistic perspective" since even an agnostic theist can say "I have zero evidence to suggest that any "god(s)" are necessary to explain the natural world or cosmos as we understand it but I believe in "god(s)" anyway.

Then we disagree. You are wrong, and I am not.

'"Or unsure theists who said "I don't know if god(s) exist but I believe they do".

I hear you. I really do.

I'm not in the habit of offering theists a fire exit for their doubts. "Agnostics " remain entitled to their opinions, but "logic" (and most stridently, that sustained willingness to suspend disbelief) makes no place in the long run...for "agnostics:.

"Doubt" is not much of a compelling testimony, and worse if offers no evidence beyond "I don't know". Fact is, we do know better. It may not be comforting to theists at all, but then,"atheists" never promise to comfort the afflicted or doubtful.

Seeing "things" as they are, versus what we may "wish" they might/should be, is just escapism absent what is knowable/understandable.

This is NOT a matter of politics or humanistic dreams, it's conclusions borne and derived from what we can know.

 

[Bunyip]

All that's necessary is to tie the term atheist to the concept of god, rather than to any, each, or all known "gods."

We each hold a concept of a thing that is an image in our minds of its definition. The concept of a horse is not tied to any particular horse or to all specific horses, but rather stands alone to represent each and all of them, from the modern-day Arabian to the horse-like zebra and donkey, to the ancient ancestor of horsekind. No one particular represents the concept, but the concept represents all particulars.

When we use the term 'god' intellgibly in a sentence or in another term, we've utilize the concept of god. Conversely, the term needn't be tied to any particular to make sense of it.

When I use the term 'god' I am not referring to a concept, but to a specific god. The term 'god' MUST be tied to a specific concept to have any meaning.

 

[ArtieE]

And as Sapiens said, there is no belief element in atheism.

Not in "weak atheism" defined as "absence of belief in god(s)" but "strong atheists" believe there are no gods.

 

[religion99]

I'm am a strong atheist.

Why? Because I got tired of replying to each and every separate personal definition of god, and I thought, "Why can't I have my own personal definition of god?" So I made one. I'm going to go into too much detail about the logic behind it, because it's way more than I am willing to sit and write, at least not in one sitting. But here's an overview.

The argument is basically; I am not god, therefore god does not exist.
There are a few axioms that need to be accepted to follow the logic, and I accept them so it works fine for me.
One, I am not god and by that I mean humans - past, present, and future - are not gods. Two, if something exists it can be known. Three, an intelligent entity has no limit to its potential. Four, god is greater than human potential.
Now to determine what is a god, you can't start with what you don't know you need to start with what you do know. I know I am not god, I am human, humans are intelligent entities, therefore there is no limit to the human species' potential, if there is no limit to human potential then there is nothing greater than human potential, therefore there is no god. This all differentiates between an actual god and a being with great power. There can be beings with greater power and ability than us, but I don't consider them gods. The second axiom, "if something exists it can be known" which means to me, if we can understand it we can attain it, removes the possibility that a god could exist outside of our universe and be beyond human potential, if it exists it can be known, therefore it isn't beyond human potential, therefore it's not a god. Extremely powerful but not a god.

So basically I've defined god as something whose existence is impossible. If something comes along with a concept of a god that doesn't measure up to those standards, I don't consider it a god, even if it actually exists.

Omniscient God(s) exist.

Proof One:

Axiom 1: If something exists it can be known.
Axiom 2: Everything that can be known indirectly , can be known directly.

=> Everything that exists can be known directly by someone.
And that someone is Omniscient God


Proof Two:

Axiom 1: Intelligent entities have no limit to their potential.
Axiom 2: Human Beings are intelligent entities.

=>Any human being that realizes their unlimited potential into actualities will have unlimited Intelligence and that human being is Omniscient God.

Proof Three:
If you deny existence of Omniscient , then you yourself are Omniscient which is not true. Hence opposite must be true.

Omniscient God(s) are possible because they have minimum interaction with the Universe(knower-known relation only , the most noble relation).

We have the potential to develop knower-known relationship with Universe , but right now we are in the Owner-Owned relationship with Universe and hence are not realizing our unlimited potential.

There is a detailed procedure to convert the Owner-Owned relationship to
knower-known relationship. It is very difficult , but not impossible.

Are you ready for the challenge?

 

[Bunyip]

Omniscient God(s) exist.

Proof One:

Axiom 1: If something exists it can be known.
Axiom 2: Everything that can be known indirectly , can be known directly.

=> Everything that exists can be known directly by someone.
And that someone is Omniscient God


Proof Two:

Axiom 1: Intelligent entities have no limit to their potential.
Axiom 2: Human Beings are intelligent entities.

=>Any human being that realizes their unlimited potential into actualities will have unlimited Intelligence and that human being is Omniscient God.

Proof Three:
If you deny existence of Omniscient , then you yourself are Omniscient which is not true. Hence opposite must be true.

Omniscient God(s) are possible because they have minimum interaction with the Universe(knower-known relation only , the most noble relation).

We have the potential to develop knower-known relationship with Universe , but right now we are in the Owner-Owned relationship with Universe and hence are not realizing our unlimited potential.

There is a detailed procedure to convert the Owner-Owned relationship to
knower-known relationship. It is very difficult , but not impossible.

Are you ready for the challenge?

Sadly none of your axioms are in fact axioms.

 

[Michael Colton]

Not in "weak atheism" defined as "absence of belief in god(s)" but "strong atheists" believe there are no gods.

Given the topic at hand and the other connotations of belief, it seems far more apropos to use 'think' in reference to strong atheists. They think there are no gods. As opposed to a 'weak' atheist who simply does not have belief in them.

But as I said either earlier in this thread or in a different thread, the whole strong/weak thing is largely pointless in my opinion. And perhaps a bit beyond pointless and a bit undesirable.

 

[Michael Colton]

Sadly none of your axioms are in fact axioms.

In the classic sense, this is correct. They are not axioms. However, in modern times axioms are no longer required to be self-evident or pre-established if one is simply dealing with a formal system. But since we are not dealing with a formal system . . . they are still not axioms. So this was a wasted paragraph.

 

[Bunyip]

In the classic sense, this is correct. They are not axioms. However, in modern times axioms are no longer required to be self-evident or pre-established if one is simply dealing with a formal system. But since we are not dealing with a formal system . . . they are still not axioms. So this was a wasted paragraph.

My head is spinning

 

[religion99]

In the classic sense, this is correct. They are not axioms. However, in modern times axioms are no longer required to be self-evident or pre-established if one is simply dealing with a formal system. But since we are not dealing with a formal system . . . they are still not axioms. So this was a wasted paragraph.

It is the formal system , that of the poster who is quoted in my post. Read his post. He has established his Axioms , not me. I just used his Axioms in my paragraph.

 

[LuisDantas]

Omniscient God(s) exist.

Proof One:

Axiom 1: If something exists it can be known.
Axiom 2: Everything that can be known indirectly , can be known directly.

=> Everything that exists can be known directly by someone.
And that someone is Omniscient God


Proof Two:

Axiom 1: Intelligent entities have no limit to their potential.
Axiom 2: Human Beings are intelligent entities.

=>Any human being that realizes their unlimited potential into actualities will have unlimited Intelligence and that human being is Omniscient God.

Proof Three:
If you deny existence of Omniscient , then you yourself are Omniscient which is not true. Hence opposite must be true.

Omniscient God(s) are possible because they have minimum interaction with the Universe(knower-known relation only , the most noble relation).

We have the potential to develop knower-known relationship with Universe , but right now we are in the Owner-Owned relationship with Universe and hence are not realizing our unlimited potential.

There is a detailed procedure to convert the Owner-Owned relationship to
knower-known relationship. It is very difficult , but not impossible.

Are you ready for the challenge?

Both of the two Axioms 1 that you present are arbitrary, or at least undemonstrated and at least arguably impossible to establish as true.

As for Proof Three, it is flawed as well. It establishes that it is impossible to know with absolute certainty whether there is an omniscient being unless you happen to be one. It does not prove or evidence anything else.

 

[Michael Colton]

It is the formal system , that of the poster who is quoted in my post. Read his post. He has established his Axioms , not me. I just used his Axioms in my paragraph.

When people refer to a 'formal system' in relation to axioms they are referring to either formal logic or a specific form of set theory. Not a few arbitrary axioms in a forum post. Absent the formal system, the classic sense of axiom needs to be met - or if you would rather put it this way, axioms need to be tautologies in order to be useful without a formal system.

 

[Willamena]

Given the topic at hand and the other connotations of belief, it seems far more apropos to use 'think' in reference to strong atheists. They think there are no gods. As opposed to a 'weak' atheist who simply does not have belief in them.

But as I said either earlier in this thread or in a different thread, the whole strong/weak thing is largely pointless in my opinion. And perhaps a bit beyond pointless and a bit undesirable.

"Think" is synonymous with "believe," in this case. It just complicates matters to force a semantic distinction between them.

If there's no pink elephant in evidence in the room, it's okay to believe there's no pink elephant in the room.