What does ''agnostic atheist'' mean?

[ThePainefulTruth]

While "atheism" is a position (at least explicit atheism is), I think it fair for the burden to be placed on those that make a claim of God (an ill-defined, supernatural entity) existing.

But the real issue isn't the existence of God, but what the cause of the universe is.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

While "atheism" is a position (at least explicit atheism is), I think it fair for the burden to be placed on those that make a claim of God (an ill-defined, supernatural entity) existing.

But, as I've pointed out elsewhere, the real issue isn't the existence of God, but rather the cause of the universe. The burden of proof is on whomever claims to know that it was or couldn't have been God.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I am perfectly serious. I am a gnostic atheist because I possess knowledge that there is no god. That does not entail that I have certainty that god does not exist. Knowledge and certainty are not the same thing.

They most certainly are. Knowledge is objective Truth. Certainty can only be based on objective Truth. Anything else is only evidence or error.

 

[ArtieE]

But, as I've pointed out elsewhere, the real issue isn't the existence of God, but rather the cause of the universe.

Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods nothing more.

The burden of proof is on whomever claims to know that it was or couldn't have been God.

That is correct. But those aren't theists and atheists. None of them claim to KNOW anything.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods nothing more.That is correct. But those aren't theists and atheists. None of them claim to KNOW anything.

Look around, there certainly are such claims--from both sides. Even if you have actually failed to come across any of them, you'd still have to admit that anyone who did make such claims of certainty would thereby acquire the burden of proof.

And, btw, you wouldn't have to look far, on this site alone.

 

[prometheus11]

But, as I've pointed out elsewhere, the real issue isn't the existence of God, but rather the cause of the universe. The burden of proof is on whomever claims to know that it was or couldn't have been God.

How is that the real issue?

Who is claiming to KNOW that it wasn't or couldn't have been God?

Doesn't that claim imply that most people largely agree on the concept of God (which we know isn't the case)?

 

[leibowde84]

Which only underscores that strong atheists are not considered to be atheists.

Sure they are. They are atheists because they fulfill the requirement of "lacking belief in the existence of God". They merely go a step further and say that they not only lack belief, but also actively believe that God does not exist.

 

[leibowde84]

But the real issue isn't the existence of God, but what the cause of the universe is.

Well, since we don't know all of the possibilities, I still think it is fair to put the burden on those who explain the origin of the universe with a supernatural entity.

 

[leibowde84]

But, as I've pointed out elsewhere, the real issue isn't the existence of God, but rather the cause of the universe. The burden of proof is on whomever claims to know that it was or couldn't have been God.

Oh, don't get me wrong. If someone claims that God as the initializer is an impossibility, they also have a burden of proof. But, if one side says "we don't know" or "it's most likely some kind of natural phenomenon that we aren't aware of yet", and another says, "God did it", the burden show rest solely on the one claiming a supernatural entity as the cause.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Well, since we don't know all of the possibilities, I still think it is fair to put the burden on those who explain the origin of the universe with a supernatural entity.

Those who claim certainty of such, yeah. And the only other possibility is spontaneous creation which some others will claim as the explanation, who will be just as equally burdened. Hard atheists have been trying to tap dance around that burden for as long as there've been those atheists who claim such certainty. The only reasonable way out for them is not to claim it.

 

[leibowde84]

And the only other possibility is spontaneous creation which some others will claim as the explanation, who will be just as equally burdened.

This I strongly disagree with. There are, presumably, many different possibilities that we aren't aware of as of yet. Our scientific understanding is still very young/new, so I'm sure we will see many more theories in the future. It's not an either or situation.

 

[Willamena]

Sure they are. They are atheists because they fulfill the requirement of "lacking belief in the existence of God". They merely go a step further and say that they not only lack belief, but also actively believe that God does not exist.

Fine, then with " strong atheist" you have specified a person who both does and doesn't believe that God does not exist.

Please re-read the thread and if you still want to pursue the contradiction I'll say nothing more.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

How is that the real issue?

Because that's the issue that involves evidence--the universe and how it came to be.

Who is claiming to KNOW that it wasn't or couldn't have been God?

Hard atheists, such as you apparently, since in your next sentence, you claim to "know (God) isn't the case".

Doesn't that claim imply that most people largely agree on the concept of God (which we know isn't the case)?

"The Truth is a majority of one"--Ghandi.

 

[leibowde84]

Fine, then with " strong atheist" you have specified a person who both does and doesn't believe that God does not exist.

Please re-read the thread and if you still want to pursue the contradiction I'll say nothing more.

There is no contradiction. Anyone who believes that God doesn't exist necessarily lacks or is without a belief in the existence of God.

 

[leibowde84]

Fine, then with " strong atheist" you have specified a person who both does and doesn't believe that God does not exist.

Please re-read the thread and if you still want to pursue the contradiction I'll say nothing more.

I'll break it down for you:
Atheist = one who lacks belief in the existence of God/gods
Weak Atheist = one who lacks belief in the existence of God/gods, but does not believe actively that God is an impossibility.
Strong Atheist = one who lacks belief in the existence of God/gods, and goes a step further actively believing that God is an impossibility.

Both strong and weak atheists "lack belief in the existence of God/gods", so they are both atheists. Strong atheists, however, hold the belief that God does not exist.

 

[ArtieE]

Those who claim certainty of such, yeah. And the only other possibility is spontaneous creation which some others will claim as the explanation, who will be just as equally burdened. Hard atheists have been trying to tap dance around that burden for as long as there've been those atheists who claim such certainty. The only reasonable way out for them is not to claim it.

Theists believe that one or more gods exist. There is no requirement for a theist to believe that the particular gods they believe exist created any universe. Hard/strong atheists believe that no gods exist. None of them are technically required to provide any evidence for anything.

If you ask a theist (atheist) why he is a theist (atheist) a perfectly acceptable answer would be "I grew up in a theist (atheist) household and it just fell naturally." But if he says "I am a theist (strong atheist) because I have evidence that god(s) exist (don't exist)" then he must produce his evidence and if it's just subjective evidence he must find a way to produce objective evidence.

 

[ArtieE]

Hard atheists, such as you apparently, since in your next sentence, you claim to "know (God) isn't the case".

Hard atheists claim to believe they don't claim to know.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Theists believe that one or more gods exist. There is no requirement for a theist to believe that the particular gods they believe exist created any universe. Hard/strong atheists believe that no gods exist. None of them are technically required to provide any evidence for anything.

Hard/strong atheists claim certainty that no gods exist. Soft/agnostic atheists believe that no gods exists, and while for them there may or may not be evidence, it isn't required.

If you ask a theist (atheist) why he is a theist (atheist) a perfectly acceptable answer would be "I grew up in a theist (atheist) household and it just fell naturally." But if he says "I am a theist (strong atheist) because I have evidence that god(s) exist (don't exist)" then he must produce his evidence and if it's just subjective evidence he must find a way to produce objective evidence.

I don't disagree with that, but it disagrees with the first. Knowledge = certainty. Belief, based on partial evidence or no evidence, does not = knowledge/certainty.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Hard atheists claim to believe they don't claim to know.

Well then, what are you who claims to "know God isn't the case". If you insist that isn't the definition of a hard atheist, then what is it (you) the definition of?

 

[ArtieE]

Hard/strong atheists claim certainty that no gods exist.

They believe no gods exist.

Soft/agnostic atheists believe that no gods exists,

No they don't. They are just not theists and have no beliefs either way. How many times must this be explained before you get it?