Definitions: Atheism and Agnosticsm.

Furthermore,

• one cannot be either an okra-lover or mortician without also being either Theist/Atheist
• one cannot be either a bee-keeper or existentialist without also being either Theist/Atheist
• one cannot be either a Peterist or wide receiver without also being either Theist/Atheist
• one cannot be either above X or Y without ...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A funny observation but not relevant to my point, which I will try and explain one more time.

Theism/Atheism and Gnosticism/Agnosticism are two separate schools of thought. Never the less you cannot claim to be an Atheist without also taking a position regarding knowledge of God. For that matter you cannot claim to be a Theist without also taking a position regarding knowledge of God. You either have knowledge regarding the existence of God or you have no such knowledge.

The strength of one’s belief in no god (or disbelief) is not what distinguishes between a strong Atheist and a weak one. It is the claim of knowledge that is the determining factor. You either know that there is no God or you claim no such knowledge.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Correct.

Incorrect. While it is true that an atheist is either gnostic or agnostic, these epistemological standpoints are not what distinguish strong and weak atheism. Let's try it this way:

Gnostic strong atheism: Knowledge and explicit belief that God or gods do not exist (the knowledge implies the explicit disbelief).

Gnostic weak atheism: Lack of belief that God or gods exist and knowledge that God or gods do not exist. (Note that all strong atheists are also weak atheists because they have the requisite lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. They simply take it one step further by proactively believing that God or gods do not exist.) Since knowledge implies explicit disbelief, gnostic weak atheism is simply a more general way of describing gnostic strong atheism. All gnostic weak atheists will also be gnostic strong atheists.

Agnostic strong atheism: Explicit belief, but not knowledge, that God or gods do not exist.

Agnostic weak atheism: Lack of knowledge of and belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lucid,

Just a quick critique for now.

Not if they are true scientists. Science is strictly rational. A belief without an evidential basis would be irrational. These scientists offer a speculative hypothesis and are searching for evidence to support the hypothesis. Issues of belief are strictly irrelevant. A true scientist will withhold belief (for or against) until evidence is found, if ever.

And hence form the basis for a rational belief.

Oh but it most certainly does or should if we are discussing truly objective scientists. Without knowledge a belief in the existence of aliens would be irrational.

Then they would not be scientists, since such a belief would be irrational and not scientific.

I agree that holding a belief is not dependent on supporting knowledge (evidence), but if the belief is to be considered rational then knowledge is required.

Now, do your assertions regarding Gnosticism and agnosticism still make sense in that light?

 

I must disagree with that statement. While belief without knowledge is not scientific, I wouldn't say it is always irrational. For example, I believe that the Christian God does not exist. This belief is based on reason. There is no evidence for the existence of such a being. The evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ is, in my opinion, spurious at best. And the Christian Bible forces the rational mind into a state of incredulity.

Now I don't claim to have personal knowledge that the Christian God does not exist, but I would certainly maintain that my belief that he does not exist is not irrational.

 

Hmm ...

That's like saying a Yugo is in no way a car. True, but barely and selectively.

Should we measure atheism by its assertion, or by its adherents?

:m:,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

How do you define "a religion", Tiassa?

I suggest that the term is defined by its members and by common usage... ie that "a religion" is any member of the set of things that are commonly agreed to be religions.

If Atheism is not commonly agreed to be a religion, then it's not a religion.

 

... which is the converse of saying "It is important to note that Agnosticism is not a third option to Theism or Atheism, but rather a subset of the two."

 

OK, forget I used the word “subset” in a previous post. It was a poor choice of words on my part. The point I was trying to make was that people will frequently claim to be Agnostic as an alternative to Atheist, as if the word Atheist has a negative connotation.

People either know or they do not know AND they either believe or they do not believe (or believe in a negative).

 

Jade,

The building block of reason is the logical premise. A valid premise requires a factual basis, i.e. it has been proved; it is knowledge. If your claim to reason does not contain such a premise then your claim is irrational, no matter how much it appears “reasonable” to you.

But let’s gain some perspective; while the basis for your belief is not reason it is nevertheless an overwhelming issue of credibility. The question of whether the Christian God exists is as pointless as asking whether Santa Claus exists. It is not a question of reason, irrationality, or need for proof, since a perusal of the history of religions shows an overwhelming and total common theme – human imaginative creativity. I.e. gods are fantasies and do not warrant serious investigation anymore than Santa Claus or fairies.

So while we debate the detailed meanings of terms like theism, atheism, agnosticism, etc, there is a tendency to miss the big picture – gods are fantasy concepts, so let’s lighten up and enjoy the mythical bedtime stories. And aren’t they great children’s stories; the ultimate good guy versus the ultimate bad guy, with lot’s of killing, some love, sacrifice, betrayal, torture – sounds like a best seller.

 

Now I see why we were in disagreement. I was looking at the terms "rational" and "reasonable" in the common everyday usages (i.e. sensible, having sound judgment, not absurd), while you were using these terms as they apply to the field of logic.

I could possibly enjoy these fairy tales if they were presented for what they really are. Unfortunately, some of these fantasies are portrayed as the truth to a credulous population. And the dogma associated with this "truth" starts to infringe upon the personal liberties of those subject to the believers of such nonsense.

 

Some do. Some don't. Forgive me, but it seems like an underwhelming point. Parenthetically, neither you nor I are in charge of connotation.

I agree.

 

Jade,

Or more importantly such “truths” infringe on the freedoms of those who do not believe and against their will.

The solution I think is education and specifically in the area of critical thinking.

 

My thoughts exactly. I've wanted "Critical Thinking" to be a required course for high school students for some time now. I should write to my MLA, but I live in a very conservative province where critical thinking by no means abounds.

 

Well I got it 'previously' but now... well I thought here it was being stated that a disbeleif is, possibly, an expression of uncertainty. So disbeleif is not an expression of uncertainty - but if you use it to say I disbeleive in theist claims... it can possibly mean you are uncertain of the truth within the claims? That's what I'm reading there... I'm just trying to wrap my non-technical head around this one - don't mind me. I know Cris is a bright guy/girl.

Well, maybe it's my reading again, but, ultimate reality or deity. Don't atheists believe in their ultimate reality? Like if you 'throw yourself off a building gravity will surely pull you down, so gravity does exist' - paraphrased - mind you cro-magnons pushed rocks off cliffsides to slaughter mammoths - I'm wondering if 'gravity' was existent back then - wonder if t hey ever thought of what causes that downward motion? Agnostics are the only ones who escape the religious realm. Try as you might atheists, you're right there with the cattle.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You know, you'll soon have a religious sect called 'Consequent Atheists', that guy is areal 'athevangelist' don't you think?

 

MarcAC,

Try this example: If I claim there is an invisible evil gnome standing on your shoulder right now, will you be unsure whether the claim is true or not or will you simply disbelieve my claim as being idiotic?

See my opening post again – atheist disbelief – This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. I.e. there is no uncertainty.

Atheism is concerned with the disbelief of deities. The fact that those who are labeled atheists might also believe other things has nothing to do with atheism.

 

Everyone agrees with the history of Santa Claus and knows well that there is a human behind the Santa's guise. But not everyone agrees with histories of religions. History of religions would reveal what the authors of those histories wanted to reveal. Besides, your notion of God and It's investigation are heavily linked to religions. Therefore your outright rejection of God as fantasy is not rational and the premises ( histories of religions ) you hold for that rejection is disputable.

 

Everneo,

I never thought of Santa as human. The concept is of a being that can fly in a sleigh with flying reindeer and can visit every home on the planet in a single night and can climb down every chimney no matter how narrow. The point is that it is a made-up story, a fairy tale.

I agree, but one can examine them to see if they have the qualities of a fairy tale or have factual content.

As was the Santa Claus tale.

How so? Can you point to any incident or record in history that reveals a proof for the existence of a god? Without a proof you have nothing but a fantasy, a fairy tale exactly like Santa Claus.

You have no method to prove me wrong unless you have a proof for a god, until then all you have is a fairy tale, albeit a very elaborate one, deliberately made complex for adult consumption.

Within this light my rejection of gods as fantasies is fully rational.

 

Cris,

You missed to respond to the line (bold) in my above quote.!

 

Everneo,

It appeared to be noise.

I assume then you are trying to imply that a god concept could exist independently of a religious framework. I don’t believe that is possible. As soon as a god concept is imagined and proposed as a truth then that forms the creation of a religious framework, a belief in gods is religion. Even the simplest form that Deism portrays is still a religion.

A possible alternative is that a god concept forms the cornerstone of a scientific hypothesis, where belief, for or against is not an issue. However a scientific hypothesis is only rationally warranted if a body of evidence and inference has been provided in support of it. So even here you cannot get past the god as a fantasy issue and form a valid hypothesis without some evidence. And the proposal that the universe must have been created so therefore a god did it is not a valid inference for this exercise.

My assertion that all religious histories are based on imaginative fantasies is strictly because none, that I have examined, can point to direct observation or verifiable physical evidence. Now I haven’t examined every religion so there is a potential for you to prove me wrong by showing me a history which isn’t a fantasy.