quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Regardless, in this case - again insofar as negative ontological claims cannot be logically "proven" - it would make more sense to consider this "absense of evidence" with regards to God not as evidence of any potential God's incomprehensibility, but rather as "evidence of [its] absense". If you claim that something has the properties of non-existence (and this goes for any pseudo-ontological claims, not just claims about God), would it make more sense to suggest that this "something" only has such properties because it is incomprehnsible, or that it just simply does not exist?

I didn't quite follow this part. Basically, I don't see the validity of the claim in the first sentence, and if the validity should be proven by the question in the second sentence, then I don't see the connection.

I disagree with your perspective on belief. According to the epistemology I adhere to, the sense input that we recieve basically cuts off possible explanations for what rules (if any) that determines this input. Believing is then the act of choosing one of the remaining (i.e. non-exluded) explanations. As all of them has yet to be proven false by experiences, any one of them is a possibility, and a single one cannot be infered as being correct. Hence, the choice, if taken, cannot stem not from logic but preferences. Don't know if it makes much sense to anyone else, but I'm quite happy with that perspective right now. EDIT: I guess you could call me a meta-agnostic...

EDIT: By the way, if you define atheist as a "lack of belief in a god", how does that differ from non-theist?

EDIT2: Good thread idea!

Last edited by trancaholic on Apr-06-2005 at 15:33

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I didn't quite follow this part. Basically, I don't see the validity of the claim in the first sentence, and if the validity should be proven by the question in the second sentence, then I don't see the connection.

My assertion was that the strong agnostic believes that any God that may exist is "incomprehensible" - that is, it will exist always beyond the possibility of human knowledge and comprehension. In this sense, this potential God has, for all intents and purposes, the properties of non-existence, the absolute negation of being.

My first sentence is essentially the claim that it would make more sense to attribute these properties of "non-existence" to the fact that God does not exist, rather than presuming that God may exist with the exact properties of something that doesn't exist. The second sentence is essentially Carl Sagan's "Dragon in My Garage" allegory compressed into a rhetorical question: "If you claim that something has the properties of non-existence, would it make more sense to suggest that this "something" only has such properties because it is incomprehnsible, or that it just simply does not exist?"

(It was intended as a rhetorical question, but you're still welcome to answer it if you feel that I'm wrong.)

quote:

I disagree with your perspective on belief. According to the epistemology I adhere to, the sense input that we recieve basically cuts off possible explanations for what rules (if any) that determines this input.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that we have no choice in what sensory input we receive? Are you saying that we have no choice in the manner in which this sensory input is received? Are you saying that our senses are fallible or incapable of sensing everything that occurs in the world around us? If so, in all cases, I'd agree with you, but I'm not sure how it relates to the issue of God or, particularly, that of non-belief.

quote:

Believing is then the act of choosing one of the remaining (i.e. non-exluded) explanations. As all of them has yet to be proven false by experiences, any one of them is a possibility, and a single one cannot be infered as being correct. Hence, the choice, if taken, cannot stem not from logic but preferences.

But what you're basically arguing here (correct me if I'm wrong) is that we are free to select arbitrarily from any belief system, so long as that belief system is not directly contradicted by the evidence available to us via our senses. I'd disagree with that, in the current context (i.e. the existence of God) on two grounds:

1) If the ontological claim concerns a being that has the properties of "tangible existence", then this being should be detectable in some way, which invalidates the position of strong agnosticism. If the proposed being has the said property of "tangible existence" but no evidence can be found, then this severely weakens the position of theists (who maintain that such a being exists) and weak agnostics (who maintain that the possibility of such a being existing is too strong to revert to a lack of belief in said being).

2) If the ontological claim concerns a being that has the properties of "intangible existence" (indisctinct, unless you can demonstrate otherwise, from the properties of "non-existence") then, again, I can only ask on what basis this being can be presumed to exist. The fact that such a being hasn't been proven "false" by experience is a moot point: no other being with the properties of non-existence (see the Dragon allegory again) can be proven false either. As evidence of this, I ask you: Is it possible, or reasonable at least, to say that something doesn't exist? If so, given that this non-existence cannot be logically or empirically "proven", how may one demonstrate that something does not exist? Surely the absense of evidence is the only "proof" avaiable to us in this regard? If you suggest that this "proof" is invalid, or at least fallible, in the sense that it cannot be absolutely proven, on what basis can anything be said to not exist?

quote:

EDIT: By the way, if you define atheist as a "lack of belief in a god", how does that differ from non-theist?

From an etymological stance, anyway, atheism means "without God", hence "lack of belief in a God". However, while all atheists are non-theists, not all non-theists are atheists. Some non-theists are deists and pantheists (that do believe in a deity), some are atheists and some are agnostics (who I'm arguing are actually atheists as well, whether they care to admit to or it or not ).

I'm defining a non-theist as anyone who doesn't adhere to a specific theological doctrine or, at more specifically, a personal and / or interventionalist God.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

We will never understand how the universe began...or what happened one second before the big bang (oops, there was no time then...nevermind)

I believe we are far too small/insignificant to even begin comprehending things like this. It's time to accept and embrace our ignorance.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt We will never understand how the universe began....

But what are you basing that on? How can you say so certainly that we'll never be able to know?

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Ok Renegade, now that I'm getting at what you're on about, I'll try to answer some of your initial points, and then get back to your answer to my original post. Hopefully, this won't start off a bunch of lenghty posts from the other atheists, that I have to address.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Yes, that's right. Wrong.

I'm not sure what you mean by "wrong" in this discussion. Obviously I have a vague idea, but I don't get it precisely. Do you mean that there is a solid logical argument that, taking outset in the non-determined existence of a god/gods, leads to nonsense? That strong atheism can be logically proved to be the only position that is justified? And in that case, why only swing at agnostics? Is wrong some kind of ethical predicate, meaning that agnostics' viewpoint are damaging the evolution of science somehow? Are we talking pragmatics, where "wrong" is meant to label behaviour that is not to the best interests of the individual? My answers might jump all over the place, but that's in part due to this unresolved issue.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade First to define the differing non-theistic approaches: Weak Atheism: Lack of belief in a God. Strong Atheism: Belief in the lack of a God. Weak Agnosticism: Suspension of belief with regards to the existence of God. Strong Agnosticism: Belief that the issue of the existence of God is unresolvable - that is, there is no way for us to know whether there is a God or not. In another, more archaic sense, strong agnosticism can also be the belief that the issue of first cause (that is, how the universe began) will never be resolved (this is the definition Thomas Huxley had in mind when he coined the term). Deism: The belief in a non-interventionalist god. Pantheism: The belief that the mechanics of the universe (e.g. laws of physics, chemistry etc.) are evidence for the existence of a God, or, indeed, God himself (Spinoza, for instance - perhaps the original pantheist - believed that the terms "nature" and "God" were interchangable). Adherents to the last two bodies of thought, while retaining a belief in a God, are technically non-theists (i.e. not adherents to a specific theistic doctrine or believers in an interventionalist or personal God) and tend to side with agnostics in these sorts of debates, so I've included them as well. If there are any issues with these definitions, then let me know.

I've never encountered the distinction between weak and strong atheists before, and the great Merriam-Webster dictionary does seem to disagree slightly with your definitions - on atheist and theist, at least. Regardless, I'll go along with the definitions even if I don't feel that I myself am represented fairly by any of the categories as they are defined here. I guess I'll be in the "weak atheist" category.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade 1) All Agnostics are Atheists:

Yes. You're an Earthling - does that make you any less of an Australian? The reason why an agnostic (as I normally think of myself) is hessitant to classify himself as a weak atheist, is because of the unavoidable jump to conclusions that follows in the confidant: He's an atheist (which is traditionally, generally, and by MW equated with strong atheism). You yourself have demonstrated this, by stating your claim as "All Agnostics are Atheists", which according to the actual argument presented, should have been "All Agnostics are Weak Atheists as well".

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade 2) Weak Agnosticism is irrational unless there is a reason to suspend belief: Insofar as negative ontological claims can never be validated (that is, it is logically impossible to "prove" that something doesn't exist) the avoidance of a strong atheistic position is understandable. That is, it is a logically defensbile position not to commit to a belief in the lack of a God. It is, however, not a rationally defensible position to claim that it is "possible" for a God to exist unless there is some evidence to suggest that this may be the case. If you claim to be a "weak agnostic", then you're going to have to identify precisely which evidence you are employing that is good enough to suspend commitment to a "lack of belief" in God in order to logically validate this belief system. If you have this evidence, let's hear it. If you don't, then you're not an agnostic (a rational one at least), you're an atheist.

You say that it is understandable to avoid the position of the strong atheist (~possible[God]), but at the same time it is not justified to believe that the existence of god is possible (possible[God]). It seems to me that the law of the excluded middle would prevent me from reaching any kind of belief then?
As to evidence, I think we have debated that a lot previously. Essentially, I don't see the reason why the predicate "rational" should be ascribed to the stance "do believe in non-existence of that which cannot be proved to exist", anymore than to "don't make any judgement on the ontological status of that for which no evidence exists". And here I'll go back to the issue of "wrong", because if you're talking about an "ethical wrong" or "practical wrong", then I would agree that the first stance is more rational. "Rational" here meaning the behaviour that maximizes expected benefit/pay off/utility for the individual or mankind over time. (Of course this "rational" hinges very much on the validity of a number of assumptions, including induction, laws of physics, existence of other minds, and so on, which radically speaking are all subject to the same doubts as the existence of God.) If on the other hand, we are talking pure epistemology then I cannot see any reason for choosing the first stance over the latter, and would even claim that the first involves a leap of faith not necessary for the latter.
I think that this abstract topic is really the essence of the difference between you and me, and I have abstained from commenting other parts of your post which bear on its resolution. Hope that's ok.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade 3) Strong Agnosticism is an article of faith as strong as that of Theism:

Agree, but how does that make it wrong?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade My assertion was that the strong agnostic believes that any God that may exist is "incomprehensible" - that is, it will exist always beyond the possibility of human knowledge and comprehension. In this sense, this potential God has, for all intents and purposes, the properties of non-existence, the absolute negation of being.

That "any God that may exist is incomprehensible by humans" is my belief. However, that does not logically entail that "the existence of any God, which may exist, is undeterminable by humans", which is a necessity for you to be able to equate the possible god with the undetectable god, and consequently, the non-existent one.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that we have no choice in what sensory input we receive? Are you saying that we have no choice in the manner in which this sensory input is received? Are you saying that our senses are fallible or incapable of sensing everything that occurs in the world around us? If so, in all cases, I'd agree with you, but I'm not sure how it relates to the issue of God or, particularly, that of non-belief.

"Yes" to all your questions. As to how I think it relates to the issue at hand, I'll try to explain through an example: One explanation of the experiences I've had is the one given in the Bible, and preached by clergymen everywhere. However, that explanation talks of the all-powerful and all-good God. My experiences of the world includes quite a lot that is incompatible with the existence of such a god, hence I have cut off that explanation from the set of possible explanations. Similarly, any religion which talks of a powerful god which is eager to answer prayers and listen to you, I can dismiss. The correctness of atheism, I cannot disprove, as the concepts of "chance", which atheism allows for, can explain any of my experiences that may seem supernatural to me. No matter how many of these I have experienced.
I hope that cleared up, why I brought up the topic.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade But what you're basically arguing here (correct me if I'm wrong) is that we are free to select arbitrarily from any belief system, so long as that belief system is not directly contradicted by the evidence available to us via our senses. I'd disagree with that, in the current context (i.e. the existence of God) on two grounds: 1) If the ontological claim concerns a being that has the properties of "tangible existence", then this being should be detectable in some way, which invalidates the position of strong agnosticism.

Unless strong agnosticims is taken to be the belief that "any God that may exist is incomprehensible by humans" as discussed above. But, yes you did interpret my argument correctly. As to your point 2 (intangible), I believe that is yet another instance of the abstract problem outlined above.

Last edited by trancaholic on Apr-08-2005 at 16:08

What if I believe that God is a metaphor that represents our consciousness/mind? Tthat's how I currently see the Christian and Hindu Gods, for example. Would I be labelled as a Pantheist (although I don't believe "nature" and "God" are interchangeable terms), a Theist (for I believe we're our own Gods), an atheist (for not accepting the classical definition) or a Polytheist (for we all would have an inner God)?

Before proceeding and talking about the rest, I'd like to know how you would label me, for instance.

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

Apologies for the late response. Also apologies for the quote / reply format, but it's the easiest way to keep things organised:

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Ok Renegade, now that I'm getting at what you're on about, I'll try to answer some of your initial points, and then get back to your answer to my original post. Hopefully, this won't start off a bunch of lenghty posts from the other atheists, that I have to address.

Heh, nah I think you're okay in that regard. There aren't many on this forum who classify themselves as "atheists" from memory.

quote:

Do you mean that there is a solid logical argument that, taking outset in the non-determined existence of a god/gods, leads to nonsense?

I wouldn't say that the agnostic position leads to "nonsense", I'm merely saying that the deferral of belief with regards to the existence of God is not a logically defensible position unless there is cause to defer such belief. As I said in my first post:

"It is not a rationally defensible position to claim that it is "possible" for a God to exist unless there is some evidence to suggest that this may be the case."

In other words, on what grounds can deferral of belief be considered "rational" unless there is good reason to do so? If there is no evidence for God, how can one speculate on grounds for his existence?

quote:

That strong atheism can be logically proved to be the only position that is justified?

No, I don't believe that. It's impossible, logically, to prove non-existence. Therefore the position "God does not exist" is difficult to defend unless it is possible to demonstrate the impossibility of a certain type of God existing ("Could God create a stone so heavy that he could not lift it?", for instance).

Having said that, logical contraints aside, I would classify myself as holding to as strong an atheistic as is possible without violating the improvability of said negative ontologies. I do not see evidence for a God, nor do I see where - in the grand scheme of the universe, given what we know about it - such a God would fit in, or how it would be possible for it to exist.

quote:

And in that case, why only swing at agnostics? Is wrong some kind of ethical predicate, meaning that agnostics' viewpoint are damaging the evolution of science somehow? Are we talking pragmatics, where "wrong" is meant to label behaviour that is not to the best interests of the individual?

I only chose to pick on agnostics because I wanted to spark a debate between the non-theists. Agnostics do not damage the progress of science, nor does agnosticism work against "the best interests of the individual" that holds such a belief system. I merely believe that agnosticism - in part, at least - is not a logically defensible belief system.

quote:

I've never encountered the distinction between weak and strong atheists before, and the great Merriam-Webster dictionary does seem to disagree slightly with your definitions - on atheist and theist, at least.

Here's the definition from "Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary Unabridged":

quote:

atheism n 1 a) disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b) the doctrine that there is neither god nor any other deity

1a) would correspond to weak atheism (lack of belief) 1b) would correspond to strong atheism (the positive belief that there is "neither god nor any other deity").

(Link on infidels website.)

quote:

Regardless, I'll go along with the definitions even if I don't feel that I myself am represented fairly by any of the categories as they are defined here. I guess I'll be in the "weak atheist" category.

The definitions are open to debate and were meant only as a guideline. I'm not trying to pidgeon-hole people, nor claim that everyone in each of those categories has the same attitude towards the existence of God as everyone else in the group, I'm merely just trying to define terms and give a brief overview of each of the major trains of thought.

I've never thought of you as a weak atheist before, but you obviously know your own beliefs better than me, so I'm happy to run with it.

quote:

Yes. You're an Earthling - does that make you any less of an Australian?

That's more or less my point though. In previous debates on this board and elsewhere, there appears to a certain arrogance on the side of the agnostics who believe that atheism and theism are both articles of faith, neither of which are positions that can be held by those with an open, rational mind. My point was that, prior to adhering to the agnostic belief system, all agnostics must - by the definitions above, at least - be "without God" prior to developing an agnostic system of belief.

To put it another way, in the same way that I was a member of the human race first and foremost before being granted an Australian citizenship, so to are agnostics weak atheists first and foremost, before trying to rationalise God back into existence again. It is impossible, for instance, to be a Christian agnostic or a deistic agnostic, because you're already professing a belief in existence of the very object you're supposed to be deferring belief in. Therefore, a position of weak atheism is necessary before one can begin to consider the ways in which it is "possible" for God to exist and subsequently defer judgement either way. Agnosticism is, basically, a post hoc method of willing a "possible" God back into existence when every presented instance of God has already been rejected in the mind of the agnostic.

Hopefully I'm making some sense here. I've only just woken up and my mind is still kinda cloudy.

quote:

The reason why an agnostic (as I normally think of myself) is hessitant to classify himself as a weak atheist, is because of the unavoidable jump to conclusions that follows in the confidant: He's an atheist (which is traditionally, generally, and by MW equated with strong atheism).

Etymologically, atheism means, literally, "without God". As it is logically impossible for an agnostic to believe in a God, regardless of how hesitant the agnostic may be to admit this to himself, in what sense is he not a literal atheist (or, in my terms, a "weak atheist")?

quote:

You yourself have demonstrated this, by stating your claim as "All Agnostics are Atheists", which according to the actual argument presented, should have been "All Agnostics are Weak Atheists as well".

Yeah, but that wouldn't have been as controversial, now, would it.

quote:

You say that it is understandable to avoid the position of the strong atheist (~possible[God]), but at the same time it is not justified to believe that the existence of god is possible (possible[God]). It seems to me that the law of the excluded middle would prevent me from reaching any kind of belief then?

I'm not saying it's unjustified to believe that the existence of God is "possible" - in fact, it's this very "theoretical" possibility of God existing that makes strong agnosticism, in a strictly logical sense (the improvability of non-existence), untenable as a belief system. However, there is a distinct leap from the position that God is, strictly theoretically, "possible" (which is a position that can quite happily be held by the weak atheist) and saying that there is enough evidence for the existence of God to either profess a belief in it (deism / theism) or to defer judgement (weak agnosticism).

Put simply, belief in God is a rationally defensible position if there is evidence there to support it. Similarly, weak agnosticism is a logically defensible position if there is enough cause to genuinely defer judgement.

(For instance, with regards to the existence of an Historical Jesus, I would - if it were a theological issue - be an agnostic. While there is not enough evidence to suggest, unequivocally, that Jesus existed, there is enough evidence for me to rationally defer judgement on the issue. In this sense, I neither believe that Jesus existed or did not exist, I believe that on the one hand there is too much evidence to dismiss the likelihood of his existence, on the other that there is not enough to say with any confidence that he did not exist. I would also, according to this logic, be an agnostic with regards to global warming - not enough evidence to believe, too much to dismiss. Does this make sense?)

quote:

As to evidence, I think we have debated that a lot previously. Essentially, I don't see the reason why the predicate "rational" should be ascribed to the stance "do believe in non-existence of that which cannot be proved to exist", anymore than to "don't make any judgement on the ontological status of that for which no evidence exists".

But, if I understand you here, you're just fiddling around with the unfortunate consequence of logic that makes it impossible to prove a negative ontological statement. The first statement is falsifiable, as it is not logically tenable to have a positive belief in the non-existence of anything in a strictly logical sense. That is, it is "possible" - in the loosest sense of the word - for anything to exist. This does not, however, mean that it is "rational" - that is, "consistent with or based on reason" (link) - to claim that "judgement on the ontological status of that for which no evidence exists" can be deferred.

Once again, if we agree that agnosticism, as a system of belief, can only be developed from the starting point of "weak atheism" (do we?) then I can only ask - is it "rational", "reasonable" or "logical" (whichever word you wish to use) to leap from the position of "non-belief" in a given ontological proposition to that of "deferral of belief" in a given ontological proposition when, in your own words, "no evidence exists" for this ontological proposition that would increase its likelihood of being true? That is, on what grounds can such a leap from non-belief to agnosticism be made other than by blind, baseless faith (which, I hope we agree, would be the very antithesis of "rational" behaviour)?

quote:

And here I'll go back to the issue of "wrong", because if you're talking about an "ethical wrong" or "practical wrong", then I would agree that the first stance is more rational. "Rational" here meaning the behaviour that maximizes expected benefit/pay off/utility for the individual or mankind over time. (Of course this "rational" hinges very much on the validity of a number of assumptions, including induction, laws of physics, existence of other minds, and so on, which radically speaking are all subject to the same doubts as the existence of God.)

It wasn't an ethical or pragmatic proposition, it was a logical one ("Agnosticism is wrong" = "Agnosticism is false or inaccurate"). I'm investigating the logical and factual foundation of agnosticism, not passing judgement on its pragmatic utility or moral validity.

quote:

If on the other hand, we are talking pure epistemology then I cannot see any reason for choosing the first stance over the latter, and would even claim that the first involves a leap of faith not necessary for the latter.

Actually, both involve a leap of faith. The first stance (of strong atheism) presumes that one is privy enough to the exact state of the universe, to declare unequivically that there is no possibility for God to exist. The second stance (of weak agnosticism) presumes that, in the absense of any evidence, one can still mentally shift from the position of non-belief to that of deferral of belief. Once again, if there is no good reason for this shift in belief, it is not "rational" or "logical": it's a leap of faith, simple as that.

quote:

Agree, but how does that make it wrong?

It's not necessarily "wrong" in the strictest sense of the word, it's just not a logical position, rather it is a faith-based position. Of course, by pure, dumb luck this faith-based position may be correct, but there is no way of objectively verifying this (to the extent that anything can actually be objectively verified, that is) and there is no rational reason - again other than faith - to commit oneself to such a stance.

quote:

That "any God that may exist is incomprehensible by humans" is my belief. However, that does not logically entail that "the existence of any God, which may exist, is undeterminable by humans", which is a necessity for you to be able to equate the possible god with the undetectable god, and consequently, the non-existent one.

What's the difference between an incomprehensible God and an undetectable God? What's the difference between either of these and - even if only in a pragmatic sense - no God at all?

quote:

"Yes" to all your questions. As to how I think it relates to the issue at hand, I'll try to explain through an example: One explanation of the experiences I've had is the one given in the Bible, and preached by clergymen everywhere. However, that explanation talks of the all-powerful and all-good God. My experiences of the world includes quite a lot that is incompatible with the existence of such a god, hence I have cut off that explanation from the set of possible explanations. Similarly, any religion which talks of a powerful god which is eager to answer prayers and listen to you, I can dismiss. The correctness of atheism, I cannot disprove, as the concepts of "chance", which atheism allows for, can explain any of my experiences that may seem supernatural to me. No matter how many of these I have experienced. I hope that cleared up, why I brought up the topic.

Yep, I think I know what you meant now.

quote:

As to your point 2 (intangible), I believe that is yet another instance of the abstract problem outlined above.

Okay, so point blank: do you believe that the limitations of the senses preclude us, to a degree at least, from detecting any Gods that may exist? Do you believe that it is this fallibility of the senses that make weak agnosticism a tenable position (i.e. it wouldn't be "rational" to make judgement on the existence of a being that may exist beyond our epistemological frame of reference)?

If my presumptions are correct, then I again have to ask the question:

quote:

As evidence of this, I ask you: Is it possible, or reasonable at least, to say that something doesn't exist? If so, given that this non-existence cannot be logically or empirically "proven", how may one demonstrate that something does not exist? Surely the absense of evidence is the only "proof" avaiable to us in this regard? If you suggest that this "proof" is invalid, or at least fallible, in the sense that it cannot be absolutely proven, on what basis can anything be said to not exist?

Lira:

quote:

Originally posted by Lira What if I believe that God is a metaphor that represents our consciousness/mind? Tthat's how I currently see the Christian and Hindu Gods, for example. Would I be labelled as a Pantheist (although I don't believe "nature" and "God" are interchangeable terms), a Theist (for I believe we're our own Gods), an atheist (for not accepting the classical definition) or a Polytheist (for we all would have an inner God)? Before proceeding and talking about the rest, I'd like to know how you would label me, for instance.

As I said, not everyone can be pidgeon-holed by the definitions I've used. If you believe that "God" or "Gods" have an ontological presence - that is, they exist, objectively, within the universe - then you'd be either a deist or a pantheist, depending on how broad the scope of your "God" or "Gods" is. If you believe that Gods are nothing other than "metaphors" residing within the sentient human imagination, then I'd probably classify you as a weak atheist.

But, like I said, it's not easy to classify every theological position neatly into the terms I've provided.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Etymologically, atheism means, literally, "without God". As it is logically impossible for an agnostic to believe in a God, regardless of how hesitant the agnostic may be to admit this to himself, in what sense is he not a literal atheist (or, in my terms, a "weak atheist")?

Why does not believing in a god automatically make you an atheist? An agnostic does not rule out that there could be a god behind our existance. That doesn't mean that they brand the belief in a god impossible. An atheist on the other hand, is definite in the belief that there cannot be such a thing as a god. ("God is dead" anyone?) Isn't that what seperates the two?

___________________
"Wenn du dich zum Untergrund zählst, reicht es nicht, es nur zu sagen. Du musst auch viel graben, um es zu werden."

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper Why does not believing in a god automatically make you an atheist?

Because that's the very definition of an atheist.

quote:

An agnostic does not rule out that there could be a god behind our existance.

Neither does a "weak" atheist, necessarily. In fact, I'd argue that the difference between a weak atheist and a strong atheist is the admission on the former's behalf that it is "possible" for a God to exist.

quote:

An atheist on the other hand, is definite in the belief that there cannot be such a thing as a god. ("God is dead" anyone?) Isn't that what seperates the two?

Only strong atheists claim certainty about the non-existence of God. Read the definitions I used in my first post again.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Debating non-theists doesn't seem as fun as debating theists . Anyway I used to say I was an agnostic until I reached the similar conclusions you have reached Renegade. Now I'm resigned in admitting that I'm just an everyday, regular god-fearing weak atheist.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Because that's the very definition of an atheist.

a·the·ist Audio pronunciation of "atheist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Going by this definition, an atheist is one who believes that there is no god. Not believing IN a god does not necessarily mean believing there is no god. So which definition are we going by exactly?

___________________
"Wenn du dich zum Untergrund zählst, reicht es nicht, es nur zu sagen. Du musst auch viel graben, um es zu werden."