|
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I agree with this, which is why I've always argued that atheism is the belief that there is no god. The early atheist movement would agree with this; however, when faced with the reality that asserting no god(s) exists is just as improvable as asserting that a god(s) exist contemporary atheists watered down their self-identification... essentially, most are agnostic but choose to retain the atheist moniker so that they can continue to mock the belief in the divine (which is more often then not a proxy battle for real and justifiable objections to specific religious bodies). |
I do not think it is so unreasonable to evolve a definition or explanation over time. I mean, how many new clothes has your king been dressed up in over the last 10,000 years?
The problem with traditional agnosticism is that it gives equal weighting to both sides of the argument, which imo doesn't make any sense. The negative stance is the natural and standard position, just as it is with any outlandish assertion lacking evidentiary support. Ive posted this before but perhaps system-J hasn’t seen it.
| quote: |
Philosophers such as Antony Flew,[33] Michael Martin,[25] and William L. Rowe[34] have contrasted strong (positive) atheism with weak (negative) atheism. Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Weak atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a weak or a strong atheist.[35] The terms weak and strong are relatively recent, while the equivalent terms negative and positive atheism are of older origin, having been used (in slightly different ways) in the philosophical literature[33] and in Catholic apologetics[36] since at least 1813.[37][38] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as weak atheists.
While Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails weak atheism,[25] most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism, which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction.[39] The supposed unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[40] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[41] and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.[42] Scottish philosopher J. J. C. Smart even argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical skepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."[43]
Consequently, some popular atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions by the probability assigned to the statement "God exists".[44] |
|
