Definations of Agnostism and Atheism (1 Viewer)

[GarzaUK]

Okay I've noticed a few misinterpretations of agnostism and atheism being banded about in a few threads, so I'd like to clear it up a bit.

A - gnostic = without - knowledge
A - theism = without - god/gods

Here is where it gets technical.

A Christain can be agnostic, a religous agnostic for example.
"I do not have the knowledge that there is a God, but I believe in a God" Remember agnostic means "without knowledge".

Atheism is usually divided into two types. Weak and strong.
Weak atheists basically say "I'm not ruling out a God, but I'm not going to be a believer until I see some proof."
Strong atheists say "There is definitely no god or gods possible."

Atheist - Agnostics are people who say "I'm without a God because I have no knowledge of a god."

I hope that clears stuff up. :mrgreen:

 

[rathi]

There is no difference between strong and weak atheists. A complete lack of evidence is no different from no existence at all. I can positively assert, "there is no god" just as easily as I can assert, "there is no easter bunny." Unless you wish to classify the difference between those who don't believe in the easter bunny and those who don't rule him out but won't believe in him until they see proof. There is a probability that anything is possible, but the odds are so far against god that it is as close to fact as you can find in real life.

 

[Apostle13]

There is a divide between the two... And yet here;

Atheist - Agnostics are people who say "I'm without a God because I have no knowledge of a god."

You seem to imply they are synonymous..?

 

[Gunface]

Okay I've noticed a few misinterpretations of agnostism and atheism being banded about in a few threads, so I'd like to clear it up a bit.

A - gnostic = without - knowledge
A - theism = without - god/gods

Here is where it gets technical.

A Christain can be agnostic, a religous agnostic for example.
"I do not have the knowledge that there is a God, but I believe in a God" Remember agnostic means "without knowledge".

Atheism is usually divided into two types. Weak and strong.
Weak atheists basically say "I'm not ruling out a God, but I'm not going to be a believer until I see some proof."
Strong atheists say "There is definitely no god or gods possible."

Atheist - Agnostics are people who say "I'm without a God because I have no knowledge of a god."

I hope that clears stuff up. :mrgreen:

I agree with you somewhat, though I would like to point out that defining a word by its roots is a logical fallacy: a word's roots do not affect it's current meaning =)
Where I would differ with you is:

Atheist - Agnostics are people who say "I'm without a God because I have no knowledge of a god."

which seems to directly contradict

A Christain can be agnostic, a religous agnostic for example.
"I do not have the knowledge that there is a God, but I believe in a God" Remember agnostic means "without knowledge".

Also, I tend to synonymize "weak atheism" and agnosticism, because typically, they both say "I don't believe in God, but I don't really know."

 

[Sauwan]

There is no difference between strong and weak atheists.

:shock:

Let's try to define it in a different light.

B=Belief
G=God
~=negation

Weak atheist - ~(B(G))
Strong atheist - B(~(G))

Those most certainly are different statements.

A complete lack of evidence is no different from no existence at all. I can positively assert, "there is no god" just as easily as I can assert, "there is no easter bunny." Unless you wish to classify the difference between those who don't believe in the easter bunny and those who don't rule him out but won't believe in him until they see proof. There is a probability that anything is possible, but the odds are so far against god that it is as close to fact as you can find in real life.

I don't understand what you're getting at here. A weak atheist does not need to make the positive assertion that there is no easter bunny. To do this for every proposed being would be tiresome and pointless.

And just because a vast majority of weak atheists are strong "non-believers in the easter bunny" does not signify they are incorrect about their belief involving any other deity.

 

[rathi]

A weak atheist does not need to make the positive assertion that there is no easter bunny. To do this for every proposed being would be tiresome and pointless.

True, but if someone asked the weak Atheist," do you think that the easter bunny exists" he would say "no." And god and the easter bunny are on the same level to the atheist.

B=Belief
G=God
~=negation

Weak atheist - ~(B(G))
Strong atheist - B(~(G))

Those most certainly are different statements.

I don't "believe" there is no god. I simply connect the facts that people have been searching for god for thousands of years, and still the evidence points against him. I say "There is no god" not "I don't believe in god."

I will always admit the possibility of Thor smacking me on the head with a hammer and proving me wrong, but that doesn't change that right here and right now, there is no god.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them -- teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't' have to bother saying so.

- Richard Dawkins

 

[Sauwan]

True, but if someone asked the weak Atheist," do you think that the easter bunny exists" he would say "no." And god and the easter bunny are on the same level to the atheist.

Well, that's true for the strong atheist, but not the case for the weak.

I don't "believe" there is no god. I simply connect the facts that people have been searching for god for thousands of years, and still the evidence points against him. I say "There is no god" not "I don't believe in god."

I will always admit the possibility of Thor smacking me on the head with a hammer and proving me wrong, but that doesn't change that right here and right now, there is no god.

Huh? The difference between the strong and weak atheist is between what they will assert. If you say "There is no god" you are taking the strong atheists POV. They feel, based on empirical and logical evidence, God does not exist. However, the weak atheist will make no such claim.

You cannot then assert there being a possibility of a God after saying there is no god. That is just logically disingenuous. That's like me saying there are no purple apples; however...there might be.

The weak atheist avoids your Zeus dilemma by not making the positive statement "there is no god". If Zeus were to bonk a weak atheist on the head, his response would be something to the effect of "huh, well I'll be darned. Good thing I never made the claim he doesn't exist."

Everyone is passive in this way about an infinite possible set of beings. Consider an neon green, orange, and gray squirrel hopping down the road. It is most likely that until just now, no one has made the positive statement that no "neon green, orange, and gray squirrel hopping down the road" exists. No one actually believed this was going on.

It's the same for weak atheists. There are an infinite set of "gods". We just find no reason to believe that any peculiar one exists or does not exist.

What it is to be a weak atheist is to lack a belief pertaining to any specific Deity out of the potential infinite set.

 

[mikhail]

Richard dawkings writes a scale in his new brilliant book the god delusion (buy this book its on par with the selfish gene)

1 Strong theist. 100% probability of god. In the words of c.g jung, I do not believe i know.

2 Very high probabilitybut short of 100%. De facto theist."i cannot know for certain,but i strongly believe in god and live my life on the assumption that he is there".

3 Higher than 50 %but not very high. Technically agnosticbut leaning towards theism."I am very uncertain,but i am inclined to believe in God".

4 exactly 50%. Completely impartial agnostic "God existence and non-existence are exaclty equiprobable.

5 Lower than 50% but not very low.Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism ."I dont know whether god exists but im inclined to be sceptical.

6 Very low probability, but short of zero.De facto atheist."i cannot know for certain but i think god is very improbable,and i live my life on the assumption that he is not there"

7 strong atheist. "I know there is no god,with the same conviction as jung "knows" there is one"


on this scale i would say im a 6.9999999999999999999999999999999999999

 

[Sauwan]

on this scale i would say im a 6.9999999999999999999999999999999999999

Haha:lol:

Me too.

 

[rathi]

You cannot then assert there being a possibility of a God after saying there is no god. That is just logically disingenuous. That's like me saying there are no purple apples; however...there might be.

Nothing in reality is ever 100%. Theoretically its possible for someone to get shot in the head with a .50 bmg and the bullet to pass through without interacting with any of that person matter, leaving them completely untouched. However, the probability is so low that its reasonable to dismiss it. You can say "You will die if you get shot square in the face with a m82 and still accept that their is a probability that the person will survive.

There is a difference between everyday communication and theoretical possibilities. Saying "there is no god" is just an easier way of saying, the probability of god existing is so small that I can dismiss it. Qualifying my thoughts on religion with a complicated discussion on probability is not always practical. We make positive assertions all the time in everyday speech, without mentioning the exceptionally rare counterexamples.


Again on Dawkin's god scale, I approach 7. Close enough for any real life situation to say "there is no god."

 

[Sauwan]

Nothing in reality is ever 100%.

That is, unless, it is a logical truth. Many strong atheists believe they have this, much as strong theists believe they as well have it.

Theoretically its possible for someone to get shot in the head with a .50 bmg and the bullet to pass through without interacting with any of that person matter, leaving them completely untouched. However, the probability is so low that its reasonable to dismiss it. You can say "You will die if you get shot square in the face with a m82 and still accept that their is a probability that the person will survive.

You're arguing the difference between real world impossibility and logical impossibility. I would argue that it is 100% sure that no one will ever draw a round square.

There is a difference between everyday communication and theoretical possibilities. Saying "there is no god" is just an easier way of saying, the probability of god existing is so small that I can dismiss it. Qualifying my thoughts on religion with a complicated discussion on probability is not always practical. We make positive assertions all the time in everyday speech, without mentioning the exceptionally rare counterexamples.

Then why make a positive statement at all when it's just as easy to say "I do not believe in god"?

Again on Dawkin's god scale, I approach 7. Close enough for any real life situation to say "there is no god."

Cool.

 

[rathi]

You're arguing the difference between real world impossibility and logical impossibility. I would argue that it is 100% sure that no one will ever draw a round square.

And god is a real world impossibility. And your counterexample does not work because round squares do not exist in reality. Although I should refine my statement a bit, my point is that many things we consider to be absolute truth are actually just really really really likely probabilities.

Then why make a positive statement at all when it's just as easy to say "I do not believe in god"?

Because I don't say, "I believe that humans cannot breathe while naked in space" I say "humans cannot breathe while naked in space". With something as unlikely as god, the English language allows for positive assertions to be made. I bet you say "I will go to market later to go pick up some milk" not "there is a very chance I will go to market to go pick up some milk."