agnostics = weak atheists

[Oberon]

Immersed in a culture of theists, yes, I would be considered an atheist even if I never gave a thought to whether gods exist.

Immersed in a culture of theists, there is no possible way you could have never considered the question of god.

so I don't even know what makes me an atheist to most people.

First and foremost, a belief system where god or gods do not exist.

 

[dogsgod]

Immersed in a culture of theists, there is no possible way you could have never considered the question of god.



First and foremost, a belief system where god or gods do not exist.

Why first and foremost? Maybe it's first and foremost in your mind.

 

[Oberon]

Why first and foremost? Maybe it's first and foremost in your mind.

Because that's what the term means. atheos + ism = a system of belief wherein one believes theoi do not exist.

However, as the britannica article, as well as the article from a site you know well (infidels.org) stated, atheism is usually more than simply a system of belief where gods do not exist. It often refers to a belief that all religions and religious thought is wrong.

 

[Falvlun]

As I have been given no strong evidence to make the assumption that God or gods exist, my default stance is to not believe that a God or gods exist. The possibility exists that God might exist; however, until I am given a reason to believe, belief simply is not a rational choice. I am atheist by default.

I have been labeling it "agnostic atheism" simply to distinguish from those who claim with certainty "God does not exist."

 

[dogsgod]

Oberon, feel free to confine yourself to the narrowest of definitions and stick to it, however, in the broadest sense, atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

 

[Oberon]

Oberon, feel free to confine yourself to the narrowest of definitions and stick to it, however, in the broadest sense, atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

The absence of belief in the existence of deities is A BELIEF in the non-existence of deities. A belief of this nature (i.e. a cosmological/theological/philosophical belief concerning the nature of reality) is a system of belief. In other words, even in the broadest sense, where atheism is only a belief that gods do not exist, atheism is still a belief system.

 

[dogsgod]

No doubt it makes sense to you that an absence of belief is a belief.

 

[KarlVonMox]

I didnt realize this thread has continued, but posters like dogsgod and smoke have done well arguing what I've said already.

Oberons argument consists of disregarding every use of "ism" except the one that suits his argument for essentially no reason, a dishonest use of the dictionary, and an apparent failure to understand basic meanings of words like "disbelief" or "doctrine".

An agnostic doesn't know. They don't believe a theos exists, but they also don't believe that a theos doesn't exist. They don't know. An atheist holds to a belief system in which NO theos exists. An agnostic doesn't. They don't know, or believe, one way or the other. An atheist does.

This is ridiculous. There is no difference between stating "I dont know" with regard to theos and disbelief in the theos. By saying "I dont know" with regard to the theos, you automatically have no belief in the theos - akin to the atheist. This has been my basic argument all along which me and others have repeated countless times.

The absence of belief in the existence of deities is A BELIEF in the non-existence of deities. A belief of this nature (i.e. a cosmological/theological/philosophical belief concerning the nature of reality) is a system of belief. In other words, even in the broadest sense, where atheism is only a belief that gods do not exist, atheism is still a belief system.

This argument clearly defies logic. An absence of belief is not belief, no matter how much you try to spin it that way.

 

[dogsgod]

I don't care what one is called for claiming God/s do not exist, has a beard, doesn't know, or doesn't care, but it sure is fun to have Oberon twisting himself into a pretzel over the otherwise simplest of definitions. Calling non-believers believers cracks me up. No problem stating positively that leprechauns don't exist, no problem at all, but state that God does not exist and holy s**** Sherlock, your entire belief system is defined by it. Priceless.

 

[Oberon]

Oberons argument consists of disregarding every use of "ism" except the one that suits his argument for essentially no reason,

Wrong. Smoke posted every use of the suffix. I went over all over them. Only the one fits.

There is no difference between stating "I dont know" with regard to theos and disbelief in the theos. By saying "I dont know" with regard to the theos, you automatically have no belief in the theos - akin to the atheist.

How ridiculous. This is essentially arguing there is no difference between the statements "there is no god" and "i don't know if there is any god." Only there is an enormous difference. One statement (the former) is a positive epistemic stance on the nature of reality. The other is negative. Atheism and theism both make positive claims (X or Y does or doesn't exist) on the nature of reality. Agnosticism makes negative claims (I don't know). Claiming that there is no difference between an admission of a lack of knowledge and a claim of positive knowledge is either very stupid or dishonest.

This has been my basic argument all along

And it continues to be wrong. Which is why both agnosticism and atheism exist. One constitutes as positive epistemic stance, the other does not.

This argument clearly defies logic. An absence of belief is not belief, no matter how much you try to spin it that way.

I seriously doubt you have ever studied logic. In any case, when evaluating the logical validity of a statement that is not purely or largely mathematical, semantics plays a large role.

Further, Atheism is not an absence of belief. It is disbelief. There is a difference. Agnosticism is an absence of belief. Atheism is disbelief. Any form of disbelief involves belief. Atheists believe there is no god. This is a belief. Agnostics do not believe there is no god. They believe there may or may not be one.

 

[Commoner]

Further, Atheism is not an absence of belief. It is disbelief. There is a difference. Agnosticism is an absence of belief. Atheism is disbelief. Any form of disbelief involves belief. Atheists believe there is no god. This is a belief. Agnostics do not believe there is no god. They believe there may or may not be one.

Education=Fail.

There are certainly agnostics that believe in god and there are agnostics who do not. You haven't the slightest idea what agnosticism and gnosticism mean. Please go to your nearest wiki page and educate yourself, lest you look like a fool. :slap:

 

[dogsgod]

Further, Atheism is not an absence of belief. It is disbelief. There is a difference. Agnosticism is an absence of belief. Atheism is disbelief. Any form of disbelief involves belief. Atheists believe there is no god. This is a belief. Agnostics do not believe there is no god. They believe there may or may not be one.

For one, I don't even know how you define God so I don't even know what it is I'm supposed to believe doesn't exist. Obviously you didn't think that through. I'm an atheist because I don't share in the belief of the theist, it's simply an absence of belief, and I don't define God, that's for the preoccupation of the theist to ponder.


Agnosticism is realizing that no one can know about the supernatural.

 

[gnostophiliac]

People can be divided into two camps:
Either you are a theist
or you are an atheist
and there is no middle ground!

No! And you have nicely encapsulated my problem. I know that I don't know.

I don't 'believe' in any gods as I have never had any personal experience of any; I am not a theist.
I don't disbelieve in the Anglican Christian God (my local religion) as several people I trust do claim personal experience; I am not an atheist.
I don't disbelieve in other Gods/beliefs as I am certain that there are many devout and sincere people who claim personal experience.
I don't belive that gods are neccesarily unknowable; I am not agnostic.

Can I have a label for what I am please?

 

[dogsgod]

No! And you have nicely encapsulated my problem. I know that I don't know.

I don't 'believe' in any gods as I have never had any personal experience of any; I am not a theist.
I don't disbelieve in the Anglican Christian God (my local religion) as several people I trust do claim personal experience; I am not an atheist.
I don't disbelieve in other Gods/beliefs as I am certain that there are many devout and sincere people who claim personal experience.
I don't belive that gods are neccesarily unknowable; I am not agnostic.

Can I have a label for what I am please?

If you don't believe that gods are necessarily unknowable, you're a theist.

 

[JMorris]

As I have been given no strong evidence to make the assumption that God or gods exist, my default stance is to not believe that a God or gods exist. The possibility exists that God might exist; however, until I am given a reason to believe, belief simply is not a rational choice. I am atheist by default.

I have been labeling it "agnostic atheism" simply to distinguish from those who claim with certainty "God does not exist."

that very closely resembles how i feel

 

[dogsgod]

that very closely resembles how i feel

I would disagree. An atheists is an atheist regardless of whether or not one states with certainty that gods don't exist. One can jump up and down and scream it from the rooftops but he's no more or less an atheist than an atheist. What makes an atheist an atheist is not sharing in the beliefs of the theist, that's all. Beyond that, how certain one is is of no consequence.

 

[JMorris]

I would disagree. An atheists is an atheist regardless of whether or not one states with certainty that gods don't exist. One can jump up and down and scream it from the rooftops but he's no more or less an atheist than an atheist. What makes an atheist an atheist is not sharing in the beliefs of the theist, that's all. Beyond that, how certain one is is of no consequence.

ok, but i still feel that way

tho i think the way he put it was perfect. i would agree, i dont believe in gods, which would make me an atheist, but i believe there could be gods, which is why i prefer to call myself an agnostic. so "agnostic atheist" is a fine classification in my opinion. as much so as an "agnostic theist" i guess.

 

[dogsgod]

ok, but i still feel that way

tho i think the way he put it was perfect. i would agree, i dont believe in gods, which would make me an atheist, but i believe there could be gods, which is why i prefer to call myself an agnostic. so "agnostic atheist" is a fine classification in my opinion. as much so as an "agnostic theist" i guess.

I'm more than certain that gods don't exist but I wouldn't hesitate to change my mind if substantiated evidence suggested otherwise.

As an agnostic I can't know about the supernatural unless it's defined in falsifiable terms so as to be tested for, something that theists refuse to do. And you can't know either.

 

[JMorris]

I'm more than certain that gods don't exist but I wouldn't hesitate to change my mind if substantiated evidence suggested otherwise.

As an agnostic I can't know about the supernatural unless it's defined in falsifiable terms so as to be tested for, something that theists refuse to do. And you can't know either.

im more than certain that i dont know. im quite certain that gods defined by religion dont exist, since no one knows anymore than the next guy, including the people who made up the books. but gods can exist independent of religion. but if a god does exist, he/her/it seems to have little to no interest in us. so i in turn have little in interest in finding a god that may or may not exist & has no interest in my finding of him/her/it.

 

[Commoner]

No! And you have nicely encapsulated my problem. I know that I don't know.

I don't 'believe' in any gods as I have never had any personal experience of any; I am not a theist.
I don't disbelieve in the Anglican Christian God (my local religion) as several people I trust do claim personal experience; I am not an atheist.
I don't disbelieve in other Gods/beliefs as I am certain that there are many devout and sincere people who claim personal experience.
I don't belive that gods are neccesarily unknowable; I am not agnostic.

Can I have a label for what I am please?

Sure you can. Do you believe in god? Answer "yes" and you're a theist, anything else and you're an atheist.

Now wasn't that easy?

As far as (a)gnosticism is concearned, you'd probably fall in the "gnostic" category (at least in the "god" question).