Yes, I would say it is.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Agnostics: You're Atheists
- Thread starter jmvizanko
- Start date
Tathagata
Freethinker
Yes, actually there is a "weak theist."
The Dawkins Scale
1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
.
I Keep Unicorns
Member
I've seen this kind of attitude coming from atheists too many times to ignore it.
This has NOTHING to do with being 'ashamed' of the term 'agnostic'.
I define myself as agnostic because I see no reason for me to believe in a god because there is not YET enough evidence for any god existing. Perhaps there will come a time when science can prove either way, and if there ever IS irrefutable proof, I will take it. But as yet, there is no solid evidence either way. If there were solid evidence of a god or deity existing, we would all be believers; if there were solid evidence of a god or deity not existing, we would all be atheists.
I pose it to you, that you are the one who is ashamed of your standpoint. The very reason you go out of your way to describe yourself as a 'weak atheist' is because you don't want to use the term 'agnostic'.
This has NOTHING to do with being 'ashamed' of the term 'agnostic'.
I define myself as agnostic because I see no reason for me to believe in a god because there is not YET enough evidence for any god existing. Perhaps there will come a time when science can prove either way, and if there ever IS irrefutable proof, I will take it. But as yet, there is no solid evidence either way. If there were solid evidence of a god or deity existing, we would all be believers; if there were solid evidence of a god or deity not existing, we would all be atheists.
I pose it to you, that you are the one who is ashamed of your standpoint. The very reason you go out of your way to describe yourself as a 'weak atheist' is because you don't want to use the term 'agnostic'.
Given what you've said here, I'd say you are an atheist. Unless, of course, you want to impose a bunch of arbitrary restrictions on the defenition of atheism.
I don't know if this was aimed at anyone in particular but I'll respond anyway. Whether or not I am an agnostic (which I happen to be) has no bearing on my atheism. The two aren't mutually exclusive and more often than not go hand in hand.
what exactly would you consider to be "solid evidence of a god or diety not existing"?
and if it's easier, what would you consider evidence for anything not existing? (a chair, a cell phone, a photon cannon, a sailboat)
Wait... so everything between "theist with certainty" and "atheist with certainty" is properly called "agnostic"?
To a certain extent, I agree with this. I'm not ashamed of the term "agnostic", but I don't want to use it. In my case, I think it would give people a false impression of my position.
Coloquially, I think that people take the word "agnostic" to mean something like halfway between theism and atheism... something like a 4 on Dawkins' scale. Either that, or it's taken to mean "undecided", which doesn't describe me. On Dawkins' scale, I'd be a six-point-something; while I acknowledge that my position's subject to some uncertaintly (mainly because I realize all knowledge is subject to some uncertainty), I'm still much closer to the extreme "atheist" end than I am to the "agnostic" midpoint. If I round off to the nearest value, by the common usage, I'm much more of an atheist than I am an agnostic.
I think there are two ways to approach the issue of who's an atheist vs. who's an agnostic:
- go with the "atheism is about belief and agnosticism is about knowledge" approach. In this arrangement, the two terms aren't mutually exclusive, so figuring out the dividing line between the two becomes a moot point.
- go with the "certainty of belief" approach. Split the belief spectrum into "theist", "agnostic", and "atheist" ranges. However, in this case, I'd say that the most appropriate way of doing it wouldn't be to call everything between the two extreme ends "agnostic". Effectively, it'd be like a scale of -1 to 1, where a person's belief "score" was rounded off to the nearest integer. -0.6, say, would get rounded off to -1 (i.e. atheism), while -0.4 would get rounded off to 0 (i.e. agnosticism).
I have at times struggled with how to best label myself (I also struggle to care much about the label, but it can be useful shorthand, I suppose). I have always thought of things more along the lines of the Dawkins scale, where agnostic and atheist are exclusive. By the scale I'd sit at about a 6.
Anyways, the whole point of the label is to communicate your basic belief system, surely? So someone who includes the term agnostic in their belief label is flagging a degree of uncertainty or openness in the issue of a higher power. Not sure why you'd want those people instead calling themselves as atheists (or ONLY calling themselves atheists for those seeing the terms as not mutually exclusive).
Anyways, the whole point of the label is to communicate your basic belief system, surely? So someone who includes the term agnostic in their belief label is flagging a degree of uncertainty or openness in the issue of a higher power. Not sure why you'd want those people instead calling themselves as atheists (or ONLY calling themselves atheists for those seeing the terms as not mutually exclusive).
But is there really a Dawkins' Scale?
#4 is wrong. An agnostic would have no way to assess probability.
It would be better to say "God's existence & non-existence are both unknowable things."
And I'd say the definition for #6 is really a Weak Atheist.
We all know that we don't know, at least agnostics aren't afraid to admit it. It becomes much less complicated when u throw the whole "God" argument away and realize no one actually knows a thing.
With that said u can believe anything u want and no one will prove u wrong. But deep down u have to still be aware of your ignorance of "God".
If you never second guess yourself on your beliefs, good for you. But we both know you do. Agnostics don't have to. And that's not fear, it's honesty.
With that said u can believe anything u want and no one will prove u wrong. But deep down u have to still be aware of your ignorance of "God".
If you never second guess yourself on your beliefs, good for you. But we both know you do. Agnostics don't have to. And that's not fear, it's honesty.
That's not the case for all agnostics.
Some rely on awareness of their own ignorance to say, "I cannot know there is or is not a god," but some rely on logic and definition to be able to say, "I know I cannot know a god."
Yes, but the "pure agnostic" label just didn't seem to match the "Dawkins" definition.
Those would both appear to fit the "pure agnostic" label.
Not really. When there is certainty that this "god" thing cannot be known, there isn't any "equiprobability" about whether it exists or not. Only things known to exist can be said to exist.
Now I'm lost.
But that's OK...I think I'm done.
*waves goodbye with her tea pot*
Well...for me it's more the difference between skeptical or even highly skeptical (weak atheist) and sure that there is no God, but unable to actually prove there is not. Maybe that makes me a strong atheist?
How about this thread?
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...theists-only-absorption-agnosticism-into.html
Label change to transtheists, perhaps? The atheists who want to absorb agnostics into atheism really need to get over it, imo. I certainly don't want to go back to the atheist camp.
Your mileage may vary.
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...theists-only-absorption-agnosticism-into.html
Label change to transtheists, perhaps? The atheists who want to absorb agnostics into atheism really need to get over it, imo. I certainly don't want to go back to the atheist camp.
Your mileage may vary.