I see no value in atheism

[Willamena]

You did not answer the question.

Believing you know is not the same as knowing.

"Believing you know" is not the theist.

 

[leibowde84]

"Believing you know" is not the theist.

What does that mean? According to the definition of these terms, "knowledge" is not a consideration. Belief is the only deterimining factor.

 

[Willamena]

What does that mean?

It means that conventionally "theism" is not defined as "believing you know god exists," but "belief in the existence of god or gods."

According to the definition of these terms, "knowledge" is not a consideration. Belief is the only deterimining factor.

The question I saw was how belief is equated with knowledge. The answer is in the definition of knowledge accredited to Plato: knowledge is justified true belief.

To point at belief in knowledge is to point at belief.

 

[leibowde84]

It means that conventionally "theism" is not defined as "believing you know god exists," but "belief in the existence of god or gods."


The question I saw was how belief is equated with knowledge. The answer is in the definition of knowledge accredited to Plato: knowledge is justified true belief.

To point at belief in knowledge is to point at belief.

Oh ... I apologize. I misunderstood you. I completely agree. All knowledge is belief. Belief is the best we got ... technically speaking.

 

[Willamena]

All knowledge is belief. Belief is the best we got ... technically speaking.

It's the first we got, but not the last.

We did, after all, just define knowledge.

 

[Willamena]

It's the first we got, but not the last.

We did, after all, just define knowledge.

Knowledge is just defined true belief... Haha.

 

[JoStories]

So, you are saying that Agnostics do have a belief in God? No one knows whether God exists, so one either believes that God exists (theist) or they don't (atheist). There are many atheists who lack a belief in God, but aren't strong atheists who actively believe that God does not exist. Thus, Agnostics should be considered Atheist as well, as they too do not believe in God. If they did, they would be theists. Again no one knows if God exists. That's my point. Not confused at all. I understand your argument. I just think it's flawed.

I don't agree. For me, the defintion of an agnostic is one who is unsure of whether or not there is a god or gods. For them, it's kind of like sitting on the fence. They make no defintive decision because for them, there is not enough information or evidence to sway them either way. To me, atheists have made a choice and that choice is to reject the idea of God or gods. There is a difference in my mind.

 

[JoStories]

I feel like you are completely off base with this concept of "knowing" that God exists. That word is not in any definition for atheist, agnostic, or theist. All are based on a standard of belief.

Weak atheists are atheists, as the only requirement is a lack of belief. Further, if an agnositc believes in God, they are a theist by definition (use Websters if you need to ... it's pretty clear). Agnostic Theist is an oxymoron. An Agnositc lacks belief in God in the same way that a weak atheist does. Thus, both can be considered atheist or agnostic.

Leibowde, if that were the case, why have a term such as agnostic at all? Under your view, they are simply atheist and that would preclude the need for another term to define their collective beliefs or lack thereof. IMO, an agnostic sits on the fence making no choice or decision at all.

 

[JoStories]

Weak atheists and strong atheists are all atheists. Just like a scientific theory is a more defined example of a theory, a weak atheist is a more defined example of an atheist. They still are included under the umbrella term "atheist" though.

I'm still confused as to the notion of "knowing" that God exists. That is a logical fallacy according to the definition of the term "know".

I think the difference is that some people are so convinced of their belief, they claim to 'know' in a factual manner. To me, that makes no sense as it is still belief, and cannot ever be called fact.

 

[JoStories]

How does "belief" equal "knowing"?

It doesn't but as I just said, many people are so convinced of their belief, for them it's fact, pure and simple. It makes no sense to me but ask my mother, who is so convinced, she will shut down if someone challenges her beliefs.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The value of atheism is that is offers mental protection from the penetrating light of spirit.....the light shines in the darkness, but the darkness comprehends it not....

 

[leibowde84]

I don't agree. For me, the defintion of an agnostic is one who is unsure of whether or not there is a god or gods. For them, it's kind of like sitting on the fence. They make no defintive decision because for them, there is not enough information or evidence to sway them either way. To me, atheists have made a choice and that choice is to reject the idea of God or gods. There is a difference in my mind.

I agree with your agnostic definition, but I'm having trouble getting my head around a requirement for denial in atheism. The vast majority of self proclaimed "atheists" make no such claim. They simply consider themselves as lacking any belief in the supernatural. But that in no way means that they actively believe the God cannot exist.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't agree. For me, the defintion of an agnostic is one who is unsure of whether or not there is a god or gods. For them, it's kind of like sitting on the fence. They make no defintive decision because for them, there is not enough information or evidence to sway them either way. To me, atheists have made a choice and that choice is to reject the idea of God or gods. There is a difference in my mind.

That may be what those terms mean to you, but you do realize that those are not what the words actually mean. There is no position "between" atheism and theism - no such position can exist, because belief in God is an either/or proposition. You cannot do both and you cannot do neither, it must be one or the other, so there is no fence to sit on. Those who refer to themselves as simply "agnostic" and not "atheist" or "theist" simple don't understand what those words refer to. Furthermore, atheism does not require a choice, it merely requires a lack of belief. Rejecting a claim doesn't mean making a choice, it simply means not accepting the claim. You may not agree with this definition, but it is the definition of atheism, broadly speaking.

Leibowde, if that were the case, why have a term such as agnostic at all? Under your view, they are simply atheist and that would preclude the need for another term to define their collective beliefs or lack thereof. IMO, an agnostic sits on the fence making no choice or decision at all.

Because atheism and agnosticism refer to different things. Atheism/theism deal with belief, while agnosticism/gnosticism deal with claims of knowledge. An agnostic atheist, for example, does not believe there is a God but does not claim to know there is no God. A gnostic theist, on the other hand, believes there is a God and claims to know that God exists. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

 

[icehorse]

Jumping in late...

I kind of agree that theoretically "atheism" is a throw-away term. We could double the size of our dictionary if we wanted to name a-unicornists, a-astrologists, and so on.

But for many in the West, atheism has come to take on other connotations like secularism and anti-theism. Those connotations have some value.

 

[leibowde84]

That may be what those terms mean to you, but you do realize that those are not what the words actually mean. There is no position "between" atheism and theism - no such position can exist, because belief in God is an either/or proposition. You cannot do both and you cannot do neither, it must be one or the other, so there is no fence to sit on. Those who refer to themselves as simply "agnostic" and not "atheist" or "theist" simple don't understand what those words refer to. Furthermore, atheism does not require a choice, it merely requires a lack of belief. Rejecting a claim doesn't mean making a choice, it simply means not accepting the claim. You may not agree with this definition, but it is the definition of atheism, broadly speaking.



Because atheism and agnosticism refer to different things. Atheism/theism deal with belief, while agnosticism/gnosticism deal with claims of knowledge. An agnostic atheist, for example, does not believe there is a God but does not claim to know there is no God. A gnostic theist, on the other hand, believes there is a God and claims to know that God exists. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

Are you the one who convinced me of this initially a couple of weeks ago. Preach brother/sister!! You articulated my point better than I could.

 

[McBell]

"Believing you know" is not the theist.

Never claimed it was.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't agree. For me, the defintion of an agnostic is one who is unsure of whether or not there is a god or gods. For them, it's kind of like sitting on the fence. They make no defintive decision because for them, there is not enough information or evidence to sway them either way. To me, atheists have made a choice and that choice is to reject the idea of God or gods. There is a difference in my mind.

But that is not the meaning of the term atheism. It is a general term meaning a lack of belief. There are different subcategories of all of these terms, but we are referring to the general context.

 

[leibowde84]

Leibowde, if that were the case, why have a term such as agnostic at all? Under your view, they are simply atheist and that would preclude the need for another term to define their collective beliefs or lack thereof. IMO, an agnostic sits on the fence making no choice or decision at all.

But an atheist can be someone doing the same. Simply lacking belief in God.

 

[leibowde84]

I think the difference is that some people are so convinced of their belief, they claim to 'know' in a factual manner. To me, that makes no sense as it is still belief, and cannot ever be called fact.

Exactly. Technically all knowledge is merely belief, inferences of tiny "leaps of faith".

 

[psychoslice]

Some have a belief. I am a thiest but it's more of a generalized concept and nothing like organized religion holds.

Yes I think I am the same in some ways.