Can you clarify? Why can't a theist say "I don't know whether gods exist or not but I believe they do."I will not go about telling them to stop labeling themselves as such, but yes I consider it a contradiction in terms.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can you clarify? Why can't a theist say "I don't know whether gods exist or not but I believe they do."I will not go about telling them to stop labeling themselves as such, but yes I consider it a contradiction in terms.
Can you clarify? Why can't a theist say "I don't know whether gods exist or not but I believe they do."
Sorry, but I can't make sense of that post. Would you rephrase it please?
All that's necessary is to tie the term atheist to the concept of god, rather than to any, each, or all known "gods."Using the term 'atheist' in any non-specific sense renders it meaningless. If atheism is taken to mean a belief that no gods of any description known or unknown exist anywhere in the universe, then it becomes a nonsense term as opposed to a useful distinction.
True. Therefore a theist claiming he believes but doesn't know is an "agnostic theist". A theist who claims to believe but says nothing about knowing or not knowing anything is just a theist.Because a knowledge claim has nothing to do with atheism or theism. Claiming to 'know' is not a requirement for either. So if you believe in a deity you are a theist. If you do not, you are an atheist.
There is nothing stopping an agnostic from being a theist too. "Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism]Agnostic theism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia One ten word line from a dictionary is simply not sufficient to explain this correctly read some more comprehensive explanations.Adding agnostic to either is entirely unnecessary - and in the case of theism, it contradicts the secondary definition of agnostic. As defined by the Oxford English Dictionary: "a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
True. Therefore a theist claiming he believes but doesn't know is an "agnostic theist". A theist who claims to believe but says nothing about knowing or not knowing anything is just a theist.There is nothing stopping an agnostic from being a theist too. "Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism]Agnostic theism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia One ten word line from a dictionary is simply not sufficient to explain this correctly read some more comprehensive explanations.
The definition of agnosticism is "the view that the truth values of certain claimsespecially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claimsare unknown or unknowable." It says nothing about belief just about knowledge. The problem has been that people have been confusing the two and applied belief or lack of to agnosticism too. The simple rule is: gnosticism/agnosticism = knowledge, theism/atheism = belief. Just don't mix them up.As I said, I am not going to go around telling people to stop using the term. I am aware of what they mean when they say it. I merely think it is a circumstance where people unfortunately redefined a term to label a very specific and niche concept that is in contradiction with the standard use of the word.
The definition of agnosticism is "the view that the truth values of certain claimsespecially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claimsare unknown or unknowable." It says nothing about belief just about knowledge. The problem has been that people have been confusing the two and applied belief or lack of to agnosticism too. The simple rule is: gnosticism/agnosticism = knowledge, theism/atheism = belief. Just don't mix them up.
This has nothing to do with what you call the "atheistic perspective" since even an agnostic theist can say "I have zero evidence to suggest that any "god(s)" are necessary to explain the natural world or cosmos as we understand it but I believe in "god(s)" anyway.
I hear you. I really do.'"Or unsure theists who said "I don't know if god(s) exist but I believe they do".
All that's necessary is to tie the term atheist to the concept of god, rather than to any, each, or all known "gods."
We each hold a concept of a thing that is an image in our minds of its definition. The concept of a horse is not tied to any particular horse or to all specific horses, but rather stands alone to represent each and all of them, from the modern-day Arabian to the horse-like zebra and donkey, to the ancient ancestor of horsekind. No one particular represents the concept, but the concept represents all particulars.
When we use the term 'god' intellgibly in a sentence or in another term, we've utilize the concept of god. Conversely, the term needn't be tied to any particular to make sense of it.
Not in "weak atheism" defined as "absence of belief in god(s)" but "strong atheists" believe there are no gods.And as Sapiens said, there is no belief element in atheism.
I'm am a strong atheist.
Why? Because I got tired of replying to each and every separate personal definition of god, and I thought, "Why can't I have my own personal definition of god?" So I made one. I'm going to go into too much detail about the logic behind it, because it's way more than I am willing to sit and write, at least not in one sitting. But here's an overview.
The argument is basically; I am not god, therefore god does not exist.
There are a few axioms that need to be accepted to follow the logic, and I accept them so it works fine for me.
One, I am not god and by that I mean humans - past, present, and future - are not gods. Two, if something exists it can be known. Three, an intelligent entity has no limit to its potential. Four, god is greater than human potential.
Now to determine what is a god, you can't start with what you don't know you need to start with what you do know. I know I am not god, I am human, humans are intelligent entities, therefore there is no limit to the human species' potential, if there is no limit to human potential then there is nothing greater than human potential, therefore there is no god. This all differentiates between an actual god and a being with great power. There can be beings with greater power and ability than us, but I don't consider them gods. The second axiom, "if something exists it can be known" which means to me, if we can understand it we can attain it, removes the possibility that a god could exist outside of our universe and be beyond human potential, if it exists it can be known, therefore it isn't beyond human potential, therefore it's not a god. Extremely powerful but not a god.
So basically I've defined god as something whose existence is impossible. If something comes along with a concept of a god that doesn't measure up to those standards, I don't consider it a god, even if it actually exists.
Omniscient God(s) exist.
Proof One:
Axiom 1: If something exists it can be known.
Axiom 2: Everything that can be known indirectly , can be known directly.
=> Everything that exists can be known directly by someone.
And that someone is Omniscient God
Proof Two:
Axiom 1: Intelligent entities have no limit to their potential.
Axiom 2: Human Beings are intelligent entities.
=>Any human being that realizes their unlimited potential into actualities will have unlimited Intelligence and that human being is Omniscient God.
Proof Three:
If you deny existence of Omniscient , then you yourself are Omniscient which is not true. Hence opposite must be true.
Omniscient God(s) are possible because they have minimum interaction with the Universe(knower-known relation only , the most noble relation).
We have the potential to develop knower-known relationship with Universe , but right now we are in the Owner-Owned relationship with Universe and hence are not realizing our unlimited potential.
There is a detailed procedure to convert the Owner-Owned relationship to
knower-known relationship. It is very difficult , but not impossible.
Are you ready for the challenge?
Not in "weak atheism" defined as "absence of belief in god(s)" but "strong atheists" believe there are no gods.
Sadly none of your axioms are in fact axioms.
In the classic sense, this is correct. They are not axioms. However, in modern times axioms are no longer required to be self-evident or pre-established if one is simply dealing with a formal system. But since we are not dealing with a formal system . . . they are still not axioms. So this was a wasted paragraph.
It is the formal system , that of the poster who is quoted in my post. Read his post. He has established his Axioms , not me. I just used his Axioms in my paragraph.In the classic sense, this is correct. They are not axioms. However, in modern times axioms are no longer required to be self-evident or pre-established if one is simply dealing with a formal system. But since we are not dealing with a formal system . . . they are still not axioms. So this was a wasted paragraph.
Omniscient God(s) exist.
Proof One:
Axiom 1: If something exists it can be known.
Axiom 2: Everything that can be known indirectly , can be known directly.
=> Everything that exists can be known directly by someone.
And that someone is Omniscient God
Proof Two:
Axiom 1: Intelligent entities have no limit to their potential.
Axiom 2: Human Beings are intelligent entities.
=>Any human being that realizes their unlimited potential into actualities will have unlimited Intelligence and that human being is Omniscient God.
Proof Three:
If you deny existence of Omniscient , then you yourself are Omniscient which is not true. Hence opposite must be true.
Omniscient God(s) are possible because they have minimum interaction with the Universe(knower-known relation only , the most noble relation).
We have the potential to develop knower-known relationship with Universe , but right now we are in the Owner-Owned relationship with Universe and hence are not realizing our unlimited potential.
There is a detailed procedure to convert the Owner-Owned relationship to
knower-known relationship. It is very difficult , but not impossible.
Are you ready for the challenge?
It is the formal system , that of the poster who is quoted in my post. Read his post. He has established his Axioms , not me. I just used his Axioms in my paragraph.
Given the topic at hand and the other connotations of belief, it seems far more apropos to use 'think' in reference to strong atheists. They think there are no gods. As opposed to a 'weak' atheist who simply does not have belief in them.
But as I said either earlier in this thread or in a different thread, the whole strong/weak thing is largely pointless in my opinion. And perhaps a bit beyond pointless and a bit undesirable.