The term "Agnostic", is it viable? Problematic?

[Prophet]

You're extrapolating way too much from it. The whole point is to deduce a method to follow which is NOT a belief system. It's a pragmatic approach to science.

I read a whole lot of weasel words that allow practicers of methodological naturalism to behave without regard to consistency with their own beliefs. Like "weak" atheist Richard Dawkins.

 

[McBell]

I read a whole lot of weasel words that allow practicers of methodological naturalism to behave without regard to consistency with their own beliefs. Like "weak" atheist Richard Dawkins.

OK.
Now we know that theists do not own a monopoly on it.

Now what?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I read a whole lot of weasel words that allow practicers of methodological naturalism to behave without regard to consistency with their own beliefs. Like "weak" atheist Richard Dawkins.

Ahhh...got it.
You'd prefer that an atheist scientist develops a scientific methodology that proves there is no God, and a theist factors God in.

Sensible.
After all, what sense is there in following an inclusive methodology that allows the best chance of gaining knowledge through science?

Why you are trying to tie methodological naturalism to beliefs is beyond me. Proves only that you are COMPLETELY missing the point.

 

[s2a]

At one point I thought you were trying to actually understand. Seems you were just trolling.

Still trying to digest the notion that sarcasm is equatable with trolling.

I'm on your side, just leave me out of your "mathematical" conjectures, or extemporaneous conclusions.

BS is kinda like porn...hard to define, but you know it when you step in it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Still trying to digest the notion that sarcasm is equatable with trolling.

Yeah, you probably have a point. Im actually fine with some sarcasm if its at least a little amusing.

 

[Prophet]

Ahhh...got it.
You'd prefer that an atheist scientist develops a scientific methodology that proves there is no God, and a theist factors God in.

Sensible.
After all, what sense is there in following an inclusive methodology that allows the best chance of gaining knowledge through science?

Why you are trying to tie methodological naturalism to beliefs is beyond me. Proves only that you are COMPLETELY missing the point.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, so I'll reiterate my argument that you characterize above. When I read from the wikipedia entry for naturalism this:

In contrast, assuming naturalism in working methods, without necessarily considering naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailments, is called methodological naturalism.

In the simplest possible terms, how I understand this line is: Limiting your naturalism to the methodological variety allows you to behave as if you have faith in naturalism as Richard Dawkins would when he advocates mockery of believers while simultaneously denying any responsibility for the philosophical position demonstrated by your actions. It's like having your cake and eating it, too.

 

[Prophet]

At one point I thought you were trying to actually understand. Seems you were just trolling.

You honestly think that dude was trying to understand me? Must you so transparently excuse wrongs committed on your side of the issue?

 

[Prophet]

Good idea.
But only if you are going after ALL atheists, not just the ones you happen to dislike.

Which means any disbelief in even one of the millions of proposed gods makes one an atheist.

Therefore every single (and married) person on the planet must die.

Where you gonna start?

I mistakenly thought it would be obvious that I was dismissing you as thoughtlessly as you were dismissing me. Your argument reduced to, "So what we're inconsistent? Those other people are inconsistent, too!"

I honestly don't know how to deal with an argument that ignorant while still being congenial.

 

[John Martin]

What are your thoughts on the term agnostic, is it problematic, does it imply wishy-washiness?

Agnosticism is a level of our mind which realizes that it cannot understand certain things, particularly things about God and after life. This can be in important stage to arrive. But one should not remain at that stage which makes life non-committal and so not lived. One should ask for the grace which will awaken one beyond the level of mind and see the mystery of life.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You honestly think that dude was trying to understand me? Must you so transparently excuse wrongs committed on your side of the issue?

I have a side? Awesome...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In the simplest possible terms, how I understand this line is: Limiting your naturalism to the methodological variety allows you to behave as if you have faith in naturalism as Richard Dawkins would when he advocates mockery of believers while simultaneously denying any responsibility for the philosophical position demonstrated by your actions. It's like having your cake and eating it, too.

Methodological naturalism has stuff all to do with Richard Dawkins. Why you insist on bringing him into a discussion about it is beyond me.
A theist, who believes in God, is effectively employing methodological naturalism when using scientific method to try and find a cure for cancer. This has nothing to do with cake, and only a bare link to philosophy.

 

[Prophet]

I have a side? Awesome...

I was responding to a completely ignorant argument when I "trolled". When you attack me, you tacitly excuse the argument Mestemia made. So, yes, Mr. Impartial, you seem to have a side here.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I was responding to a completely ignorant argument when I "trolled". When you attack me, you tacitly excuse the argument Mestemia made. So, yes, Mr. Impartial, you seem have a side here.

Let's just make sure we're working off the same page here.

I had a crack at explaining methodological naturalism, to which you offered the following;

I read a whole lot of weasel words that allow practicers of methodological naturalism to behave without regard to consistency with their own beliefs. Like "weak" atheist Richard Dawkins.

I'd suggest that you are both mistaken and over-generalising, as well as drawing some strange parallel between it and 'weak' atheism. You accuse both methodological naturalism, and weak atheism of behaving without consistency to their own beliefs, unless I'm misunderstanding your intent? I'm fine with debating the issue, given that I fit into both buckets, but I'd prefer substance, rather than some sort of link to Richard Dawkins. What he has to do with me, or methodological naturalism, I am yet to deduce.

OK.
Now we know that theists do not own a monopoly on it.

Now what?

Mestemia offered a similar over-generalization of theists.

Now we kill all the atheists.

And you offered that peach. Meh, whatever...I already admitted that you were probably not trolling, and instead just being sarcastic, but forgive me if I'm not rolling in the aisles. I was trying to explain something to you, and you seem to be a little less sincere in your efforts to understand.

I wasn't invested in explaining anything to Mestemia, hence feel less frustrated. But whatever...equate it whatever way works for you. If you want to actually discuss something, I'm still here. If you want to go round and round some worn path to nowhere, then I'm not so interested.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

No...that's not true at all.
But I'll try and split things up to make my view more understandable.

1) I tend to argue more against religion, than God in and of itself. So I doubt I've ever argued against a Deistic God, more than saying I don't understand the reasoning in concluding there is one. In arguing against a Christian God (for example) I'm more arguing against the likelihood of a God as presented by the Christian faith.
I don't believe such a God exists, or any other God, hence I am an atheist. I don't believe I can prove NO Gods exists, hence I am agnostic.

I agree with your definition as you've stated here.

I think your definition of what constitutes agnostic atheism is off the mark based on your conclusions.

From Wikipedia (the source of all truths...ahem...)

Why can't I argue against a Christian God, and still meet that definition?

There is some confusion on my part. If i understand you correctly, you're using the term 'agnostic atheist' to include both positive (or strong) atheism AND negative (or weak) atheism. I have been trying to address the issue of weak/negative atheists making claims about God when they are not supposed to, at least by definition. Weak atheism involves having no belief about God, that means no view, no opinion, but from my observation that is hardly sustainable once this types of atheists wants to hang out with positive atheists and argue 'against' the Christians and their God.

You and another person mentioned that you argue more against religion and fundamentalism than you do for God, but religion and God are tied together, in some cases. If you're gonna call Christians dumb for believing in such stories then you're also knocking the god that those stories pertain to, as well.

ROFL...that's an interesting way to take an inch and run a hundred miles.
I'm a methodological naturalist for a few reasons, but the most relevant appear to be;

1) Methodological naturalist approaches are inclusive, and allow theistic and atheistic backgrounds to work together without compromise or difference.

2) The basic assumption of following where the evidence leads, without applying pre-conceptions based on a strictly material view of the world appears logical to me.

3) There is a parallel in terms of why I am a weak atheist versus strong, with why I'm a methodological naturalist rather than philosophical

4) It avoids wasting time on a bunch of stuff we can't know (now at least) and shouldn't be catering for in science.

You did not really answer one of my original questions to you which was if you accepted naturalism (the type that rules out supernaturalism). You responded with you're a methodological naturalist. Do you accept metaphysical naturalism? This is how I've caught so called 'weak' atheists in the past because they claim to not believe in God but then they find talking donkeys and spirit beings to be absurd. That by implication shows a lack of belief in God's existence since those stories are possible in a supernatural realm. THat would mean these atheists are not the 'weak' atheists that they claim to be.

 

[TheGunShoj]

You have not explained why. My conflicting beliefs consists of 2 separate beliefs based on different reasons. Would you accept that its possible that both sides of an issue can have evidence? If i accept that there is evidence for both sides then I can form beliefs based on those evidence and accept that both sides have some truth rather than holding any one belief as being 100% truth.

You believe in God and disbelieve in God at the same time? That is a contradiction. I would agree that both sides can have evidence and good arguments, yes, but theism is the positive claim so to reject it is not to make the opposite statement of "There is no God" it just takes you from the positive position to the default one.

I accept the claim as having some degree of truth. Belief doesn't have to be black or white or either all the way true or false. I obviously don't have firm or high confidence in these beliefs but they are still beliefs nonetheless. In action that usually manifests as me having to argue for or on both sides, something which tends to confuse or even upset theist and atheist who is one benefit I see to not choosing the theist or atheist label.

It is black and white. Either a God(s) exists or it doesn't. Those are the two choices. Either you believe a God(s) exist or you don't. If someone makes a positive claim and you are on the fence about it, it means the claim has not convinced you of it's truth and therefore you do not believe that claim. You can still be open minded about it and reserve judgment and belief until more evidence is provided. But at that time, you aren't convinced.

So a person can't withhold judgment?

That's exactly what I'm saying to do. that's what agnostic atheism is. Theism is the positive assertion that a God exists. To say "I don't believe that because I have not seen convincing evidence" is not the same as making the opposite assertion that "God does NOT exist".

If there is a jar full of gumballs and a competition to guess if the number of gumballs inside is even or odd and someone walks up to me and says "I think the number of gumballs is even" and I say "I'm just not sure. I don't have any reason to think that" Does that mean that I'm making the reverse claim and saying that the number is odd? Or does it just mean I'm not accepting their assertion and remaining open minded until they demonstrate that the number is even?

You are referring to atheists who make positive claims but I'm referring to weak or negative atheists who claim to have no belief about God.

I thought you were talking about atheists who were making positive claims too. I thought that was what you had a problem with.

I wouldn't say that atheists have no belief about god. We don't believe in god. But depending on which god is being discussed and the characteristics, personality, commands given, abilities, ect. We can have different feelings, opinions and beliefs about it. What's wrong with voicing those?

I don't understand the issue. If someone said they worshipped a god that delights in torturing, raping and killing newborn babies, I would feel completely comfortable stating my belief that their god is a sick, malevolent douche bag and that they have no business worshipping it. Would you have a problem with me stating that opinion?

These types of atheists should not be making any claims about God, but hardly do you find them sticking to their unopinionated state as soon as they start debating 'against' Christians.

I feel like I've explained why they can. If not, let me know where you still disagree.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

You believe in God and disbelieve in God at the same time? That is a contradiction.

Yes, I agree that the state of mind I described is contradictory but 'beliefs' can be contradictory just as the Bible can be contradictory. In other words, while contradictory statements, beliefs, etc can't be true in reality but the contradiction can still exist in a story, in beliefs since these matters (stories, beliefs, etc) do not necessarily relate to reality.

I would agree that both sides can have evidence and good arguments, yes, but theism is the positive claim so to reject it is not to make the opposite statement of "There is no God" it just takes you from the positive position to the default one.

Rejecting theism 'can' lead you to the default position of just not believing but it can also lead you to the position of another belief, that is, the belief that God does NOT exist. We both agree that there can be evidence to both sides of an issue, and that is one of my proposed ways that someone can develop conflicting beliefs. If beliefs are formed or based on reasons/evidence (even subjective reasons depending on the person), then I fail to see why can't a person at times form some belief or acceptance in both sides just as anyone else forms a belief based on some reason/evidence that they accept. In my case there are 2 separate beliefs formed, one based on atheistic reasons and the other on theistic reasons.

Also, other ways someone can have contradictory beliefs is by not knowing about it or perhaps by not understanding that it is contradictory. In their mind it's not contradictory or they're not aware of it, but in reality it is and it usually takes others to show it to them. People often form LOTS of beliefs, including new ones and we don't have some AUTOchecker in our brain to ensure that all of our beliefs and newly formed ones are logically consistent with each other. Some religions wouldn't be possible or they'd be more consistent in their lies, at least if we had that ability. So a person may end up accepting something while not realizing that it conflicts with another one of their held beliefs.

It is black and white. Either a God(s) exists or it doesn't. Those are the two choices. Either you believe a God(s) exist or you don't.

Yes, logically or in reality that is the case but when it comes to deciding which one is true or which you accept then that can fall into gray areas. If it was always the case that I saw evidence to only one side of the issue, then I'd agree with you, but when there's scenarios where it's possible to see evidence for two opposing sides of an issue, you can't force me to choose or accept only one. Sure, I can pick one option just for the hek of it but that wouldn't truly reflect what I accept.

If someone makes a positive claim and you are on the fence about it, it means the claim has not convinced you of it's truth and therefore you do not believe that claim. You can still be open minded about it and reserve judgment and belief until more evidence is provided. But at that time, you aren't convinced.

Your scenario can happen in SOME cases but not in all cases. My position would involve listening to a debate, both sides made good arguments and therefore I see that both sides have some degree of truth. Notice here that I don't even view truth or validity as a black-and-white issue, and neither do scientists, I might add. This truth is always tentative or based on some degree of probability. In terms of the theism vs atheism, I don't know nor believe in any one side as being 100% true and that it is because I don't see any one side as completely defeating the other. I see some good reasons on both sides.

That's exactly what I'm saying to do. that's what agnostic atheism is. Theism is the positive assertion that a God exists. To say "I don't believe that because I have not seen convincing evidence" is not the same as making the opposite assertion that "God does NOT exist".

You're not factoring in all of my scenario. I never said I don't believe that a God exists because I do accept that to a degree while also having a SECOND and separate belief based on acceptance on some of the reasons for why God would not exist. Trust me, I fully understand the difference between negative atheism (which makes no positive claims on God's existence) and positive atheism. I also don't view agnosticism as being a middle ground between theism and atheism, if that helps.

If there is a jar full of gumballs and a competition to guess if the number of gumballs inside is even or odd and someone walks up to me and says "I think the number of gumballs is even" and I say "I'm just not sure. I don't have any reason to think that" Does that mean that I'm making the reverse claim and saying that the number is odd? Or does it just mean I'm not accepting their assertion and remaining open minded until they demonstrate that the number is even?

The one component that is missing here is evidence for BOTH sides or for the two options to choose. I'm not sure how that would occur for something as simple as guessing the number of gumballs in a jar, but on complex issues like science, religion, philosophy, and God, and the centuries of debate (including new stuff) and seemingly unanswered questions and the perceived BiASES I see on both sides, can you blame me for not being able to settle the issue in my mind? Although, admittedly, I don't have the time to engage in reflection of my views like I have before since I have full time school and part time job.

I thought you were talking about atheists who were making positive claims too. I thought that was what you had a problem with.

I wouldn't say that atheists have no belief about god. We don't believe in god. But depending on which god is being discussed and the characteristics, personality, commands given, abilities, ect. We can have different feelings, opinions and beliefs about it. What's wrong with voicing those?

I don't have a problem with negative or weak atheists voicing their opinions if they're basing it purely from the standpoint of evaluating a story. But once their expressions go beyond describing what the pages say and turn to making claims about God, like he's evil, false, non-existent then those are beliefs or positive claims about God. At that point, they are no different than positive atheists.

I don't understand the issue. If someone said they worshipped a god that delights in torturing, raping and killing newborn babies, I would feel completely comfortable stating my belief that their god is a sick, malevolent douche bag and that they have no business worshipping it. Would you have a problem with me stating that opinion?

I feel like I've explained why they can. If not, let me know where you still disagree.

My issue is only with positive or strong atheists who hide behind the negative or weak atheist label. Some atheists may do this because there is a stigma in saying that God does NOT exist so they lessen that stance to attract more people to atheism. Some atheists may do this because they want to shift the burden of proof to theists so that they don't have to justify their own belief that God does NOT exist.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Yes, I agree that the state of mind I described is contradictory but 'beliefs' can be contradictory just as the Bible can be contradictory. In other words, while contradictory statements, beliefs, etc can't be true in reality but the contradiction can still exist in a story, in beliefs since these matters (stories, beliefs, etc) do not necessarily relate to reality.

I just cant wrap my head around how you would knowingly have contradictory beliefs and still hang onto both of them willingly, although I maintain that you cannot choose to be convinced of something. If the evidence does not convince you then you can not change your own mind. In that way, I sympathize.

Rejecting theism 'can' lead you to the default position of just not believing but it can also lead you to the position of another belief, that is, the belief that God does NOT exist. We both agree that there can be evidence to both sides of an issue, and that is one of my proposed ways that someone can develop conflicting beliefs.

No, simply rejecting theistic claims will always lead to the default position. Gnostic atheism which is the assertion that a god does in fact, not exist, is a positive claim on the opposite side of the spectrum from theism. It's more than rejecting theist claims as it is an assertion of it's own.

You're not factoring in all of my scenario. I never said I don't believe that a God exists because I do accept that to a degree while also having a SECOND and separate belief based on acceptance on some of the reasons for why God would not exist. Trust me, I fully understand the difference between negative atheism (which makes no positive claims on God's existence) and positive atheism. I also don't view agnosticism as being a middle ground between theism and atheism, if that helps..

I agree. Agnosticism is not a middle ground between the two but if that is the case, why do you identify as agnostic? Because it sounds like you fall in the middle ground.

The one component that is missing here is evidence for BOTH sides or for the two options to choose. I'm not sure how that would occur for something as simple as guessing the number of gumballs in a jar, but on complex issues like science, religion, philosophy, and God, and the centuries of debate (including new stuff) and seemingly unanswered questions and the perceived BiASES I see on both sides, can you blame me for not being able to settle the issue in my mind? Although, admittedly, I don't have the time to engage in reflection of my views like I have before since I have full time school and part time job.

Evidence is not needed for the example. It's simply to demonstrate that saying you don't accept someone's assertion, does not mean that you are making the opposite assertion, it just leaves you in the default position, suspending belief until you have rational justification to accept the claim.

I don't have a problem with negative or weak atheists voicing their opinions if they're basing it purely from the standpoint of evaluating a story. But once their expressions go beyond describing what the pages say and turn to making claims about God, like he's evil, false, non-existent then those are beliefs about God. At that point, they are no different than positive atheists.

Yes, it is different. I can make claims about something that doesn't exist. Voldemort from harry potter is an evil character, that doesn't mean that I believe that he is real, I'm not switching my position to gnostic voldemortism just because I have opinions about the character.

We can talk about something in the context as if it does exist, even though we don't believe that it does. Especially so we can have dialogue with those who do believe in whatever topic is at hand. I don't know where you got this criteria that as soon as you have an opinion about something that you don't believe exists, that means you think it exists.

So for example I could say "man Voldemort sure is a jerk in harry potter, IF that guy really existed he would be the biggest $%* in history"

Isn't that still true? If he has certain characteristics in the story and it turns out he was real, my opinion for him would still apply.

My issue is only with positive or strong atheists who hide behind the negative or weak atheist label. Some atheists may do this because there is a stigma in saying that God does NOT exist so they lessen that stance to attract more people to atheism. Some atheists may do this because they want to shift the burden of proof to theists so that they don't have to justify their own belief that God does NOT exist.

There is no shifting of the burden of proof with agnostic atheism. It is the default position. The burden of proof lies on the person making the assertion. So theists and Gnostic atheists both hold a burden of proof. I agree that there is a stigma with the label atheism in general and especially gnostic atheism. I think it's a dishonest position because there isn't a way to prove that a god does not exist.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I just cant wrap my head around how you would knowingly have contradictory beliefs and still hang onto both of them willingly, although I maintain that you cannot choose to be convinced of something. If the evidence does not convince you then you can not change your own mind. In that way, I sympathize.

The only thing I do is keep searching for answers to reconcile the conflict. I've participated in other forums as well where some of the agnostics have similar experiences, like one person who told me he has a conflict between what he accepts with his heart (based on feelings?) and what he accepts intellectually. It may be part of a conversion process, as well.

No, simply rejecting theistic claims will always lead to the default position. Gnostic atheism which is the assertion that a god does in fact, not exist, is a positive claim on the opposite side of the spectrum from theism. It's more than rejecting theist claims as it is an assertion of it's own.

It would really depend on the implications of the reason(s) of why a person rejects theism. Perhaps lack of evidence may only lead a theist to shift to 'weak' atheism but I don't see why the problem of evil wouldn't be enough to shift a theist to positive atheism, if the theist accepted that argument against God. This shift really depends on the person and their standards.

I agree. Agnosticism is not a middle ground between the two but if that is the case, why do you identify as agnostic? Because it sounds like you fall in the middle ground.

I use the agnostic label because it just happens to be ONE position that doesn't conflict with my conflicting 'beliefs'. It may appear that I take a middle ground because I'm not totally for or against any side.

Evidence is not needed for the example. It's simply to demonstrate that saying you don't accept someone's assertion, does not mean that you are making the opposite assertion, it just leaves you in the default position, suspending belief until you have rational justification to accept the claim.

it would depend on why you don't accept someone's assertion. Someone who accepts the counter-proposition (God does not exist) wouldn't accept the theist side just as the person that you're referring to wouldn't.

Yes, it is different. I can make claims about something that doesn't exist. Voldemort from harry potter is an evil character, that doesn't mean that I believe that he is real, I'm not switching my position to gnostic voldemortism just because I have opinions about the character.

This is a bit tricky since a positive atheist would also view Voldermort (or some god) as non-existent and evil. Negative atheists are not supposed to make positive claims. The only distinction I can see between some of what you and I are saying would be dependent on the intent and context of the discussion. If your discussion and opinions are made just to evaluate the story in the context of purely fantasy or fiction standpoint (where reality or true and false is not being considered) then I'd agree. But if it's something that's said in the context of a DEBATE and being used 'against' Christians then that is a claim that goes beyond just talking about a story. This would then conflict with negative or weak atheism since those atheists aren't supposed to make any positive claims about God.

We can talk about something in the context as if it does exist, even though we don't believe that it does.

It depends on the context of the discussion - are we talking about it as a real issue for debate or just pure fantasy/fiction? I'm sure we all know what weak atheists come to do on 'debate' forums.

Especially so we can have dialogue with those who do believe in whatever topic is at hand. I don't know where you got this criteria that as soon as you have an opinion about something that you don't believe exists, that means you think it exists.

It depends on what the opinion is. In my previous post I did mention not existing as being one of those opinions that weak atheists mention. You've also mentioned non-existence in several of the quotations I have from your last post. I still maintain that if negative atheists can hold opinions (like he is evil) about things they see as non-existent then they are no longer neutral on the issue of God. I only get on them for that when I see them using that in the context of a debate against Christians.

So for example I could say "man Voldemort sure is a jerk in harry potter, IF that guy really existed he would be the biggest $%* in history"

Isn't that still true? If he has certain characteristics in the story and it turns out he was real, my opinion for him would still apply.

My last 2 or 3 responses above this one covers this point of yours.

There is no shifting of the burden of proof with agnostic atheism. It is the default position. The burden of proof lies on the person making the assertion. So theists and Gnostic atheists both hold a burden of proof. I agree that there is a stigma with the label atheism in general and especially gnostic atheism. I think it's a dishonest position because there isn't a way to prove that a god does not exist.

Positive atheism makes the claim that God does NOT exist. That is a claim that has just as much burden of proof as the theist side.

You keep mentioning a default position (weak or negative atheism) but that is NOT the only type of atheism.

 

[TheGunShoj]

The only thing I do is keep searching for answers to reconcile the conflict. I've participated in other forums as well where some of the agnostics have similar experiences, like one person who told me he has a conflict between what he accepts with his heart (based on feelings?) and what he accepts intellectually. It may be part of a conversion process, as well.

That's fair. I can accept that.

It would really depend on the implications of the reason(s) of why a person rejects theism. Perhaps lack of evidence may only lead a theist to shift to 'weak' atheism but I don't see why the problem of evil wouldn't be enough to shift a theist to positive atheism, if the theist accepted that argument against God. This shift really depends on the person and their standards.

It doesn't matter why you reject it. If you reject it, you are then neutral. If you have strong enough feelings about it to the point where you are going to be a gnostic(positive atheist as you refer to it? I've never heard this term before but rather strong or weak) atheist then you are then making a claim of your own. It's a rejection and then going a step further to make your own positive assertion. It's not the same as simply not accepting the first proposition.

rejection = agnostic atheism
rejection + opposite assertion = gnostic atheism

This is a bit tricky since a positive atheist would also view Voldermort (or some god) as non-existent and evil. Negative atheists are not supposed to make positive claims. The only distinction I can see between some of what you and I are saying would be dependent on the intent and context of the discussion. If your discussion and opinions are made just to evaluate the story in the context of purely fantasy or fiction standpoint (where reality or true and false is not being considered) then I'd agree. But if it's something that's said in the context of a DEBATE and being used 'against' Christians then that is a claim that goes beyond just talking about a story. This would then conflict with negative or weak atheism since those atheists aren't supposed to make any positive claims about God.

I don't know if I would call it a positive claim but I can certainly discuss a god in a debate and it's still completely compatible with my agnostic atheism. One way to do it would be to ask someone what God they believe in and then when they explain that to me, to address that God and the characteristics given to it. Essentially, they are the ones making all the claims about their God and I am just responding to it.

If someone tells me their God is invisible, they made that claim, not me. I know what invisible is so I can use my knowledge to engage in discussion with them on the topic and express my opinions. Does that make sense?

In the same way, if someone tells me their God likes eating babies, they made the claim again and I can respond to that and tell them that their god sounds disgusting.

They are the one constructing the claim about God, not me. But wouldn't you agree that eating babies is evil? Why would you have a problem with me stating that opinion in a debate if I'm just responding to a characteristic a person gave to their own deity?

It depends on the context of the discussion - are we talking about it as a real issue for debate or just pure fantasy/fiction? I'm sure we all know what weak atheists come to do on 'debate' forums.

I don't follow. What do weak atheists come to do?

It depends on what the opinion is. In my previous post I did mention not existing as being one of those opinions that weak atheists mention. You've also mentioned non-existence in several of the quotations I have from your last post. I still maintain that if negative atheists can hold opinions (like he is evil) about things they see as non-existent then they are no longer neutral on the issue of God. I only get on them for that when I see them using that in the context of a debate against Christians.

I still don't understand where the issue is. For one thing, there are a multitude of different gods that have been constructed over the years. I may think one god is evil and another sounds really nice. I'm going to have different opinions about every god out there since they aren't exactly the same.

But I think you are confused about the definitions of atheism. For some reason it seems like you think it means "I don't believe in God and can't make any statements about a God good or bad because those would be positive claims" but that's not what atheism is. It is simply "I don't believe in a God(s)" We've already admitted that we can talk about fictional characters that we don't actually believe exist and form opinions about them. Atheism doesn't say anything about what you can and cant say. As long as an atheist is making those claims hypothetically if you will, but still maintains that they don't believe in God then they are completely under the umbrella of atheism.

They might not be neutral in terms of their feelings for that God, depending on what type of character he is or what type of impact his followers have on our world but they are still neutral in the sense that they don't believe in it and they don't assert for a fact that it doesn't exist.

Positive atheism makes the claim that God does NOT exist. That is a claim that has just as much burden of proof as the theist side.

You keep mentioning a default position (weak or negative atheism) but that is NOT the only type of atheism.

I know, did you not read my last post before you responded to it? I said that gnostic atheists (strong atheists as you call it) have just as much of a burden of proof as theists and that I think gnostic atheism is a ridiculous position because you can't prove an un-falsifiable hypothesis which is what God is.

 

[Prophet]

Methodological naturalism has stuff all to do with Richard Dawkins. Why you insist on bringing him into a discussion about it is beyond me.

Methodological naturalism is to metaphysical naturalism as "weak" atheism is to "strong" atheism". In both naturalism and atheism we will find MANY adherents who loudly promote their position as the negative and more reasonable variety while simultaneously betraying their own unreasonable positions of "strong" belief in word and action.

A theist, who believes in God, is effectively employing methodological naturalism when using scientific method to try and find a cure for cancer. This has nothing to do with cake, and only a bare link to philosophy.

But is this theist then a methodological naturalist simply because he believes in the scientific method? I've already made my point on the dubious goal of universal definitions which thus far you've dodged responding to.

I readily admit that Jesus often took stances against theists and theistic belief systems, but does that really make him anti-theist? Was his motive in calling out the hypocrites to destroy religious faith in God?

You could look in my backlog of posts and easily frame me as an anti-theist were you to universalize its definition in the manner you seem to suggest. I think that in itself shows that a universal definition is a dubious goal that should take second priority to ease of understanding.

So far, according to your beliefs, Jesus and I are anti-theists because we have a distaste for atrocities in spite of our avowed theism and theist scientists and I are methodological naturalists because of our confidence in the scientific method in spite of the phrase's distinctly atheistic connotation.