Theism, Agnosticism, & Atheism: Which Is Logically The Weakest?

[Tiberius]

Once again I point out that all you say is correct IF we're in the realm of formal mathematics (where the extra half pint is brought to account).

And that it doesn't have to be correct out there in the real world.

In other words, formal mathematics is a good thing, but not everything. Which, I suggest, is relevant before one says that one is completely certain that 1+1=2, instead of, completely certain that in formal mathematics 1+1=2.

That's all.

I suppose you're going to say that it's possible that I am not currently using a computer at the moment either...

I can't help but feel that you are quibbling over wordplay instead of actually address the issue I am trying to discuss.

 

[blü 2]

I suppose you're going to say that it's possible that I am not currently using a computer at the moment either...

I can't help but feel that you are quibbling over wordplay instead of actually address the issue I am trying to discuss.

You made a purported absolute statement ─ your certainty was 'perfect'. I pointed out that it wasn't. It still isn't. By all means consider that a quibble, but next time you'll know how to phrase it better.

 

[Curious George]

You made a purported absolute statement ─ your certainty was 'perfect'. I pointed out that it wasn't. It still isn't. By all means consider that a quibble, but next time you'll know how to phrase it better.

Your equivocation did not show anyone how to phrase something better.

 

[Tiberius]

You made a purported absolute statement ─ your certainty was 'perfect'. I pointed out that it wasn't. It still isn't. By all means consider that a quibble, but next time you'll know how to phrase it better.

So you disagree with something I said, and you decided to teach me a lesson, even though it had very little to do with the point I was making, and even though you didn't really accomplish anything?

God, you're like some smart arse who insists on taking time dilation into effect when figuring out how long it's going to take to drive down the street to his mate's house.

 

[joe1776]

Again, this seems to be quite in line with the rest: UFOs, Deities, Leprechauns, Fairies, etc.

I really don't see the anecdotal evidence as worthy of much more than politeness.

Your position isn't well-reasoned because the pattern of evidence is very different between fairies and UFOs for example.

I, and most of my relatives, have lived our lives in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs of Washington DC, At family gatherings, UFO sightings in this area back in the 1970s have been a recurring topic of conversation. These are not of strange objects flying high in the sky reports. Some are of 40-foot disc-shape craft flying soundlessly at 10-15 mph just above tree-top level. We've never had a fairy sighting reported nor do we ever expect one.

Here's a report from a man who was nine-years old at the time of his sighting in Wheaton, MD. It would not be very convincing to most people, but I happen to know it's a good report. I saw the same craft headed toward Wheaton. I was about five miles north. He remembers colored lights around the perimeter of the craft. I saw glowing white light, like a theater marquee, moving around the perimeter. Otherwise, his description and mine are alike.

UFO Sighting in Wheaton, MD on Thursday 01 May 1969 - UFO Hunters

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's take as given that you can't test the claim right now. How did you manage to peer into the future to determine that it would be impossible to test it? What assumptions did you have to make about the future capabilities of humanity in order to come to that conclusion?

No... the claim can't be tested ever.
That's the thing about untestable and unfalsifiable claims. That it isn't even testable in principle.

Not today and not with the technology a million years from now.

Untestable claims are untestable in principle, regardless of availability of technology.


And like I also explained, even IF the definition is testable somehow (it's not), there still is the cop-out of "magic" and "all powerfull" to explain away any and all test failures.​

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

False, any cursory investigation of the varities of theism disproves the necessity of it.


Number 2 is more encompassing the reality of varieties of theism. Number 1 is a specific usage, not applicaple to all theists. For theists, there are fora within RF where there are non-revealed religions. Those religions include theists.

The belief in a god / deity that doesn't intervene, isn't personal, etc, is called deism.
Theism distinguishes itself from deism, precisely on those properties.

For lack of belief type of atheists that is certainly true

Then it is true, period.
If "lack of belief type" atheists are atheists, then positively believing the claim "there are no gods", is not a requirement for being an atheist.

An atheist with an ideological basis, would argue differently.

He'ld be wrong.
Clearly such "ideological basis" isn't a requirement for being an atheist.

Having been a "lack of belief atheist" myself it was easy to expect others to be the same, but they're not always so

It doesn't matter.
The point is that atheism is defined by what isn't being believed.
As per your own acknowledgement, mere "lack of belief" is already enough to identify atheists.
Whatever else is being believed (or not believed) is irrelevant (to the label "atheist").

Another problem arises in any deeper discussion of theism and atheism. @LuisDantas pointed out ignosticism, which everyone seriously debating atheism-theism should consider in my opinion. For instance some types of theism I'm agnostic towards, even though I'm theist just like many modern atheists would be. Other types of theisms and beliefs I completely reject, much as many atheists would. I still remain theist.

And your theism is defined by the specific theistic claims you believe.

 

[blü 2]

So you disagree with something I said, and you decided to teach me a lesson, even though it had very little to do with the point I was making, and even though you didn't really accomplish anything?

God, you're like some smart arse who insists on taking time dilation into effect when figuring out how long it's going to take to drive down the street to his mate's house.

No problem!

Any time!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think this is quite incorrect. Theism could easily be supported by the deity simply providing that unequivocal evidence, which all theists suppose it is totally able to do.

So could the interdimensional 7-headed dragon. But that "what if" is not enough reason to believe it.
Try again when this entity actually provides said evidence.

Until then, they are beliefs that are supported by nothing. With nothing we can do to change it.

The same is not true of atheism, since atheism does not make a claim at all, but rather simply states, "having seen no such evidence, and not expecting to see any, I do not believe in the existence of a deity that is in any way active or involved in the world."

Sure, but that's not the definition of "atheist" that is being used in the OP.
I acknowledged in my post that I don't agree with the definition provided in the OP. And then proceeded to answers the question assuming the definitions provided anyway.

Yet, that is still not enough to make the claim that "of a certainty, no deity exists," because there is always the possibility that the evidence that would prove it could be deliberately hidden by said deity.

Exactly.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, has all the "evidence" as theism or atheism, but feels, for whatever reason, unable to make a decision. This seems to me to be a bit bizarre, since, as I said, any real evidence for the existence of a deity involved or active in the world would instantly decide the question. So the agnostic must admit that no such evidence exists, or he could no longer possibly be agnostic. Therefore, it would seem that he ought to reason, from that, the atheism is more likely to be correct.

Agnosticism is not a 3rd option between theism and atheism.
It's a different answer to a different question.

(A)gnosticism is an answer to the question about knowledge.
(A)theism is an answer to the question about belief.

They are not mutually exclusive.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

One cannot logically or scientifically either prove or disprove the existence of God. Thus the analytical mind cannot reach an answer. However, the intuitive, empathic side of our minds has no difficulty. Research shows that the more dominant this side is, the more religious we are likely to be. The intuitive mind sees God.

The intuitive mind also sees time as a constant and not as a relative thing.
The intuitive mind also leads to the opposite of the weirdness we see in quantum mechanics.

When it comes to the complete unknown - especially the "realms" or "conditions" that lay far beyond our human experience - our "intuition" is rarely, if ever, correct.

 

[Jumi]

The belief in a god / deity that doesn't intervene, isn't personal, etc, is called deism.
Theism distinguishes itself from deism, precisely on those properties.

Deism is the belief that God created the universe and then left it. I don't believe in a Creator which makes me not a Deist. I believe what creates and maintains the universe is wholly non-personal and uncaring towards us, just like I believed as an atheist. I also believe God can be experienced which a Deist doesn't.

It's best not to try to lump things into piles that aren't neat. If you have Christmas decorations piled with Physics books, it will be harder for someone else to make sense of the categorizations one makes. I'm happy with discrete and complex groups.

Then it is true, period.
If "lack of belief type" atheists are atheists, then positively believing the claim "there are no gods", is not a requirement for being an atheist.

I never said that it was a requirement to be anything else than lack of belief. I was a lack of belief atheist for 90%+ of my life and even debated for it, so to see that we're on the same page as us.

He'ld be wrong.
Clearly such "ideological basis" isn't a requirement for being an atheist.

No one (in our debate) said it was a requirement. You'd be wrong if you said all atheists are lack of belief type like I was.

He'ld be wrong.As per your own acknowledgement, mere "lack of belief" is already enough to identify atheists.

Indeed. As I've reiterated I have no problem with the definition and even spoke for it.

And your theism is defined by the specific theistic claims you believe.

Correct. I believe God can be experienced. It and my experience of God separates me from atheism and lack of belief. Similarly if I started to believe in an invisible guiding force that guides the world towards communism even if it's named history, I would cease to be a lack of belief atheist if I were one.

 

[PureX]

If we didn't exist then indeed we'd know nothing. So your proposition is correct but since we exist, not very helpful.
True, but science explores the world external to the self, examines what it finds, and seeks to explain it. Aware of the problem you mention, science also seeks to maximize objectivity, a practice not notably followed by religions.
Incoherent? Neither you nor I act as though we think that's true. Instead we act as though a world exists external to ourselves, that our senses are capable of informing each of us about it, and that reason is a valid tool.
Again, you don't act as though the world external to you is imaginary. Instead you employ it for breathing, eating, socializing, posting on the net, and I dare say you wear clothes, carry an umbrella when it rains (indeed, check the forecast), avoid stepping in front of moving cars, are careful round electricity, get sunburnt if you get too much sun, see the doctor when you're ill or injured, and so on.
Yet again I point out that your conduct in posting here shows you don't believe that.

There are no absolute statements in physics, based as it is on empiricism and induction, and what is best opinion today may not be best opinion tomorrow; so what? You still need air, water, food, shelter, society from the world external to you, and you act accordingly.

And meanwhile science puts rovers on Mars and maps the brain and creates new materials and pursues understanding of the genome and improves medicines.

What has religion done for the world lately?

I don't have to "believe in" any sort o reality to do what I do. Meaning that I don't have to pretend I know what is real and true and what isn't at any given time when I can't honestly know that. What I can do, instead, is choose trust that this mystery in which I live will remain stable, and more or less benevolent, for reasons that are beyond my understanding, so that I can continue to 'act as if'. And so far, that seems to be working.

 

[blü 2]

I don't have to "believe in" any sort o reality to do what I do. Meaning that I don't have to pretend I know what is real and true and what isn't at any given time when I can't honestly know that.

So you post this to me wondering if you're hallucinating and I don't exist?

Forgive me if I don't believe you.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes, of course. That is why we have other people *test* his ideas. We *try* to see where they fail.



And how would we mortals determine if they are right or wrong? Is there any *test* we can do that would show whether they are right or not? How about a test to determine when they might be wrong?

if not, this is just speculation and not knowledge, as far as I can tell. Good for drinks with friends, but not ultimately meaningful.

This whole area is one that requires a different modality. If you are going to reason scientifically, you are going to reason with your analytical mind. On the other hand, if you are going to reason religiously, you are going to reason with your intuitive, empathic mind. You are having trouble understanding this, because you are approaching it analytically. SWITCH GEARS.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

"Religious experiences"?

Science is following this?

Absolutely.

First, the soft sciences have been investigating it for a while now, since psychology had to know whether religious or mystical experiences were part of a mental defect or not, iow whether mystics needed treatment. The consensus is that they are not only not defects, but are on the whole quite healthy.

But now we have our behavioral biologists and those in similar fields getting involved with pinning down the interplay between religious experiences and MRI mapping and the like. I try to stay on top of the latest news, but I usually forget the fine details after a couple of days, and only hang on to the larger points.

Why does it surprise you that research is being done into religious/mystical experiences?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I know the story. I know it well enough that you're claiming the position of the omniscient narrator who can see the whole picture and not that of one of the blind characters who represent actual people.


The issue is when you try to claim contradicting claims: for instance, personal and intelligent god-concepts vs. impersonal and unintelligent god-concepts. To the extent that one is true, the other is false. If God were to exist, it would either have intelligence or not; it would either have personality or not. Integrating these conflicting beliefs together would mean that only one is right: the believer who thinks that God is impersonal and unintelligent might have made a reasonable inference from what he saw of God, but he's ultimately incorrect when he applies that inference to God as a whole.

And when we look at all the different people who claim that God commanded to do conflicting things or has conflicting desires, if we assume they're all right, then the overall picture of God we get is a trickster-god who's trying to mess with people. Is that the God you believe in?

I'm sure you've had "ah ha!" moments in your life where bits and pieces of information that had hitherto seemed unrelated suddenly came together to form a new larger insight.


I grew up in a religious home where all these other religions were considered to be worshiping other gods. They were all WRONG. Ours was RIGHT. That's what I was taught and that's what I believed.

But I was a geeky little bookworm that had more curiosity than the most curious cat ever. I began studying my first other religion (Native American Spirituality) when I was 10, and I haven't stopped being into comparitive religion since. For a long time, I continued thinking, "My God real, everyone else's gods, false." But my empathy started giving me problems. "Gee isn't that just like in my religion, eh?" I'm not even sure when I had my ah ha moment. The build up was so slow over time, that I simply slid into it. And no catastrophe ensued. My own God didn't suddenly develop measles or something simply because others experienced him in ways different from me.

Sure, truth is truth. This religion says X and that religion says not X and so they can't both be right. I'm not saying they are both right. I'm saying that they are both imperfectly perceiving the same thing.

Imagine two men with poor eyesight looking at an eye chart. They argue over what the letters are and can't agree. It doesn't mean there is no eye chart nor does it mean that they both can't see it. It means they can't see it well.

 

[Willamena]

I don't have to "believe in" any sort o reality to do what I do. Meaning that I don't have to pretend I know what is real and true and what isn't at any given time when I can't honestly know that. What I can do, instead, is choose trust that this mystery in which I live will remain stable, and more or less benevolent, for reasons that are beyond my understanding, so that I can continue to 'act as if'. And so far, that seems to be working.

Believing and pretending are vastly different things. The former is cognitive, and the latter is experiential.

 

[Polymath257]

This whole area is one that requires a different modality. If you are going to reason scientifically, you are going to reason with your analytical mind. On the other hand, if you are going to reason religiously, you are going to reason with your intuitive, empathic mind. You are having trouble understanding this, because you are approaching it analytically. SWITCH GEARS.

The problem is that the intuitive, empathic mind is far less reliable than the logical mind in discerning truth. The scientific method: testing ideas to see if they actually work in practice, is the best way we have ever found for discovering facts.

Why use a less reliable method when a more reliable one is available?

 

[Polymath257]

I'm sure you've had "ah ha!" moments in your life where bits and pieces of information that had hitherto seemed unrelated suddenly came together to form a new larger insight.

I have had many such moments. Some of them panned out; most did not. They all felt real during the experience, but later testing showed most of them to be wrong.

I grew up in a religious home where all these other religions were considered to be worshiping other gods. They were all WRONG. Ours was RIGHT. That's what I was taught and that's what I believed.

But I was a geeky little bookworm that had more curiosity than the most curious cat ever. I began studying my first other religion (Native American Spirituality) when I was 10, and I haven't stopped being into comparitive religion since. For a long time, I continued thinking, "My God real, everyone else's gods, false." But my empathy started giving me problems. "Gee isn't that just like in my religion, eh?" I'm not even sure when I had my ah ha moment. The build up was so slow over time, that I simply slid into it. And no catastrophe ensued. My own God didn't suddenly develop measles or something simply because others experienced him in ways different from me.

Sure, truth is truth. This religion says X and that religion says not X and so they can't both be right. I'm not saying they are both right. I'm saying that they are both imperfectly perceiving the same thing.

Imagine two men with poor eyesight looking at an eye chart. They argue over what the letters are and can't agree. It doesn't mean there is no eye chart nor does it mean that they both can't see it. It means they can't see it well.

And how do you know it isn't a case of two men with poor eyesight looking at completely different things? How do you know it isn't a case of several men with poor eyesight all looking at different things and you *thinking* they are looking at the same thing?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The intuitive mind also sees time as a constant and not as a relative thing.
The intuitive mind also leads to the opposite of the weirdness we see in quantum mechanics.

When it comes to the complete unknown - especially the "realms" or "conditions" that lay far beyond our human experience - our "intuition" is rarely, if ever, correct.

Intuition is our social brain. It tells us instantly whether we like someone, whether they are trustworthy, and what someone is likely to do next. And although intuition is not perfect (and it works much better for some than others) it does seem to work remarkably well.

It takes a social brain to figure out if there is someone else out ther.