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

[metis]

I would say that atheism and theism (according to your definitions provided) are equally weak. They both rest on a proposition that cannot be proven or really even evidenced beyond arguments from ignorance and subjective experience.

I agree, which is why "personal experience" cannot be viewed as being objective evidence, and I have never insisted that such experience must be accepted by others.

However, from a personal perspective, experiences do count for something to the person who believes (s)he did experience something, and who's going to say that it's not? If I profess it, you may have doubts that I actually did as such or that maybe I just misread what may have happened, but how could you possibly know I am in error? But certainly you have the right to question or to disbelieve what I may say.

OTOH, atheism cannot be experienced by definition, so there is at the least somewhat of a difference between the two.

BTW, thanks for chiming in your opinions, which I always respect as we've known each other for a looooooooooooooong time.

 

[metis]

As you can see, people in this thread have presented their own arguments to support positions.
The OP did not present any arguments. The OP presented a bunch of positions without any logical arguments to support them.

In the absence of arguments supporting the positions, all the positions offered in the OP are equally logically strong... which is to say: they are all weak, being only just slightly stronger than an argument that is illogical bull****.

You might as well have made an opinion poll asking which position people favor and to post why in the thread.
People will argue about which is "logically stronger," when no supportive arguments were offered.

I didn't in the OP, which I also mentioned in the OP, but I did later.

 

[metis]

Show me something else. Alien DNA. Evidence that these experiments took place. Some tool you snatched of the space ship. Anything other then "you just gotta believe me!".

To the first point, I'm not interested for reasons previously cited; and to the second point, I've not insisted that one must believe my personal experiences.

BTW, you might check out my previous post #461 for further clarification.

 

[PureX]

"Miracles" are claims about objective reality.

gods and fairies are not.

... About objectively existing supernatural entities actually doing things in objective reality.

I think you are confusing "supernatural" with "metaphysical", as people often do. 'Supernatural' refers to events, whereas metaphysical refers to states of being. Gods are generally understood to be metaphysical beings that can generate supernatural events. Metaphysical beings are not objects, and therefor cannot logically be expected to produce any objective evidence, so to demand it would be irrational. If the God in question is claimed to generate supernatural events, that is likewise impossible to prove, objectively, because to identify an event as being "supernatural" it would have to be transcendent of nature. But how could a human being, existing within the bounds of nature, even detect such an event? By what mechanism could we know that an event has transcended nature?

Think of it this way; if some enormous being appeared before us right now, claiming to be "God", hovering in mid air, speaking words of thunder, flashing lightening bolts from his eyes, or whatever else you could imagine God might entail, how could you know that it is what it claims? How could you know that the event occurring in front of you is really "supernatural", or just some expression of nature that you know nothing about? What "objective evidence" could you possibly demand beyond what you saw before you? And yet this phenomena is still just as likely to be an unknown natural phenomena as it is to be a supernatural one. Because we do not know the fundaments or limits of nature.

"God exists" is a claim about objective reality.

What God, exists how? That's just a vague assertion, not a claim.

"Jesus rose from the dead" is a claim about objective reality.

Even if he did, how could we know it was a "supernatural" event? How could we know it wasn't?

"god created the world" is a claim about objective reality.

It's just another vague assertion that can't be objectively proven.

I agree they are mythical.
Many many many believers, do not.
In fact.... to acknowledge them as mythical would make you an unbeliever. Aka atheist.

That's really not true at all. Most theists understand what myths and symbols are, and that they are meant to represent complex metaphysical ideals.

 

[PureX]

You seek to isolate the perception from your / our ability to comprehend what's going on.

I see no basis for that. Yes, we'll never be able to make absolute statements about reality, yes, we'll make mistakes of perception ─ and so on ─ but meanwhile if you step in front of the wrong bus, it'll kill you.

And meanwhile our reasoned exploration of reality leads to our improved understanding of it again and again ─ error by error, correction by correction, discovery by discovery.

And you, like everyone else, are the beneficiary of that ─ safer cars, better understanding of Mars, modern vaccines, healthier foods, a very long list.

Knowing what buses not to step in front of is not unraveling the mystery of existence. And thinking that it is, is called "scientism". It's just a developing, modern day 'religion' wherein science is believed to be the singular sacred pathway to truth.

 

[PureX]

Actually, both have been proposed as objective phenomena. That is sort of the point here, in my mind.

No, they really have not. Gods are proposed by nearly every theist on the planet as metaphysical beings, not objective phenomena. And in most instances, it is understood by theists that their anthropomorphic characterizations of such beings is a conceptual device, like a myth, or a symbol, or a metaphor, or an icon, being employed because we humans cannot otherwise comprehend such an entity.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, they really have not. Gods are proposed by nearly every theist on the planet as metaphysical beings, not objective phenomena. And in most instances, it is understood by theists that their anthropomorphic characterizations of such beings is a conceptual device, like a myth, or a symbol, or a metaphor, or an icon, being employed because we humans cannot otherwise comprehend such an entity.

I know many believers who insist that their gods & religions are objectively true,
my objections notwithstanding. I've even heard that Christianity is not a religion
because it is simply reality. Everything else is (false) religion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I pose the question of the title, and then I'll have to wait for your responses until Saturday as I'm outta town tomorrow. First, to define terms:

Theism: a belief that there is at least one deity.

Agnosticism: not knowing if there's a deity or deities.

Atheism: a belief there are no deities.


Which is logically the weakest and why? I say it's the latter by far.

See yas Saturday, so play nice now.

I have both read through and avoided responding to this thread. Mainly due to some quirk of my own mind that associates the OP with an old joke. Every time I read the OP, instead of the final question 'Which is logically the weakest and why? I say it's the latter by far', the first thing that pops into my head is Theism, Agnosticism, Atheism. You have marry one. Sleep with one. And fight one.

In terms of being able to demonstrate materially and objectively, neither claiming the existence of a god or the non-existence of a god can be supported by evidence. On that basis only, agnosticism would be the most logical view.

Some atheists, perhaps most atheists, do not claim that there is no supernatural deity or deities, but simply find no reason to believe in one. This seems to be a logical approach in my mind, where faith is supplanted by reliance on knowledge from the material world that can be tested, accepted or rejected based on logic and reason.

Religious views of theism would seem the most illogical, since they do not rely on any material, objective evidence to divine their answers. Religion is more intuitive and emotional in its approach to finding answers. It is also the most dogmatic and resilient to change. But religious views often have an internal logic and many answers have been found based on intuition. For some this still does not make them of much value.

On the face of it, I would have to consider both agnostic and weak atheist views as the most logical, but I do not consider that to be the only criteria for value or for outright dismissal of any other view as useless. Considering I am a theist, the latter position may be biased. I do not think so, but I have to consider it.

Intuition has a great value in religion and science. It cannot be dismissed outright. I cannot know the experience of others either. Not objectively. So I cannot say that some divine intervention did not happen. Of course, there are problems with misinterpretation of easily explainable events that confound this.

Questions that agnostics continually pose are without a doubt one of the most important activities carried out by those who are agnostic. At least in my mind. And finding no reason to believe in something is logical, but it does not mean that no reason exists. It is a very scientific way of viewing that makes sense to me. One I have no problem accepting as valid.

I learn from all three in the context of what each means. But I really learn from the individuals that hold these views. Which means that it is on a case by case basis and some groups have fewer people I have found to learn from than others and this changes with the time and place.

I have my biases, but I do not consider agnostics and atheists to be pawns of the devil. Just people with a different view. I can always learn something from a different view. If it is to determine that I find that different view wrong in my thinking, I must, at the very least, learn what that view is.

I am rereading this thread, since there are some folks that have responded that have obviously applied a good deal of thought into this subject. There are some posts from many of the different views that have some sound reasoning and supplementary knowledge expressed in defense of the view held. Reasoning and knowledge that I view as a value to my personal position and thoughts.

 

[metis]

I have my biases, but I do not consider agnostics and atheists to be pawns of the devil.

Neither do I, and maybe check out "My Faith Statement" at the bottom of my posts for confirmation.

But I do want to thank you for you seemingly well thought out and articulate post, and I'm getting the impression that we may not be that far apart at all, which might encourage you to reconsider your opinions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Neither do I, and maybe check out "My Faith Statement" at the bottom of my posts for confirmation.

But I do want to thank you for you seemingly well thought out and articulate post, and I'm getting the impression that we may not be that far apart at all, which might encourage you to reconsider your opinions.

I was writing in terms of how some theists describe their view of atheists and agnostics. Since I consider Satan to be a metaphor, my consideration is even more extensive.

Thank you. In reality, many of us probably closer than we might think we are, in many ways.

 

[blü 2]

Knowing what buses not to step in front of is not unraveling the mystery of existence.

Knowing that reality is real enough to kill you shouldn't be too hard, I'd have thought.

Likewise knowing that even an imperfect understanding of reality can be improved on ─ to the point where we can map the brain and begin to understand how it works, where we can put rovers on Mars, where we can explore the universe with very large array 'scopes, and more every year.

And thinking that it is, is called "scientism".

Cheap shot. Advocating scientific method in the physical sciences is not scientism, and I'm fully conscious of the limitations.

But if the question is, 'What's true in reality?' ─ out there where your air comes from, where the bus can kill you, where your parents brought you into being ─ then scientific method is, within its field, the only credible notion on the table.

It's just a developing, modern day 'religion' wherein science is believed to be the singular sacred pathway to truth.

What truths has religion discovered lately? In the last decade, say? What's religion's equivalent of the Higgs boson?

 

[PureX]

I know many believers who insist that their gods & religions are objectively true,
my objections notwithstanding.

No, you really don't. You just think you do. No one these days proposes that God is an objective physical phenomena. Some believe and claim "supernatural" events, and many believe and claim "supernatural" causation of natural events, and a few are foolish enough to think these can be "ojectively proven", but most theists understand that God is beyond human comprehension, that miracles are not provable, and that the many religious images and stories of them are meant to give us a conceptual structure for a great mystery so that we can relate to it in a way that makes sense to us.

Like most atheists, you're just choosing not to recognize this, and instead, focusing only on the artifice, and the language of faith, rather than on the essential meaning and purpose of it. Or it may be the case that you really can't even grasp the essence of it, I don't know. Either way, your characterization of it is absurdly over-simplified and biased, or for some odd reason, you only seem to have come in contact with the most naive and extreme of theists, which I seriously doubt.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Facts lead Einstein to his conclusions. Not his intuition.

Sir, fact guid intuition as surely as they guide analysis. It's just that with intuition, the facts aren't always conscious, and the connection between the facts are most certainly not conscious.

With analysis, you use deduction, going from A to B step by step. With intuition you JUMP to be and don't know how you got there. There is a step by step, and it is based on facts, but it's all unconscious.

There are many books written about Einstein's intuition, and some experts propose that a good sense of intuition is the highest form of intelligence.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You seem to have already drawn the conclusion that
the prophets were getting messages from god.

The mental exercises and / or excesses that
divers persons have indulged in with "religious
experience" as a goal will produce some results
re brain waves. So will eating chocolate.

And this is all very well and sometimes good fun
to investigate. You seem to me to be splitting out
from among other sorts of brain activity certain
ones to call religious and investing them with
unrealistic significance.

So it seems to me. If you delete the supernatural
from any of it, do you still find anything of great
importance?

Having had mystical experiences myself, I RECOGNIZE it in the prophets. And because it is valuable to me, it is certainly valuable to them. But what is MORE important is their message to Israel. No matter how mangled that message was, historically it has had great impact, becoming the foundation of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahai...

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Einstein, your grandmother, and you would have
little success with intuition if you did not all have
a lot of experience and thought going in, knowing
most of the answer before the question came up.

What you have before you get the answer is the critical facts. The point is that you "get" the answer in an unconscious manner, without analysis. You later go back, and work out the math, or the reasoning, or whatever, but it is inductive, rather than deductive.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, you really don't. You just think you do. No one these days proposes that God is an objective physical phenomena.

That is a cringeworthy amount of certainty from one who doesn't know my circles of travel.

Btw, the singular is "phenomenon".
"Phenomena" is plural.

 

[Milton Platt]

To begin, there is a logical disjunct in the way you have stated them; the first and last being 'beliefs' but the middle being a 'knowing.'

As a skeptic (in the original sense), I doubt the ability of humans to have knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of deities...all that humans can do is to, without knowledge, choose to believe or disbelieve...or choose withhold judgement.

Actual;y, it is worse than that....atheism is not necessarily a belief that there are no gods. It often is simply the rejection of existing god claims, which lack sufficient evidence for belief in those specific claims. Some atheists believe no gods exist, some atheists simply do not believe in any gods. An important difference.

 

[Tiberius]

I wasn't arguing about the argument. I was arguing about purported absolute statements.

Remind me of the argument you refer to and if I disagree I'll happily address it.

I was addressing Willamena's claim that the chart I posted in post 6 of this thread was illogical. She claimed: "The chart is entirely irrational, because 100% certainty is belief, not knowledge."

I was pointing out that people can be certain of things without that belief being the same kind of belief as religious belief.

Here's the chart, by the way. For the record, I fall into the agnostic atheist category. I don't believe that God exists, but I wouldn't claim to know it for a fact. I do think it is very unlikely, and I also think that it's perfectly reasonable to treat it as a fact (in the same way we can't prove that we aren't brains in a jar somewhere, but we live our lives taking it as a fact that we aren't.)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, you really don't. You just think you do. No one these days proposes that God is an objective physical phenomena. Some believe and claim "supernatural" events, and many believe and claim "supernatural" causation of natural events, and a few are foolish enough to think these can be "ojectively proven", but most theists understand that God is beyond human comprehension, that miracles are not provable, and that the many religious images and stories of them are meant to give us a conceptual structure for a great mystery so that we can relate to it in a way that makes sense to us.

Like most atheists, you're just choosing not to recognize this, and instead, focusing only on the artifice, and the language of faith, rather than on the essential meaning and purpose of it. Or it may be the case that you really can't even grasp the essence of it, I don't know. Either way, your characterization of it is absurdly over-simplified and biased, or for some odd reason, you only seem to have come in contact with the most naive and extreme of theists, which I seriously doubt.

This may be true to some extent in the general population, but I have found circumstances to be different on the internet. I regularly encounter Christians that fit the description as outlined by Revoltingest.

Your description 'most theists understand that God is beyond human comprehension, that miracles are not provable, and that the many religious images and stories of them are meant to give us a conceptual structure for a great mystery so that we can relate to it in a way that makes sense to us' comes very close to fitting my personal views. But on this forum and others I regularly meet Christians that claim to have proof of biblical infallibility and speak of God as if he is a person they regularly chat with. I have also encountered Christians that incorporate a high degree of mysticism and new age concepts in their theological positions. I have seen some focus on numerology and pyramid power, for example. On this very forum, I have encountered some that believe in the bona fide existence of ghosts, NDE's and ESP and consider it evidence for the existence of intelligent design. Some have even made new and astounding claims regarding angels.

While I may have views very similar to those you outline, it would be naive of me to think that all Christians have those same views. Clearly, in my experiences on line, they do not.

 

[blü 2]

I was addressing Willamena's claim that the chart I posted in post 6 of this thread was illogical. She claimed: "The chart is entirely irrational, because 100% certainty is belief, not knowledge."

I was pointing out that people can be certain of things without that belief being the same kind of belief as religious belief.

Here's the chart, by the way. For the record, I fall into the agnostic atheist category. I don't believe that God exists, but I wouldn't claim to know it for a fact. I do think it is very unlikely, and I also think that it's perfectly reasonable to treat it as a fact (in the same way we can't prove that we aren't brains in a jar somewhere, but we live our lives taking it as a fact that we aren't.)

Thanks for that.

The Gnostics of history had a range of different approaches, but all relied on 'gnosis' ─ revelation of God and with that, of human destiny. In Christian gnosticism the source was either the Apostles or some other group leader. A recurrent element was God as pure remote spirit never intersecting with the material world, and the demiurge, who made the material world and mediates between it and God, like the Jesus of Paul or John.

In your diagram I assume a 'Gnostic Theist' draws on personal revelation, knowledge acquired directly from God of God's nature and intentions. Nothing of that kind would be available to a 'Gnostic Atheist' ─ if instead the 'Gnostic Atheist' has simply a rigid personal conviction, a total faith that no gods exist, then that would be faith, not gnosis, no?

That doesn't alter the essentials of diagram. It says there are

100% believers ............ 100% nonbelievers

Uncertain believers...... Uncertain nonbelievers

......................and fence-sitters​

While there's doubtless a range of refinements, that seems to be a fair enough outline.

(It doesn't take into account my own position, that there's no coherent concept of a real god ─ hence no useful definition of a real God or of a real quality 'godness' ─ so a nonbeliever doesn't know what real entity he or she doesn't believe in. Whereas there is a coherent concept of the unicorn ─ we'd know a real one if we found it ─ so I can be an aunicornist, or an aDonaldDuckist, &c.)