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

[joe1776]

The definition I'm using is "impossible to be known." Do you have a different one?

You are using the definition of "impossible to be known" to falsify all anecdotal evidence? That's not making sense to me. Impossible to be known implies to me evidence that isn't persuasive enough to draw a conclusion.

Even if you're saying that we can't conclude right now that any gods exist, there are already many of these anecdotal claims already out there. Those claims - and the arguments supporting them - are part of the body of evidence for the existence of gods. Anyone who argues that the evidence we have doesn't support gods is passing judgement on all of those claims.

One would have to be biased to believe or reject accumulated anecdotal evidence on any topic unless it seems to fit the pattern of a hoax.

To me, Bigfoot fits the pattern of a hoax. UFO sightings, taken in total, have a different pattern. While most can be explained by mundane causes, a small percentage might be real. As to Bigfoot, I'm an atheist. As to UFOs, I'm agnostic.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Christianity = Jesus = God = created logic

This is just so terribly dumb. I know what you tried to mean, but what you literally say with the above is to:

• Equate Christianity with Jesus
• Equate Jesus with God
• Equate God with "created logic"

Now, the first one is ridiculous enough because from most everything we've all heard of Jesus, he was supposedly a moral, upstanding guy in all respects, but I don't think anyone in their right mind could claim that about "Christianity" as a whole.

But take particular note of the last bullet. You equate God with whatever "created logic" is. That's what you're saying here. You're NOT saying that "God created logic" - which is probably what you think you said - but you're saying that God is equal to something you call "created logic." Now... this would beg the question - because the logic is "created", who/what created this logic, if it was someone/something other than God?

Anyway... I know that isn't what you meant, but this is a good demonstration of how out-of-the-realm crazy it is that theists so often wonder why others can't take what they're saying seriously. No small percentage of the time, it needs discerned what you are even trying to say. And another portion of the time, you seem to have no idea what you are trying to say yourself. And what's left many times ends up being either poorly worded or is just so much woo and happy-spirit-talk.

 

[sealchan]

You are using the definition of "impossible to be known" to falsify all anecdotal evidence? That's not making sense to me. Impossible to be known implies to me evidence that isn't persuasive enough to draw a conclusion.

One would have to be biased to believe or reject accumulated anecdotal evidence on any topic unless it seems to fit the pattern of a hoax.

To me, Bigfoot fits the pattern of a hoax. UFO sightings, taken in total, have a different pattern. While most can be explained by mundane causes, a small percentage might be real. As to Bigfoot, I'm an atheist. As to UFOs, I'm agnostic.

I live in an area in the Pacific Northwest close to extensive tracts of wilderness. In the local gift shops there are Bigfoot souvenirs. Recently Cliff Barackman of Finding Bigfoot on Animal Planet gave a one hour presentation. It was for charity for our local medical clinic. But he also sold copies of his Bigfoot plaster casts which he described (the collection of or the sourcing of). I had to say that in that presentation I was impressed enough to reconsider...I think it would be fun to put my assumptions to the test someday, especially with my mystery loving grandson who I encourage to explore, test and believe.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

You present the "terms" as if they are mutually exclusive, when of course they are not. It is possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist, or an agnostic and a theist. As far as being "logically the weakest," I don't know what you mean. So I couldn't say for certain.

 

[viole]

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 say agnosticism is weak. It is actually a weird position to hold. Seems tolerant and open, but it makes no sense.

Somehow, claiming agnosticism about God seems intellectually deep, while claiming agnosticism about invisible fairies ravaging gardens will probably attract only laughter. Alas, god and invisible fairies, based on the evidence, are ontologically equivalent. So, it is not clear why the former is deep and the latter ridicolous.

I make another example

i know the speed of light is constant in vacuum. But what does it mean? Did I check every single corner of the spacetime continuum for violation of that speed? No. Am i dead sure that this violation could never occur? Nope.

So, should i claim agnosticism about the speed of light while even children can claim to know that it is an universal constant?

Same with God. I know He does not exist, because all evidence points towards a pointless naturalistic Universe in which we do not occupy any privileged space. Am i dead sure He does not exist? Nope.

But knowledge is not absolute certainty. If it was, then it would make no sense to say we know anything scientific, or anything at all, to start with.

And for me, to claim agnosticism about evolution, the speed of light, god, the invisible fairy, the most absurd things whose absence cannot be proved, etc. is a price that i don’t need to pay to keep intellectual consistency. Especially since it seems to only serve the purpose of political correctness with whom believes such stuff.

Ciao

- viole

 

[joe1776]

I live in an area in the Pacific Northwest close to extensive tracts of wilderness. In the local gift shops there are Bigfoot souvenirs. Recently Cliff Barackman of Finding Bigfoot on Animal Planet gave a one hour presentation. It was for charity for our local medical clinic. But he also sold copies of his Bigfoot plaster casts which he described (the collection of or the sourcing of). I had to say that in that presentation I was impressed enough to reconsider...I think it would be fun to put my assumptions to the test someday, especially with my mystery loving grandson who I encourage to explore, test and believe.

How did Barackman explain the fact that skeletal remains have not been found?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are using the definition of "impossible to be known" to falsify all anecdotal evidence? That's not making sense to me. Impossible to be known implies to me evidence that isn't persuasive enough to draw a conclusion.

Right: you're passing judgement on all those anecdotal claims. If you're not saying they're outright false, then you're at least saying that it's a mistake to infer from them that a god or gods exist.

One would have to be biased to believe or reject accumulated anecdotal evidence on any topic unless it seems to fit the pattern of a hoax.

But this is what agnostics do.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

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.

Thanks Metis, I liked your definitions idea because it reduces some grey area/wiggle room. If you had defined what type of logic it would have been even better imo. But that's our language and its concepts at work for us. Limits and misunderstandings caused by all the different etc kinds of language makes me wish for something better (see Godel quote after this paragraph). Of course most of us can define logic, but there at least sixteen types/definitions of 'logic'. I am going to assume you meant general, 'everyday' logic. All that said, my opinion is as follows, with one being the weakest and three being the most likely to be true or the strongest according to logic.

Kurt Gödel — ‘The more I think about language, the more it amazes me that people ever understand each other at all.’

(1.) Atheism... It is the weakest logically speaking. I often call on Kurt Godel as an 'outside' reliable source for the rationality and logicality of theism. He also is a good ally when the subject of atheism comes up. Godel was the preeminent logistican of the early 20th century and was on par intellectually speaking with his lifelong friend, Einstein. Godel produced an ontological argument for the existence of God, so to my way of thinking that's one for God and zero for atheism. Also consider that (some, I say most types of atheism) claims God doesn't exist which would require them to be omniscient. So, the claim that there is no God is not reasonable. The attempt by atheists to prove a universal negative is called in the halls of logic 101 a logical fallacy.

(2) Agnosticism..... This was almost a number one. Why would it be the weakest? Only because its no position at all. Agnosticism is saying 'I don't know', which is not within the bounds of the 'question'. If we were taking an exam and we answered a question with an 'I don know' I am sure the 'teach' or professor wouldn't see the humor in it!

(3) Theism...... The belief in God. God for this thread can be defined as a being etc that doesn't need to conform to physical laws of our universe or natural law, ie God is supernatural. The reason its the strongest logically is legion in number... ha ha....ok, no more humor...There are many cosmological and ontological arguments, some good some not. But these arguments are based on logic and other disciplines. I could go on but we have heard the arguments before. I hope everyone has a blessed day.

 

[We Never Know]

100% sure is an unreasonable standard. There is always a small fraction of a possibility that one could be wrong. Still all of those examples I would rate at over 99%.

Belief should be rational. Is there a rational reason to believe in a god?

I see no reason to believe in a god.
Are you saying you have/there is a 1% chance that evolution, BBT, abiogenesis could be/are wrong? Didn't expect that from you SZ.

 

[We Never Know]

Firstly? One must define "god" in order to proceed.

For specific and described values of "god"? I *am* 100% sure these do not exist.

For example: the bible's god? 100% sure. Because the bible describes "a married bachelor" -- an impossible thing, which cannot exist.

For other values of "god"? I am less certain.

But. Undefined values of "god"? Absolutely worthless, and in truth-- without any useful meaning as well. This category includes most values of deist gods.

Whether it be a sun god, a moon god, a creator god, they all fall under god = supernatural.

 

[columbus]

The definition I'm using is "impossible to be known." Do you have a different one?

This definition isn't entirely clear.

Impossible to be known now, with current information and information processing methods, is one thing. Impossible to ever be known is something else.

Speaking as an agnostic deist, I have heard about a zillion versions of theism. None struck me as particularly rational. That doesn't mean that we humans will never find out something objectively true about what is now considered supernatural. We used to think that planets and lightening and weather and diseases and such were supernatural. Now we know more than we used to know.

I see no reason to believe that humans have now reached the pinnacle of understanding. I am confident that there is far more to reality than we understand.

This is why I cannot be a strong atheist. I am sure that there is more than modern scientific methods can ascertain. I'm not a theist because I don't claim to have an informed opinion on what that might be, much less knowledge or certainty.

Tom

 

[joe1776]

I say agnosticism is weak. It is actually a weird position to hold. Seems tolerant and open, but it makes no sense.

Somehow, claiming agnosticism about God seems intellectually deep, while claiming agnosticism about invisible fairies ravaging gardens will probably attract only laughter. Alas, god and invisible fairies, based on the evidence, are ontologically equivalent. So, it is not clear why the former is deep and the latter ridicolous.

I make another example

i know the speed of light is constant in vacuum. But what does it mean? Did I check every single corner of the spacetime continuum for violation of that speed? No. Am i dead sure that this violation could never occur? Nope.

So, should i claim agnosticism about the speed of light while even children can claim to know that it is an universal constant?

Same with God. I know He does not exist, because all evidence points towards a pointless naturalistic Universe in which we do not occupy any privileged space. Am i dead sure He does not exist? Nope.

But knowledge is not absolute certainty. If it was, then it would make no sense to say we know anything scientific, or anything at all, to start with.

And for me, to claim agnosticism about evolution, the speed of light, god, the invisible fairy, the most absurd things whose absence cannot be proved, etc. is a price that i don’t need to pay to keep intellectual consistency. Especially since it seems to only serve the purpose of political correctness with whom believes such stuff.

Ciao

- viole

I label myself an agnostic. I think the existence of a Creator is possible but I'm sure that, if such a Creator exists, there's ample evidence that the men who founded religions didn't know anything more about it than I do.

I'm not agnostic on the speed of light or the invisible fairy but these are completely different questions -- false analogies.

I don't think absolute certainty is possible. That idea doesn't enter into my reasoning.

 

[viole]

I label myself an agnostic. I think the existence of a Creator is possible but I'm sure that, if such a Creator exists, there's ample evidence that the men who founded religions didn't know anything more about it than I do.

I'm not agnostic on the speed of light or the invisible fairy but these are completely different questions -- false analogies.

I don't think absolute certainty is possible. That idea doesn't enter into my reasoning.

Why false analogies? Agod and the blue fairy have the same evidence. Zero. So, why the asymmetry?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jumi]

That gets into the wonky nature of applying these words that were originally developed woth monotheism in mind in a world with countless god-concepts.

The words theism and atheism originated in times where polytheists were the norm. I agree that the words have come to be strongly defined by Christian and anti-Christian biases.

When we're using terms like "atheist," "theist," and "agnostic" in a general sense, "theist" is defined by a person's attitude to any god, while "atheist" and "agnostic" are defined by a person's attitude toward all gods.

Anyone who believes in at least one god is a theist, regardless of what they believe about other gods. If someone is a theist toward some gods, and an atheist or agnostic toward others, then the person is a theist.

I agree with you.

 

[sealchan]

How did Barackman explain the fact that skeletal remains have not been found?

That question was raised...he didn't have an answer that wasn't purely speculative. He was very good about focusing on evidence and what it suggested so his emphasis wasn't on making claims to much more than that there is a regular series of foot and hand prints that suggest an objective phenomenon. He also had some interesting insights into human psychology and those that might use Bigfoot reporting to gain personal attention. All in all it was an impressive experience.

 

[Jumi]

Of these, I would choose unicornism. How about you?

Me as well...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see no reason to believe in a god.
Are you saying you have/there is a 1% chance that evolution, BBT, abiogenesis could be/are wrong? Didn't expect that from you SZ.

That is very poor reading comprehension on your part. I said at least 99%. I did not say that there is a 1% chance that those concepts are wrong. Do you see your error?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Do we?

You don't need a complete definition of "god" to be a theist. All you need is to know that a particular thing you believe in is a god. You can still be a theist without having "god" fully defined.

You don't need any sort of definition of "god" to be an atheist. If "god" is undefined, then it's trivial to say that you accept no claims of the existence of a god. A person can't conceive of something as true if they can't conceive of it at all.

I think - though I'm not sure - that the only position that needs a definition of "god" is agnosticism.

Well, theoretically speaking, yes to your comments above.

But. Without a clear definition of "god", it's rather meaningless to argue about what this "god" may or may not want.

I do agree, that atheism reflects all definitions of god, including nebulous and undefined ones.

However, when arguing a case? Nobody really tries to argue the generic case for god, or if they do, it's purely hypothetical.

Because there really are no theists who do not have at least some scant idea of what they mean by "god". Even if it's not easy for them to articulate.

 

[We Never Know]

That is very poor reading comprehension on your part. I said at least 99%. I did not say that there is a 1% chance that those concepts are wrong. Do you see your error?

My error. You didn't say at least 99%, you said over 99%. That still leaves you with doubt. I think that good and fair because doubt is what keeps every thing going.

 

[Polymath257]

Me as well...

Neither invisible nor pink, I note.

 

[Polymath257]

My error. You didn't say at least 99%, you said over 99%. That still leaves you with doubt. I think that good and fair because doubt is what keeps every thing going.

So, suppose you are 99.99999999% confident. Does that .00000001% enough to 'keep everything going'?