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

[We Never Know]

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

Doubt is doubt. It all depends on the individual how they accept it.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

... 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.

Not really-- they assume from the beginning "god exists" but without a single reason to do so.

That makes them false/weak from the start.

 

[Skwim]

So how would you categorize theists that don't believe in creators of the universe or intervening gods?

They wouldn't qualify as theists, but more likely as deists.

If your assumptions earlier were true, your conclusion would also be true.

If your conclusion logically follows from the truth of your assumptions, yes.

.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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

That is a definition, yes.

And since there is (currently) zero evidence for 'supernatural'?

Does that not mean, gods are automatically not-real?

 

[We Never Know]

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

If someone wanted me to get on a spinning wheel and throw knifes at me and said it's 99.9999999% I won't hit you. I wouldn't do it because even if slight, there a chance of it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Right: one is weak agnosticism, the other is strong agnosticism.

The difference:

- weak agnostics reject claims they haven't even considered, but it would be possible for them to find out about those claims if they felt like it.

- strong agnostics reject claims that they have no way of knowing about even if they wanted to.

Speaking as an agnostic deist, I have heard about a zillion versions of theism. None struck me as particularly rational.

Attaching any sort of theistic qualifier to agnosticism doesn't seem particularly rational either. Agnostic deism? "I can't say whether God exists but I can say that he's a deistic god?"

Seems kinda putting the cart before the horse, IMO.

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.

And you're confident enough that the "far more reality than we understand" will include a god for you to latch onto that as your working theory?

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.

Umm... if you're a deist - even an agnostic one - then you're a theist.

 

[We Never Know]

That is a definition, yes.

And since there is (currently) zero evidence for 'supernatural'?

Does that not mean, gods are automatically not-real?

That's what I'm saying. What keeps people from being 100% sure, for certain, have no doubt, of a god or any God's existing? Even 99.99999% sure leaves doubt even if very small.
I'm really not 100% sure. Best I can say is I see no reason whatsoever to believe a god exists but I don't know.

 

[dfnj]

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.

I would say atheism is the weakest logically because people who are atheists are the most convinced their own dogma is not a dogma but an absolute truth about reality.

 

[Quintessence]

Didn't read the entire thread, but given the operational definitions of the OP emphasize belief over experience and knowledge? Logic doesn't really enter into it and they are all logically weak. But logic isn't the point of beliefs in the first place - they are articulations of personal and cultural values or traditions. And logically speaking, it makes sense to take the position that respects your cultural values or traditions. The alternative is "fake" (a)theism or agnosticism. Or rather, calling oneself one of those things in name only without it having any actual meaning in one's way of life.

 

[joe1776]

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

Ciao

- viole

I once felt a presence within me who knew everything about me and loved me unconditionally. That presence didn't identify itself in any way; So, when I wonder whether that presence is within us all and whether it is a Loving Creator, I'm merely speculating.

What I've offered is anecdotal evidence. In your shoes, I would neither believe nor disbelieve. But, my point is that you've heard countless pieces of anecdotal evidence similar to mine over the years and, while they're easy to dismiss individually, the entire collection can't be so easily dismissed.

You don't hear those stories about blue fairies. So, blue fairies are false analogies unless you stubbornly insist that you are certain that all those stories like mine are delusions.

 

[Skwim]

Often I hear atheist complain about theists defining atheism as a "denial of a belief in God." And the real definition of atheism is just a lack of belief in God or gods.

I think the statement above is of the same type but the opposite. I think this idea is the atheists trying to define what theism is by claiming God is a particular way. Not everyone believes in God the way atheists believe in God. Many theists have a deeper more subtle interpretation of how God operates in the World. The idea God is "intervening in it and sustaining a relation with his creatures" is a point of view from the philosophy of materialism or realism. Many theist believe in a holy trinity type interpretation of how God operates in the World. Many people believe in a pantheistic type God.

I think how God operates in the World is very subtle. We do not live in a clockwork Universe. We do not live in a machine. We do not live in Matrix like simulation where computer instructions perfectly execute the laws of physics. Otherwise, quantum mechanics would be more like Newtonian physics.

I think God is why energy exists and moves at all. God is the IT that decides which quantum state is realized and the exact moment radio active decay occurs. God is why electrons move at all. People say charge is why elections move. This not why that is how electrons behave. God is our experience in the Universe. The power of God compels us.

I don't think the idea of God is as simple as an imaginary friend virtually holding your hand and granting you wishes through prayers. But atheists insist that this is the only type of God that exists.

theism (n.)
1670s, "belief in a deity or deities," (as opposed to atheism); by 1711 as "belief in one god" (as opposed to polytheism); by 1714 as "belief in the existence of God as creator and ruler of the universe" (as opposed to deism), the usual modern sense; see theist + -ism.

Theism assumes a living relation of God to his creatures, but does not define it. It differs from deism in that the latter is negative and involves a denial of revelation, while the former is affirmative, and underlies Christianity. One may be a theist and not be a Christian, but he cannot be a Christian and not be a theist. [Century Dictionary]
source

theist (n.)
1660s, from Greek theos "god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts) + -ist. The original senses was that later reserved to deist: "one who believes in a transcendent god but denies revelation." Later in 18c. theist was contrasted with deist, as believing in a personal God and allowing the possibility of revelation.

​

No doubt this is where atheists, as well as theists and deists, derived their understanding of the word.

.

 

[viole]

I once felt a presence within me who knew everything about me and loved me unconditionally. That presence didn't identify itself in any way; So, when I wonder whether that presence is within us all and whether it is a Loving Creator, I'm merely speculating.

What I've offered is anecdotal evidence. In your shoes, I would neither believe nor disbelieve. But, my point is that you've heard countless pieces of anecdotal evidence similar to mine over the years and, while they're easy to dismiss individually, the entire collection can't be so easily dismissed.

Of course it can. I am doing it right now, and it is not difficult at all. I also heard a lot of anedoctal evidence that geminis and scorpios dont match. Or that black cats bring bad luck.

Remember, a huge sum of zeros still gives zero.

You don't hear those stories about blue fairies. So, blue fairies are false analogies unless you stubbornly insist that you are certain that all those stories like mine are delusions.

Well, most icelanders believe in trolls and elves. Do you think they are deluded?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

That's what I'm saying. What keeps people from being 100% sure, for certain, have no doubt, of a god or any God's existing? Even 99.99999% sure leaves doubt even if very small.
I'm really not 100% sure. Best I can say is I see no reason whatsoever to believe a god exists but I don't know.

For a given definition of "god"? I am quite sure of some of these. That is to say, for certain values of the word "god", I'm 100% certain they do not exist.

Most especially the book-gods: none of these exist, as they all describe Impossible Things.

I.e. you cannot have a married bachelor-- they are mutually exclusive terms.

Book gods are always described in such a way, that they cannot exist--they are impossible constructs.

For example, you cannot construct a being who is infinite good, but creates evil.

 

[PureX]

The most logical position when it comes to any view, not just those above, is the position that provides supporting evidence. Any position held that contains no evidence is blind faith. I see little to no logic in blind faith.

The logic is that faith can be very useful in lieu of evidence.

 

[PureX]

Logic isn’t in the conclusion, it’s in how you reach it. If I conclude it’s raining because I’m standing outside so can see and feel the rain, that is logical. If I conclude it’s raining because the Magic Space Pixies™ told me in a dream it would rain today, that isn’t logical, even if it is actually raining.

Just to clarify, I think what you're actually alluding to, here, is both reason, and logic. Both of your analogues draw a reasoned conclusion. But one course of reasoning is more logically sound than the other.

 

[joe1776]

Of course it can. I am doing it right now, and it is not difficult at all. I also heard a lot of anedoctal evidence that geminis and scorpios dont match. Or that black cats bring bad luck.

I'm trying to remember if I've ever heard false analogies being used to justify false analogies before.

Well, most icelanders believe in trolls and elves. Do you think they are deluded?

More false analogies. Your supply seems endless.

 

[Polymath257]

If someone wanted me to get on a spinning wheel and throw knifes at me and said it's 99.9999999% I won't hit you. I wouldn't do it because even if slight, there a chance of it.

Oh, I would if there is even a small benefit from it. That amount of certainty is quite enough for me to risk my life every day while driving a car or walking on the sidewalk.

 

[Jumi]

Neither invisible nor pink, I note.

Maybe hiding behind the visible gray one.

 

[viole]

I'm trying to remember if I've ever heard false analogies being used to justify false analogies before.

More false analogies. Your supply seems endless.

Yet, you fail to clearly show why they are false analogies. Because of the accounts of religious experiences?

Lets submit that to rational analysis.

Among all religious experiences, what do you think is the probablility of a true religious experience? Second question: how many people had religious experiences, in your opinion?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Willamena]

That's what I'm saying. What keeps people from being 100% sure, for certain, have no doubt, of a god or any God's existing? Even 99.99999% sure leaves doubt even if very small.
I'm really not 100% sure. Best I can say is I see no reason whatsoever to believe a god exists but I don't know.

This is where types of knowlege come in. Can you honestly say there is any doubt that an unmarried man is a bachelor? There shouldn't be: it's definitionally true, which is the a priori. Where "God" is defined as being that transcends existence, it is the simplest thing to believe (100% certainty) that his being is not existence, per se.