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

[joe1776]

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?

Since your idea of a rational analysis begins by asking me two dumb questions, I'll pass.

 

[Audie]

Since your idea of a rational analysis begins by asking me two dumb questions, I'll pass.

"Too difficult so I will blame you and run away."

 

[joe1776]

"Too difficult so I will blame you and run away."

Give me your intelligent answers to those questions , please.

 

[Audie]

Give me your intelligent answers to those questions , please.

Not quite zero
Zero

How hard is that?

 

[viole]

Since your idea of a rational analysis begins by asking me two dumb questions, I'll pass.

You pass? This is the first symptom of wise thinking I got from you.

Ciao

- viole

 

[joe1776]

Not quite zero
Zero

How hard is that?

I have to give you credit. Your answers were a perfect match for those dumb questions.

Even if I could guess what the poster was defining as a "religious experience," the only intelligent answer to both questions was "I have no idea."

 

[Audie]

I have to give you credit. Your answers were a perfect match for those dumb questions.

Even if I could guess what the poster was defining as a "religious experience," the only intelligent answer to both questions was "I have no idea."

Always the charmer.

And who would guess that "equivocation"
and "intelligent " would be synonyms!

 

[blü 2]

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.

Speaking as someone who no longer regards himself as an atheist, I say all three have a glaring fault, a big hole right through the middle.

Towit, that none of them contains a coherent concept of a real god, one that has objective existence, one that exists out there in the world external to the self whether anyone imagines it or not.

That's why no one has a definition of God such that if we found a real candidate, we could tell whether it was God (or, a god) or not.

That's why no one has defined 'godness', the real quality that a real god has and a false claimant lacks.

So I now think I can't be someone who doesn't believe in real gods if I don't know what a real god is.

And I also think that the case of imaginary gods, which can be anything the imaginer wants, is trivial.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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 disagree with your definition of an atheist. An atheist does not claim gods do not exist. An atheist is simply stating that there isn't sufficient evidence to conclude that gods DO exist. Just like my lack of belief that there are little green men from Mars is not a statement that it's IMPOSSIBLE that little green men from Mars exist, simply that there is no evidence to convince me that they actually do.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Considering the definitions you have written down (and not the actual definitions of these words), I'ld say that both theism and atheism are equally illogical, since they both establish beliefs that can't be supported with evidence.

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.

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." 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.

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.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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.

Atheism has no dogma. So right off the bat, your claim is wrong. So there is that...

As for atheists being convinced it's absolute truth? No-- we leave that to faith-type people, who believe in things for absolutely no reason.

On the flip side? The Scientific Method is the single most successful method humans have invented so far-- simply based on it's success.

This very computer would be impossible if the world was run by theists...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But that's precisely what anyone who claims that the existence of gods is unknowable is doing. They're saying that every claim that could be used to demonstrate the existence of a god must be false.

This is a very nice bit of reasoning...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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.

Incorrect: Once you define what "god" means? It's possible to use the definition to test if this being exists or not.

If the definition is insufficient for the task? Then it's very undefined state, means the being doesn't exist.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Christianity = Jesus = God = created logic

Agnosticism = Honest explorers and inquirers

Atheism = Claims logic against creator of logic, while taking on as axioms "little things" like logic exists, eternally, without having been created

Hmmm...

Way to facile...without the benefit of actually saying much of anything.

 

[Audie]

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.

At one time one could not scientifically know what the
surface of Venus looked like, or detect gravity waves.

It will of course never be possible to detect the
nonexistent

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Without knowledge of oxygen and the processes involved in combustion, the intuitive mind also saw phlogiston.

Without knowledge of the dynamics of high and low pressure zones created by heating and cooling of the air by sun and shadow, the intuitive mind saw Eolus and the other wind gods. (Way oversimplified, but wanted to make the point, not discuss meteorology.)

 

[Audie]

Way to facile...without the benefit of actually saying much of anything.

Way to facile...without the benefit of actually saying much of anything.

You are too kind.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Which "dogma" is it that you think atheists adhere to? Are you aware of any creeds, prayers, scriptures, temples, icons, rites or anything else that is implied by saying "I don't believe in the existence of gods?" Please provide examples...

 

[blü 2]

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.

But if the word 'God' has no real referent, does not denote any specific thing or class of things in the real world, then there's nothing whose existence in reality is in question, ie there's no such question.