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

[Audie]

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...

Absolute truth about reality... dogma..
you have to be gentle, realizing these are
the only terms in which such can think.

There is so much outside of that mental
cage!

 

[Tiberius]

I like the chart. You say you fall in the bottom right. May I ask what keeps you from being 100% sure? Also this is for you @Subduction Zone

If you are like me nd go by evidence you should be 100% sure
- the flood never happened
- we evolved from apes
- the universe is 13+by old
- earth is 4+ billion years old
- the universe came from a singularity
- life arose naturally

So what keeps you from being 100% about god not existing?

I don't claim 100% knowledge because I'm not aware of everything. I think it would be foolish for me to claim that I can know for certain that there isn't a God.

But if there is a God, I would require an explanation for all the evidence that suggests there isn't one.

 

[Tiberius]

Ridicule and logic do not go hand in hand. It's the chart that is not logical.

Edit: If we presume that the chart is made to logically represent actual epistemic positions that people hold, then the presence of ridiculousness on one side suggests that one whole side of the chart is not expected to represent any actual position. In that case, the chart fails as a tool of analysis.

Sorry, I think you misunderstood.

What I think is ridiculous is for a person to claim absolute knowledge when there is no evidence. Doesn't matter whether they are for or against.

To claim the teapot must be there and anyone who disagrees is foolish.

To similarly claim that the teapot couldn't be there and anyone who disagrees is just as foolish.

The only sensible option is to say, "The evidence suggests this particular conclusion, but for the moment at least, there isn't enough evidence to make a definitive claim."

The only foolish thing is to claim absolute knowledge when there is no or insufficient evidence to support that claim.

As for the chart being illogical, I don't see how. The chart is a visual way of showing the answers to two questions:

1. Do you think God exists?
2. How certain are you of that?

 

[Tiberius]

Even with the "agnostic means I'm not 100% sure" definition (which I don't think is correct), I'd say that applying the label "agnostic" implies a higher level of uncertainty than all the other cases when you don't apply the label.

To me, even with the "I don't know" definition, it has to mean something more than just the idea that all human knowledge is imperfect, or that induction can't yield 100% uncertainty.

For instance: should I say that I'm "agnostic" about the number of grocery stores in my town? I think there are 3, but I also remember the news reports from when I was a kid and a plaza got destroyed by a natural gas explosion, so I know that there's definitely a non-zero chance that the number of grocery stores in my town is less than it was the last time I checked.

If someone's level of uncertainty about the existence of gods is similar to my level of uncertainty about the number of grocery stores in my town, then I think it would be unreasonable to label that person as "agnostic."

I'll have to disagree.

Agnostic simply means you aren't claiming to have knowledge of it. Gnostic is claiming to know for sure.

If you can't say that you know for a fact how many groceries stores there are, then you are agnostic about it to some degree.

 

[Tiberius]

Would you need such an elabourate chart to
work out the different ways of not believing in
Bigfoot?

I don't see why a similar chart would not work.

And a chart with two axes isn't really elaborate.

 

[Desert Snake]

In what sense?

Different things...

 

[Willamena]

[Q

Sorry, I think you misunderstood.

What I think is ridiculous is for a person to claim absolute knowledge when there is no evidence. Doesn't matter whether they are for or against.

To claim the teapot must be there and anyone who disagrees is foolish.

To similarly claim that the teapot couldn't be there and anyone who disagrees is just as foolish.

The only sensible option is to say, "The evidence suggests this particular conclusion, but for the moment at least, there isn't enough evidence to make a definitive claim."

The only foolish thing is to claim absolute knowledge when there is no or insufficient evidence to support that claim.

As for the chart being illogical, I don't see how. The chart is a visual way of showing the answers to two questions:

1. Do you think God exists?
2. How certain are you of that?

The chart is entirely irrational, because 100% certainty is belief, not knowledge.

 

[dfnj]

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

Right off the bat you are wrong. Atheists belief system is built on the belief of philosophical materialism or realism. Atheist may actually have the worst possible dogma of any belief system since most atheists are so strongly convinced their own dogma is absolute truth. There is no room for any doubt or alternative belief systems to coexist with atheism.

 

[dfnj]

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...

See my post above as to which dogma.

 

[dfnj]

1. Do you think God exists?
2. How certain are you of that?

I am absolutely sure God exists. God is just a word. What the word God represents is every possible thought and experience possible that has happened or will ever happened. Unlike the Flying Spaghetti Monster, God is the word with the largest possible semantic footprint possible.

You can choose to think God does not exist. But no matter how much you cry about God the idea of God remains.

 

[Tiberius]

[Q

The chart is entirely irrational, because 100% certainty is belief, not knowledge.

I am 100% certain that 1+1=2, and that's not a belief (at least not in the same way that people who are 100% certain that God exists have a belief).

 

[Tiberius]

Right off the bat you are wrong. Atheists belief system is built on the belief of philosophical materialism or realism. Atheist may actually have the worst possible dogma of any belief system since most atheists are so strongly convinced their own dogma is absolute truth. There is no room for any doubt or alternative belief systems to coexist with atheism.

No it's not.

If you gathered all the atheists together, you'd find that the only thing they have in common is that they lack a belief in God. You'd get some spiritual, some non-spiritual. All different sorts.

 

[Tiberius]

I am absolutely sure God exists. God is just a word. What the word God represents is every possible thought and experience possible that has happened or will ever happened. Unlike the Flying Spaghetti Monster, God is the word with the largest possible semantic footprint possible.

You can choose to think God does not exist. But no matter how much you cry about God the idea of God remains.

So you redefine what God means in order to justify your belief.

Genius.

 

[Desert Snake]

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.

Agnostic theism, no imperative to believe that one 'knows', to be a theist. Just usually common.

A belief there 'are no deities', really bad however.

 

[Desert Snake]

No it's not.

If you gathered all the atheists together, you'd find that the only thing they have in common is that they lack a belief in God. You'd get some spiritual, some non-spiritual. All different sorts.

Hmmm no, that would mean 'agnostics' are part of that. They are different ideas.

 

[dfnj]

So you redefine what God means in order to justify your belief.

Genius.

Theists don't get to define what atheism means. So atheists don't get to decide what God means.

How many times have you heard atheism is "the denial of the existence of God" ?

Probably as many times as I've heard an atheist claim unless God is experienced in the exact right way then God doesn't exist.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

God is that which underlies all existence, that which is the source of all the universe, whether one experiences Him as an intelligent being, or experiences it as some sort of force such as Brahmin or Tao. This God denotes a specific thing in that it can be experienced.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am absolutely sure God exists.

Me too.
Atheists do not understand how we know though.

 

[lukethethird]

Me too.
Atheists do not understand how we know though.

There's nothing not to understand, you cling to a prescribed set of faith beliefs.

 

[Trailblazer]

There's nothing not to understand, you cling to a prescribed set of faith beliefs.

No, that 's not it. It is a sense of knowing God exists whether I like it or not.
I don't always like it.