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

[metis]

one can be both agnostic and atheist, but your OP either ignorantly or dishonestly paints all atheism as "gnostic atheism". I'd really like to know which is driving you in the OP - ignorance or dishonesty.

This is not even worthy of comment, but let me just say that it's truly a shame that you have to resort to ad hominem attacks instead of acting like an adult.

In a later post, I'll explain why I have used definitions that more clearly differentiate between "atheism" and "agnosticism" and their definitions. We normally use in English more than one word to differentiate between two or more items that are not exactly the same.

 

[charlie sc]

This is not even worthy of comment, but let me just say that it's truly a shame that you have to resort to ad hominem attacks instead of acting like an adult.

In a later post, I'll explain why I have used definitions that more clearly differentiate between "atheism" and "agnosticism" and their definitions. We normally use in English more than one word to differentiate between two or more items that are not exactly the same.

What do you call a theist that believes maybe one or more gods exists but is unsure and he/she is unsure what god's properties are?

 

[Falvlun]

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

Ciao

- viole

A lot more people believe in god than believe in blue fairies. I think that’s an important difference.

 

[metis]

What do you call a theist that believes maybe one or more gods exists and he/she is unsure what god's properties are?

I tend to think most theists basically have some questions about the issue of God or Gods in terms of the details, and some people, such as yours truly, have a lot more than just some questions. Check "My Faith Statement" at the bottom of my posts for confirmation of that.

 

[charlie sc]

I tend to think most theists basically have some questions about the issue of God or Gods in terms of the details, and some people, such as yours truly, have a lot more than just some questions. Check "My Faith Statement" at the bottom of my posts for confirmation of that.

You didn't answer my question.

Some theists are absolutely sure some are not sure, at all. Are you trying to ignore these two epistemological classifications?

 

[ChristineM]

And exactly how do you know I'm operating out of "confirmation bias" when I haven't even explained where I'm coming from and why?

The two above definitions are so similar that the terms are basically interchangeable. This is why I used the word "belief" with the concept of atheism.

The phrasing of your questions

See previous sentence

 

[metis]

I simply do not have the time to go through all or even most posts, but thanks for your responses.

When there are two items that are similar but not the same, we typically use different definitions to distinguish between them. Thus "atheism" and "agnosticism" are different words that symbolize different approaches, whereas one usually is more of a questioning as to whether god(s) exist and the other is more of a belief there aren't any deities. At least in common usage this is normally how it pans out.

Some years ago at another website, there were a great many posts arguing over what "atheism" means that went on and on, which is why I included the word "belief" in the definition I used. Without defining words carefully, which is what I was trained to do as an anthropologist, it's all too easy for people to get confused. So, my use of this definition for "atheism" [Atheism: a belief there are no deities] was to try and prevent this confusion. In response, I was accused by a couple of people here of "confirmation bias" and "ignorance", but I've come to expect that from some here at RF.

 

[metis]

You didn't answer my question.

Some theists are absolutely sure some are not sure, at all. Are you trying to ignore these two epistemological classifications?

I'm not ignoring them as I just explained that there's varying degrees of acceptance of specifics about God or Gods by theists. OTOH, if what you're saying is that many or most theists have varying degrees of agnosticism sorta built in, I agree. What makes them different is that they still tend to have at least a basic belief in God or Gods that a person who identifies as an "agnostic" would not have.

 

[metis]

The phrasing of your questions

See previous sentence

See my post #161.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

This is not even worthy of comment, but let me just say that it's truly a shame that you have to resort to ad hominem attacks instead of acting like an adult.

I believe that I know exactly why the OP wanted very much to respond to this first part of my post as he did - and state that he wasn't going to dignify my response with a reply. It was so that he could ignore the entire part that truly displays how much less logical theism is because of all of the pretending/make-believing/fabrication/story-telling it necessarily has to do in order to assign attributes to God.

Pathetic. Just utterly, to no end, pathetic. I know my points were going to be extremely tough to overcome (I certainly couldn't do it), but for goodness sake.

It is still a wonder to me that theists seem unable to understand why they are many times not taken seriously. They don't even seem to take themselves very seriously.

 

[charlie sc]

I'm not ignoring them as I just explained that there's varying degrees of acceptance of specifics about God or Gods by theists. OTOH, if what you're saying is that many or most theists have varying degrees of agnosticism sorta built in, I agree. What makes them different is that they still tend to have at least a basic belief in God or Gods that a person who identifies as an "agnostic" would not have.

There are a few usages for the word atheist and agnostic. I've seen atheist use atheist the same as they would agnostic and vice versa. Similarly, with degrees of belief, you can categorise the atheist agnostic. Just on the top of my head, you get the ignostic, the soft atheist, hard atheist, agnostic atheist and so on. The atheist as varying degrees of believe and so does the theist, like deism being one.

So the question concerning which is more logical would be the same as asking the theist which is more logical. It's either an impossible endeavour or just silly

 

[Desert Snake]

I believe that I know exactly why the OP wanted very much to respond to this first part of my post as he did - and state that he wasn't going to dignify my response with a reply. It was so that he could ignore the entire part that truly displays how much less logical theism is because of all of the pretending/make-believing/fabrication/story-telling it necessarily has to do in order to assign attributes to God.

Pathetic. Just utterly, to no end, pathetic. I know my points were going to be extremely tough to overcome (I certainly couldn't do it), but for goodness sake.

It is still a wonder to me that theists seem unable to understand why they are many times not taken seriously. They don't even seem to take themselves very seriously.

Uh...what?

Theists don't usually believe they are doing that, that is your own ideas.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

It’s hard for me to choose. They all seem about equal to me. I’ve been each of them at some point.

As an atheist now, obviously I think that’s the most rational position... for me. I do not think it’s rational to claim agnosticism any longer, as my pendulum has officially swung to an atheist opinion. It is also not rational for me to be a theist, as I have no convincing evidence for the existence of something like a god.

But I commiserate with the agnostic. There’s strength and honesty in admitting you just don’t know and that you don’t feel convinced either way.

And if a theist has a personal experience that has convinced them, then who am I to say their logic is wrong?

I’m curious as to what spurred this question for you.

 

[metis]

OK, to answer my own OP, here's the definitions I used, as a reminder:

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.

If a person says (s)he's an "agnostic", I tend to think that's quite clear. Obviously they mean that (s)he doesn't know if there are any deities or not. To me, that's a logical position, namely if one doesn't know then they don't know.

OHOH, if a person say that (s)he's a "theist", that becomes more iffy because what is their belief based on? In some cases it may be what's called "blind belief", namely that they were just brought up to believe way, and they just accepted it without question. But, there are many who believe that there were some experience(s) that they had that pushed them in the direction of belief or confirmed their belief. With the latter being the case, their belief is logical because at least it's based on something.

But with "atheists" (see above definition), they say that there aren't any deities, but what evidence is that based on? Some atheists poke fun at theists and/or theistic beliefs, which is why I constructed this thread to begin with after seeing that in action here on numerous occasions, including just a few days ago, but I tend to think that the joke is on them. How could they possibly know there aren't any deities anywhere?

Of the three entities, "atheism" is that one that really more of a blind belief, and yet I see some self-proclaimed "atheists" strut around in smug arrogance making fun of theists and what they may believe.

BTW, I've been in all three positions during my adult life, and some here know what I've been through on this, and that's still being reflected in "My Faith Statement" at the bottom of my posts.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Uh...what?

Theists don't usually believe they are doing that, that is your own ideas.

When I say that, what I mean is that they rarely seem to put the requisite thought into what they are saying at the outset, and end up having to either run away, or spout off a bunch more made-up stuff when the rebuttals start coming in. If you were really being serious about it, I feel like you'd have your act together a bit more. But this is never what I have experienced. Not once.

 

[metis]

It’s hard for me to choose. They all seem about equal to me. I’ve been each of them at some point.

As an atheist now, obviously I think that’s the most rational position... for me. I do not think it’s rational to claim agnosticism any longer, as my pendulum has officially swung to an atheist opinion. It is also not rational for me to be a theist, as I have no convincing evidence for the existence of something like a god.

But I commiserate with the agnostic. There’s strength and honesty in admitting you just don’t know and that you don’t feel convinced either way.

And if a theist has a personal experience that has convinced them, then who am I to say their logic is wrong?

I’m curious as to what spurred this question for you.

Thank you for your very considerate post, and I believe I may have just answered your question in my last post #174.

 

[charlie sc]

With the latter being the case, their belief is logical because at least it's based on something.

So, you believe the theist is superior because it is based on something. Very amusing, thank you

 

[Desert Snake]

When I say that, what I mean is that they rarely seem to put the requisite thought into what they are saying at the outset, and end up having to either run away, or spout off a bunch more made-up stuff when the rebuttals start coming in. If you were really being serious about it, I feel like you'd have your act together a bit more. But this is never what I have experienced. Not once.

You wouldn't be talking to me, that's for sure. The variables here mean that as a general statement, your idea isn't representative of the concept, either, though.

You've never had a 'real' discussion with me, you are presuming alot.

Again just generally, your idea is subjective to your own ideas.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You wouldn't be talking to me, that's for sure. The variables here mean that as a general statement, your idea isn't representative of the concept, either, though.

You've never had a 'real' discussion with me, you are presuming alot.

Again just generally, your idea is subjective to your own ideas.

I've read posts of yours. Have never been impressed. Just being honest.

 

[Desert Snake]

I've read posts of yours. Have never been impressed. Just being honest.

That doesn't matter, this is what you aren't understanding. And you are presuming some 'purpose' to my posts that may or may not even be there.

You don't understand 'context'? Or that I'm not necessarily trying to prove theism to you?

What a joke...

Just subjective nonsense.