Your definition for "atheist/theist" and its subcategories

[Curious George]

I'm doubtful.

I have explain my reason in my post #52, you provide 0 rebut to my reason.

Please, you can reply to this post of mine and again say you're an atheist, but again if you provide 0 rebut to my reason in my post #52, i will still say i'm doubtful.
You're not going to remove my doubt by providing 0 rebut to my reason.

I see, you don't have that desire.

The gist of post #52 said: I think you are a theist because you characterization of a weak atheist sounds like something I would expect to hear from a theist.

I am not going to try to "remove doubt." If you want to think I am a theist, that is fine. My logic stands on its own regardless of what label you want to place on me or what label I place on myself.

Cheers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know I've had run ins with folks on the forums who would take the perspective that "theism" only means classical monotheism, and that the sort of theology I adhere to is "not theism."

Without naming names...

I once had a member here alter the Wikipedia article on theism to support his case that deism wasn't a type of theism to support his case in a debate with me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I figure out how to rebut your post, so i'll make a new reply again.

You previously say: A person who thinks a god does not exist is absent of a belief that God does exist. You further clarify "a god" is refer to "any god".

What is the amount to this "any god"?
1 god? 2 gods? 100 gods? Some gods? Many gods? All gods?

There's where i have to use "a person who believe at least one god exist", which the belief that at least one god exist, is enough to identify the person as a theist. Even another person believe multiple gods exist, he still believe at least one god exist, which can be identify as a theist.

And as long as a person absence the belief that at least one god exist, he then is not a theist. Which is my definition for atheist.

And i have to use "a person who believe no god exist" to be a part of definition for strong atheist. Which if there are two atheists, they both absence the belief that at least one god exist, the first person believe no god exist, the second person absence the belief that no god exist.
They are both atheist because they fit with the definition of atheist, which is absence the belief that at least one god exist.
The presence of belief that no god exist make the first person also a strong atheist.
The absence of belief that no god exist make the second person also a weak atheist.

Again, your "a god", "any god", haven't specify the number you refer to the god.
It can be 1 god, 2 gods, 100 gods, some gods, many gods, all gods, you have to clarify the number, otherwise that is too vague.

The "atheist", "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" parts of that Venn diagram make no sense at all.

 

[Pudding]

Pudding I suggest you modify this drawing. You have one circle for theist. Then you have another circle for atheist. (A person with an absence of the belief that gods exist.) And inside the circle for atheist you have a smaller circle with strong atheist. (A person who believes gods don't exist.) Strong atheists are just a subset of all atheists. For all practical purposes atheist is just shorthand for weak atheist and weak atheist is mostly used when it's important to distinguish between weak and strong.

I can see there is a situation.
Jack is an atheist.
He believes some gods A/B/C doesn't exist.
Does he believe other gods E/F/G doesn't exist? No.

If you say atheist and weak atheist have complete identical meaning, then there is contradiction in the case of Jack.

I make a new chart, Jack's position is included.

 

[Pudding]

The "atheist", "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" parts of that Venn diagram make no sense at all.

Please elaborate.

 

[Curious George]

Without naming names...

I once had a member here alter the Wikipedia article on theism to support his case that deism wasn't a type of theism to support his case in a debate with me.

I know of only one poster who pointed out that deism was in opposition to theism. He was an agnostic.

 

[Pudding]

The gist of post #52 said: I think you are a theist because you characterization of a weak atheist sounds like something I would expect to hear from a theist.

I am not going to try to "remove doubt." If you want to think I am a theist, that is fine. My logic stands on its own regardless of what label you want to place on me or what label I place on myself.

Cheers.

I'll have to think about it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please elaborate.

Your definition of "weak atheist" would include everyone you define as "strong atheists", so strong atheism should be a sub-area within weak atheism (or you need to change your definitions).

And you've labelled the intersection of "strong atheism" and "weak atheism" as "atheism", implying that strong atheists who aren't weak atheists aren't atheists.

It's messed up on a number of levels.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know of only one poster who pointed out that deism was in opposition to theism. He was an agnostic.

This one was a deist who didn't like being called a theist.

 

[Willamena]

But 2+2=4 is a proven mathematical reality, saying you know god is not a proven reality, big difference.

Is a proven mathematical reality your own understanding?

 

[ArtieE]

I can see there is a situation.
Jack is an atheist.
He believes some gods A/B/C doesn't exist.
Does he believe other gods E/F/G doesn't exist? No.

If you say atheist and weak atheist have complete identical meaning, then there is contradiction in the case of Jack.

I make a new chart, Jack's position is included.

Now your chart is unnecessarily complicated.

Circle: Theist (Belief gods exist)

New circle: Atheist (No belief gods exist, no belief gods don't exist)
Circle inside circle: Strong atheist (No belief gods exist, belief gods don't exist)

 

[Pudding]

Your definition of "weak atheist" would include everyone you define as "strong atheists", so strong atheism should be a sub-area within weak atheism (or you need to change your definitions).

And you've labelled the intersection of "strong atheism" and "weak atheism" as "atheism", implying that strong atheists who aren't weak atheists aren't atheists.

It's messed up on a number of levels.

Person 1 and 2 are both atheist.
But person 1 at the same time also believe no god exist, so it is also correct to call him a strong atheist.
Otoh, person 2 at the same time absence the belief that no god exist, so it is also correct to call her a weak atheist.

Atheist: a person who absence the belief that at least one god exist.
Strong atheist: (including definition of atheist), a person who also believe no god exist.
Weak atheist: (including definition of atheist), a person who also absence the belief that no god exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Person 1 and 2 are both atheist.
But person 1 at the same time also believe no god exist, so it is also correct to call him a strong atheist.
Otoh, person 2 at the same time absence the belief that no god exist, so it is also correct to call her a weak atheist.

Ah - I think you just aren't clear on how Venn diagrams work: any specific person would be at a single point in the space. The areas aren't individual people; the areas are sets of people.

 

[Pudding]

Ah - I think you just aren't clear on how Venn diagrams work: any specific person would be at a single point in the space. The areas aren't individual people; the areas are sets of people.

I don't know how to correcting the graph, i will think about it.

 

[Pudding]

Now your chart is unnecessarily complicated.

Circle: Theist (Belief gods exist)

New circle: Atheist (No belief gods exist, no belief gods don't exist)
Circle inside circle: Strong atheist (No belief gods exist, belief gods don't exist)

Jack is an atheist, he is absence the belief that at least one god exist.
At the same time, he also believes gods A,B and C doesn't exist.
Does he also believe other gods E, F and G...etc doesn't exist? No.

Please specify his position in your propose diagram.

Edit: I have made some changes to my previous diagram.

 

[Curious George]

Jack is an atheist, he is absence the belief that at least one god exist.
At the same time, he also believes gods A,B and C doesn't exist.
Does he also believe other gods E, F and G...etc doesn't exist? No.

Please specify where his position is in your propose diagram.

Sounds like jack cannot evaluate the proposition "at least one god exists." Therefore, he would evaluate the proposition as unknown or unknowable. That is an agnostic.

 

[Pudding]

Sounds like jack cannot evaluate the proposition "at least one god exists."

I have no idea why you'll say that in reply to my post.

Therefore, he would evaluate the proposition as unknown or unknowable. That is an agnostic.

Please clarify your previous statement first.

 

[Curious George]

I have no idea why you'll say that in reply to my post.


Please clarify your previous statement first.

Jack is obviously working with a conception of god. You say he is absent belief that gods e,f,get exist but you also say he does not believe that they do. Therefore whether these gods exist or not is unknown/unknowable to jack. Consequently, the proposition at least one god exists is also unknown or unknowable to him. This is what we call an agnostic.

 

[Pudding]

Jack is obviously working with a conception of god. You say he is absent belief that gods e,f,get exist

I said he is absence the belief that at least one god exist.

but you also say he does not believe that they do.

Here is what i said:
Does he also believe other gods E, F and G...etc doesn't exist? No.

That means he is absence the belief that other gods E, F and G...etc doesn't exist.

Therefore whether these gods exist or not is unknown/unknowable to jack. Consequently, the proposition at least one god exists is also unknown or unknowable to him. This is what we call an agnostic.

The post you reply to between me and that user is about discussing atheist, which is about "don't believe".

Agnostic is about "don't know whether god(s) exist or not".
I don't feel i want to mix in agnostic to that discussion until i have done the conversation with that user. I'm sorry about that.

 

[Curious George]

I said he is absence the belief that at least one god exist.


Here is what i said:
Does he also believe other gods E, F and G...etc doesn't exist? No.

That means he is absence the belief that other gods E, F and G...etc doesn't exist.


The post you reply to is about discussing atheist, which is about "don't believe".

Agnostic is about "don't know whether god(s) exist or not".
I don't feel i want to mix in agnostic to that discussion until i have done the conversation with that user.

You said that he is absent the belief that at least one god exists. You then said he does not believe that gods e,f,g do not exist. So, if he has a conception of god, but cannot evaluate that conception because of some lack of knowledge then he is an agnostic. You are saying that Jack has a conception of god. You are saying that Jack is absent belief in gods existence or non-existence existence, despite having a belief in the non existence of specific gods. We call this agnostic because to jack, cannot evaluate the proposition because he lacks some form of knowledge to evaluate the proposition but recognizes the proposition exists. To him the proposition is unknown or unknowable. You are needlessly contemplating things.


Contrast jack with myself, even without knowing what gods e,f and G are, I believe they do not exist as gods. Either they simply have no basis in reality or they exist in reality but are not gods. Because I can evaluate the proposition I am not an agnostic. I am simply an atheist. Now the term agnostic has also been distorted. So if you were to press an ask whether or not I know, that no god exists I would say no, I do not claim 100% certainty. That is: I lay no claim that my belief is a justified, true, belief. However, if we are talking about belief without rising to the level of a justified true belief then I make the claim no god exists.