Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rational BAC · 09-17-2003, 08:02 AM

Digital Chicken--------

You are saying I have no evidence for my assertion that there are strong atheists and weak atheists? And that an agnostic is in reality a weak atheist?

Maybe not------I just assumed what I have read on this forum by atheists describing themselves was correct.

My bad-------sorry.
-------------------------------------------------------

And calling yourself an agnostic does work very well in a practical sense, if you are not looking for confrontation and just want to be left alone in your disbelief system.

Starboy · 09-17-2003, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DigitalChicken
The point is that it has really always been "lack of belief in gods." The "doesn't believe in god" is not really any different. "Lack of belief" merely changes the wording to make this epistimilogical understand open when in fact it was always there anyway.

As per my previous post, when we say we don't believe in something it usually implicitly includes an understanding that we could be wrong (that indeed someone may actually show me a pink unicorn).

DC

DC, I understand that many do not see a distinction between the two definitions but there are legitimate interpretations by way of English grammar that makes a very clear distinction. One can be seen as allowing positive claims and the other is just a statement of condition. A new born baby or a person untainted by superstitious thoughts could be said to lack belief whereas "doesn't believe in god" could cover the case where the person lacked belief, or, the person made the claim 'there is no god'. If I say that I lack belief it can't be construed as a positive claim whereas if I claim in a general way 'there is no god' then I am making a statement about something I could not possibly know. Because of this I go with 'lacks belief'.

Starboy

Rusting Car Bumper · 09-17-2003, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
You are saying I have no evidence for my assertion that there are strong atheists and weak atheists? And that an agnostic is in reality a weak atheist?

Sorry I wasn't clear.

I was talking about "Most atheists say that there is no such thing."

DC

Tickfast · 09-17-2003, 09:04 AM

the difference between weak atheist and agnostic is that the agnostic feels there are some good arguments FOR God(s) and some good arguments AGAINST God(s).
They see it as two sides with an equally good chance of being right.

A strong atheist accepts certain proofs as showing there are no gods, a theist accepts certain proofs that there is at least one God.

A weak atheist has not seen any compelling reason to believe in God(s). All proofs offered SO FAR fail to stand up to scrutiny.

Rusting Car Bumper · 09-17-2003, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy
DC, I understand that many do not see a distinction between the two definitions but there are legitimate interpretations by way of English grammar that makes a very clear distinction. One can be seen as allowing positive claims and the other is just a statement of condition. A new born baby or a person untainted by superstitious thoughts could be said to lack belief whereas "doesn't believe in god" could cover the case where the person lacked belief, or, the person made the claim 'there is no god'. If I say that I lack belief it can't be construed as a positive claim whereas if I claim in a general way 'there is no god' then I am making a statement about something I could not possibly know. Because of this I go with 'lacks belief'.

Starboy

I'm not sure I am following you but...

A person who positively says "There is no god" also "lacks belief in god."

DC

Tickfast · 09-17-2003, 09:07 AM

A person who "lacks belief in god" may not have the positive belief that there is no God.

I don't know of any God, but know of no proof there isn't one somewhere.

Rusting Car Bumper · 09-17-2003, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tickfast
the difference between weak atheist and agnostic is that the agnostic feels there are some good arguments FOR God(s) and some good arguments AGAINST God(s).
They see it as two sides with an equally good chance of being right.

I don't see this as agnostic at all under any definition currently in use.

Quote:

A strong atheist accepts certain proofs as showing there are no gods, a theist accepts certain proofs that there is at least one God.

The definitions have nothing whatsoever to do with how people arrived at their respective conclusions. The definitions are merely a description of the state of affairs in their respective heads.

A theist does not have to accept any proofs to believe in god and a strong atheist does not have to accept any disproofs. They each merely have to "believe in god" or "believe positively there is no god." How they got there doesn't matter.

Quote:

A weak atheist has not seen any compelling reason to believe in God(s). All proofs offered SO FAR fail to stand up to scrutiny.

The entrie weak atheist and strong atheist thing is a problem of intentional lingo and really doesn't have anything to do with understanding agnostic or atheist.

DC

Rational BAC · 09-17-2003, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tickfast
the difference between weak atheist and agnostic is that the agnostic feels there are some good arguments FOR God(s) and some good arguments AGAINST God(s).
They see it as two sides with an equally good chance of being right.

A strong atheist accepts certain proofs as showing there are no gods, a theist accepts certain proofs that there is at least one God.

A weak atheist has not seen any compelling reason to believe in God(s). All proofs offered SO FAR fail to stand up to scrutiny.

I like these definitions. Maybe not technically correct, but it is the way that the average Joe Blow tries to understand the difference.

Dictionary or scholarly definitions aside----------the only thing that really matters on a day to day basis is the definition the average person gives.

Dictionaries and scholars are slow to catch up, but in the final analysis, it the definition of the "man in the street" that eventually becomes the rule.

Evolutionist · 09-17-2003, 09:40 AM

I found this definition at Atheism Awareness to be very useful, and interesting:

Quote:

An atheist is someone that lacks belief in gods and supernatural beings. An agnostic is someone who claims that we, as human beings, cannot have the knowledge of whether gods exist or not.

Quote:

There are two types of people in this world, atheists and theists.

People either believe in a god or they lack belief in a god. The atheism and theism arena deal with beliefs or lack thereof.

Gnosticism and agnosticism deal with knowledge or lack thereof.

They each cover different issues. That is why one can be an atheistic agnostic or agnostic atheist (depending on where they want the emphasis to be). There are also agnostic theists and theistic agnostics.

Quote:

Atheism is a lack of belief. The agnostic either has a belief or lacks belief. Knowledge or lack thereof is irrelevant to the fact that the individual either believes in a god or supernatural being or, in his or her lack of knowledge and claim of belief, lacks said belief, and is therefore atheistic.

An interesting definition of agnostic, and the actual page explains it in a bit more detail.

Also, there is a debate between the author and an agnostic, elsewhere in the site, found here.

Starboy · 09-17-2003, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DigitalChicken
I'm not sure I am following you but...

A person who positively says "There is no god" also "lacks belief in god."

DC

That is so, but a person that only claims to 'lack belief' is not claiming 'there is no god'. That is the primary distinction. There are people who call themselves atheists but do not make the general claim 'there is no god' for the very simple reason that it may very much depend on what is meant by god. I may be able to rule out a Christian god or Zeus but I may not be able to rule out a deistic god or even the god of the organizing principle. To make a blanket statement 'there is no god' is to presume an answer to all possible questions whether you know the question or not. It is not a reasonable thing to do.

Starboy

09-17-2003, 09:04 AM	#24
Tickfast Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 131	To me... the difference between weak atheist and agnostic is that the agnostic feels there are some good arguments FOR God(s) and some good arguments AGAINST God(s). They see it as two sides with an equally good chance of being right. A strong atheist accepts certain proofs as showing there are no gods, a theist accepts certain proofs that there is at least one God. A weak atheist has not seen any compelling reason to believe in God(s). All proofs offered SO FAR fail to stand up to scrutiny.

09-17-2003, 09:07 AM	#26
Tickfast Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 131	But the reverse is not true A person who "lacks belief in god" may not have the positive belief that there is no God. I don't know of any God, but know of no proof there isn't one somewhere.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-17-2003, 08:02 AM	#21
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Digital Chicken-------- You are saying I have no evidence for my assertion that there are strong atheists and weak atheists? And that an agnostic is in reality a weak atheist? Maybe not------I just assumed what I have read on this forum by atheists describing themselves was correct. My bad-------sorry. ------------------------------------------------------- And calling yourself an agnostic does work very well in a practical sense, if you are not looking for confrontation and just want to be left alone in your disbelief system.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.