Walross

LDC,

as others have said, there's some disagreement about definitions. According to some, you would be a weak atheist as well as an agnostic. Whatever you decide to label yourself as, I think the late (and sorely missed) Carl Sagan put it best when he said that there's nothing wrong with withholding judgement until the facts are all in. Regards,

Walross

cydonia

One thing that has sort of startled me, as an agnostic, is a conversation i had a few days ago with two atheists on a different website.

They are convinced that theism and atheism are both faiths, and both are equally valid since faith by its nature means there's no proof either way.

So does this mean if i decide to be an atheist one day i will officially have a Faith™, but since i'm an agnostic now i'm not a member of a Faith™?

So maybe the question could also be "are atheists just as bad as theists?"

Here are the relevant quotes, i'm very interested in atheist responses to them .

Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of God -- or, in other words, the faith that there is no God. Just as God cannot be proven, God can also not be disproven. Atheism is just as much a matter of faith as monotheism or pantheism or polytheism or any other -theism. For the record, I myself am an atheist.

...is right, atheism is a faith. It's as much a faith as theism. It's also a lot less supportive as a position than agnosticism. I am an atheist, btw!

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: cydonia ]</p>

Starboy

Hi Cydonia:

There are some dictionaries that list atheism as you show it. I describe myself as an a-theist. IFAIK it represents the natural definition of the word as well as the initial intent. Since the majority of the English speaking population is Christian they get to make up the definitions and I guess that is how they wish to see us even though we beg to differ.

Starboy

Brian63

I had recently started a thread on the very subject of how "atheism" should be defined, strangely enough titled:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=45&t=001314" target="_blank">"Atheism" defined</a>

I disagree with this. There are some conceptions of God that can be disproven, in my opinion. If such a conception of God is defined as having properties that are actually mutually incompatible, we can say that no such entity that exists has such properties. Many atheist philosophers attempt to do just that by arguing that a being cannot be omniscient and omnipotent, omnipotent and benevolent, etc. and so no such being can exist that has those properties. Hence, God cannot exist if God is believed to have those properties.

I am undecided if there is a way to prove the positive existence of God.

Also, just because we cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God does not mean that we cannot provide evidence for existence or non-existence.

Brian

Carlos

I disagree with the wording, but agree with the intent. The faith that theism is based on is very different from the faith that atheism is based on. The former relies on religious lore, "spirituality", personal connection with god and such things. The latter is based on philosophical and scientific inquiries. While I don't see these as being equal, I do agree (depending on the definition of god) that there is no proof either way. I agree with Brian's view that the atheist's case is stronger when we limit ourselves to a specific kind of god.

I disagree; I do not think that both propositions are equivalent. Consider the following two statements:

A: God exists.
B: God does not exist.

Alice believes in god; for her A holds and B does not. Bob believes god does not exist; for him B holds and A does not. Charlie does not believe there is enough evidence to support either A or B; for him neither A nor B hold.

Under the more "popular" definition, we would call Alice a theist, Bob an atheist and Charlie an agnostic. Under the "official" definition I mentioned earlier, Alice would still be a theist, Bob a strong atheist and Charlie a weak atheist (and all three would presumably be agnostics). The statement you quoted claims that lacking belief in A is equivalent to having belief in B. If that were the case, then Charlie's position could not exist (logically, not A implies B).

Since they seemed to be using the "popular" definitions, I agree with the spirit of this quote. I think it is harder to support "atheism" (aka strong atheism) than it is "agnosticism" (aka weak atheism).

By now it must seem as if I'm the type who enjoys quibbling about definitions. That's not really the case, but I do think it's important to establish a common vocabulary. Otherwise you'll end up with two people with equivalent beliefs disagreeing because they mean different things when they use the same words.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: cau ]</p>

Starboy

cau:

This can turn into an endless loop. To call atheism a faith depends on what you mean by the word faith. I always thought it meant to accept without reason, to continue to believe even when confronted with disconfirming evidence. As I see it faith excludes reason. I have had conversations with believers that felt that faith did not exclude reason. I assume they were using a different definition. Just as the word atheist has definitions to suit different argument it seems that the word faith is defined with equal ambiguity.

Starboy

Seatless Bike

For my two bits; As an explicit atheist, I hold that there is no god. For me to believe in any god, I need proof. What constitutes proof is myriad. However, I think most skeptics would agree on what kind of proof is needed.

The agnostic takes the easy way out with the statement that "since I can't know that a god doesn't exist, I will choose to believe that one may or may not". At best, this [lack of] belief system is cowardly, at best, self deceptive.

The agnostic, like an insurance policy holder, claims neither side in the case they are wrong when death comes. While better than the Christian, Islamic, Mormon, Celt, et al, the agnostic hopes to pry open the Pearly Gates should us atheists be awry in our physical beliefs.

It's one side or the other. Either you believe or you don't. At any rate, if there is a deity who will punish me for my mind, then I'd rather go to work for the other side than grovel out of fear from some weirdo who'd chop off a good portion of my genitalia to prove something to his enemies.

Living Dead Chipmunk

Seatless: I'm guessing by your extremely binary thought process that you used to be a Christian?

A modification of an argument I brought up in another thread:

Do extraterrestrials exist? You either believe or you don't. None of this weak, cowardly "I don't know" stuff. Don't hedge your bets. Choose! Choose now!

Considering the myriad of people arrayed against me, on both sides of the fence I'm apparently sitting on, agnosticism is not exactly an "easy way out".

cydonia

I've always thought "faith" was pretty much the way starboy described it, affirming something no matter what evidence may contradict it.

I wouldn't say my agnosticism is necessarily cowardly, but who knows. It's been difficult for me to leave the fear of x-tianity behind. I'm not comfortable calling myself an atheist (yet). I really don't know if there is a god, but if i doubt it, perhaps that makes me a weak atheist. If i don't know something i can't bring myself to say that i know what i don't know. Now, i am getting close to the point of really "knowing" that christianity isn't true. That's a relief for me. I'd prefer it to not be true, and i'd prefer there was some sort of spiritual power we all have, but i'm witholding judgement on the latter until i feel i've really figured it out.

Starboy

On a previous thread I posted this response to the question of the differences between atheist and agnostic. I attempted to take an empirical approach. Instead of trying to match to some definition I attempted to categorize by what answers to the following questions a person might respond with.

After looking at this I should have said that I oscillate between 5 and 9.

Starboy