diana

Ah!

You are therefore assuming that "atheist" is a person who believes there is no god, yes?

This is perhaps why I do not accept a "middle ground." I reject this definition of "atheist." It is pedantic of me, sure, but here's my take: if a "theist" is a "believer," then an "atheist" is a "nonbeliever." Nonbeliever is not defined as a person who believes anything, to include a negative condition. It is defined as a lack of belief.

Hence, a person who "does not believe either way" is automatically without belief. Ergo, an atheist.

Incidentally, my definition of "atheist" as "one who does not believe in a god" should explain clearly why, with the definitions I have adopted, there is no middle ground.

I think the middle ground only exists if you define atheist as "one who believes there is no god." Only then does it make sense to take the middle ground with "I don't believe either way."

d

diana

(I just had two big-ass AHA!s in one thread. Cool.)

At the point where the information becomes verifiable/falsifiable, methinks, we cross from "belief" to "knowledge." (I'm using the word "belief" in the "faith" sense here.)

d

Hans

I believe she would be a theist, not an agnostic. If, driven by first cause arguments, she finds that a supernatural deity makes sense then the nature of the "ultimate truth" is no longer unknown or unknowable to her, thus expelling her agnosticism.

Defining atheism as a lack of belief fails to destinguish it from agnosticism and in that respect I disagree that they belong to different domains. The agnostic doesn't know if God exists and necessarily doesn't believe God exists. The weak atheist lacks a belief in God because he doesn't know if God exists or not. Sounds the same to me.

Hans

What part of the statement is inconsistant with agnosticism that you feel adding atheist to the description is necessary to adiquately describe the person?

All agnostics are agnostic atheists and weak atheists.

All week atheists and agnostic atheists are agnostics, which is my point.


Let us not forget the agnostic who answers: no, no. And what do we see? His answers are the same as the agnostic atheist!

The "lack of belief" version of atheism is indestinguishable from agnosticism. The "God does not exist" version is destinguishable.

HOW ABOUT REDUNTANTLY UNNECESSARY!

Seriously though, I don't think it's inappropriate. It is merely my contention that weak and agnostic atheism is the very same position as agnosticism. Adding atheist to agnostic serves to emphisize what is necessarily true of the agnostic - the person does not believe in God. But in the process it also serves to mislead one into thinking that agnostic atheism and agnosticism are different positions, which I contend they are not.

Hans

Not really. I said: If one believes either way then, IMO, that person is either theistic or atheistic. Meaning, it is my opinion that the example is what I believe the definition should be.

I agree that there is no middle ground in belief in the respect that a person either has a particular belief or they don't. However, there is a "middle" position regarding God's existence:

a) God does not exist.

b) Does not know if God exists.

c) God exists.

You stated: "Hence, a person who "does not believe either way" is automatically without belief. Ergo, an atheist."

Here is why I disagree with it. We can cut and dry the presence of a particular belief as either present or not present, such that there is no middle. But we can not do the same with the positions. There is a "middle," X is true, X is false, or the truth of X is unknown. The only position for which a lack of belief either way is compatible is agnosticism, e.g. the truth of x is unknown.

Although the definition of atheist is in dispute, the definition of agnostic is not. So long as we do not alter the definition of agnostic then anyone who does not believe either way will apply to that definition. Atheism (per your view) and agnostisim will be one and the same. All agnostics are atheists and all atheists are agnostics.

Jayhawker Soule

That is your repeated contention. I suggest that our hypothetical friend is both.

Nonsense. She knows nothing of the nature of the Supernatural save its ability to, in this instance, provide a "First Cause". She knows neither the whys nor the the hows of the act/process and, furthermore, claims such knowledge inaccessible. In fact, by "Supernatural Diety", she implies no more than the reasonable presumption that a natural entity could not cause the natural realm of which she/he/it is a part.

Atheism addresses what is known and knowable. Atheism is, minimally, a position on what is believed and worthy of belief. Your failure to distinguish between the two makes them no less distinct.

That mantra of yours becomes no more valid by virtue of repetition. The absence of knowledge does not necessitite an absence of belief.

1. I do not know whether primitive life exists in the Andromeda Galaxy.
2. I believe it does.

Again, the absence of knowledge does not necessitate an absence of belief.

No, the atheist lacks a belief in God(s) because s/he knows of nothing warranting such a belief.

Sounds like a learning opportunity to me.

Hans

Nevertheless, the existence of God is no longer unknown to her. The argument will have provided her with what to her is the knowledge that God exists. She would no longer be an agnostic in the matter. That she would not know of the nature of God is irrelevent to her knowledge that he exists.

I can understand what appears to be a slip up on your part here. You are using different language: "worthy of belief" - "known and knowable," but they amount to the same thing. What is it that is not worthy of beleif? Could it be things for which we do not have knowledge of? Things like God's existence.



I'll have to agree with you that absence of knowledge does not necessitate an absence of belief. But like our lady above, the belief for or against, or lack of either, does necessitate one's position regarding God's existence. Let's extrapolate God into your example and see if we can deduce what the position would be:

1. I do not know whether God exists.
2. I believe he does.

We can see that regardless of what knowledge this person has, his second statement necessitates that his position is: God exists is true. It is not his position that the truth of God's existence is unknown, which is the agnostic's position.

In what way is "because of knowing of nothing warranting a belief in X" different from "because of not knowing if X exists or not?" Is it not the very same reason? Do not both reduce to: "because they do not know?"

Indeed!

I'm trying to learn:

Of the three positions: A = X is true, B = X is false, and C = the truth of X is unknown; and X = God exists.

Where it is that:

1) Weak atheism, agnostic atheism, atheism defined as nothing more than not believing or holding both A and B, and agnosticism, is compatable with any position other than C.

2) Agnostic theism and theism is compatable with any position other than A.

3) Atheism defined as believing or holding B is compatable with any position other than B.

Additionally, I'm trying to learn why it is that some would like to treat certian positions as different when in fact, from everthing I've seen, they are the same.

Nowhere357

Why would anyone want to argue with this? I'll make you a deal - I concede, and you quit yelling at me, okay?

Phanes

Speculation: Many (nonphilosophical) persons who claim agnosticism do not believe in God (and thus are weak atheists), but are reluctant to imply they should not believe in God. In other words, we go from these slightly more technical definitions

Atheism - Lack of belief / disbelief in God
Theism - Belief in God
Agnosticism - Irrelevant to question "Do you believe in God?"

to these interpretations by Joe Everyman

Atheism - You should believe there is no God / should not believe in God.
Theism - You should believe in God.
Agnosticism - Hey, don't ask me (weak); or You should be undecided (strong).


In my personal experience, common agnostics (i.e. not philosopher types) tend to respond to my atheism by asking "How can you be sure there isn't a God?" Note that this question doesn't seem to be about my belief itself, but about whether I should have the (lack of) belief I do (i.e. Am I justified in not believing in God?).

I think distinguishing between the two (what I do believe vs. what I should believe) would solve a great deal of atheist/agnostic conflicts.

Apologies if someone else already mentioned this possibility.

Jamie_L

We are incapable of knowing the answer to this question.

Jamie