First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Honest Atheists are Agnostic
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 3/18/10 , edited 3/18/10
The term atheism is often defined in one of two ways. The first definition you are likely to come across is “the disbelief in god,” and the second is, “the dearth of a belief in god.” The latter is a bit ambiguous, in my opinion, because it can be applied to virtually anything. My dog would then be an atheist the clouds would be atheists, and so on and so forth. However, I think this is just the result of unspecific communication that relies on an underlying assumption that people will see what you mean. Let us solidify this definition by matriculating it to “an individual who has not been compelled to believe in god but does not necessarily adopt the disbelief in god.”

This has led to certain classifications of the term “atheism,” being made. We now have “strong atheists,” and “weak atheists,” also called “positive atheists,” and “negative atheists.”

Some clarifications need to be made. The term “strong atheist,” does not necessarily mean that the atheist in question has personality characteristics that are necessarily strong. It simply means that they have strongly (positively,) atheistic views. The term “weak atheist,” is just the opposite of that, and “negative atheist,” is essentially a synonym.

Generally speaking strong atheists are those who have a disbelief in god while weak atheists are those who have not been compelled to believe in god. Now, what exactly is a disbelief in anything? It is a belief in the non-existence of that something. “I believe that god does not exist,” is the same thing as saying, “I disbelieve in the existence of god.” So, a strong atheist cannot say that the onus of proof is on a theist. Both the strong atheist and the theist are believe in a state of reality as it relates to the existence (or lack thereof) of god.

A disbelief is itself a belief, and the strong atheist is just as much obliged to support his belief as a theist is obliged to support his belief. A counter-argument might say that we have no obligation to prove a negative, and that’s true. But the belief that strong atheism is a correct stance is a positive belief, not a negative belief. Anytime you believe that you are correct you are obliged to evidence your correctness. The only way to evidence your correctness is to evidence your belief, and as we just covered you cannot evidence the existence or non-existence of god; therefore, strong atheists and theists alike are intellectually dishonest and illogical for believing something in the absence of evidence.

A weak atheist, on the other hand, is simply somebody who has not been compelled to believe in god but does not necessarily adopt the disbelief in god. (I know I have said that, but it’s the first premise of my argument.) He does not acknowledge either the state of reality implying god’s existence or the state of reality implying god’s non-existence. He is not being intellectually dishonest, and if something is not dishonest it is honest by default. A weak atheist is an honest atheist.

An agnostic is somebody who holds that we cannot know whether or not god exists; therefore, an agnostic is somebody who has not been compelled to believe in god but does not necessarily accept the disbelief in god. That’s premise two.

Now I am going to present you two standard, 3 part deductive arguments:

Argument One:

Premise I: A weak atheist is somebody who has not been compelled to believe in god but does not necessarily accept the disbelief in god.

Premise II: an agnostic is somebody who has not been compelled to believe in god but does not necessarily accept the disbelief in god.

Conclusion: A weak atheist is an agnostic.

Proof: The same by definition.

Argument Two:

Premise I: A weak atheist is an honest atheist. (as demonstrated above)

Premise II: A weak atheist is an agnostic. (as demonstrated in argument I)

Conclusion: an honest atheist is an agnostic.

Proof: If A=B and B=C then A=C.
Posted 3/18/10 , edited 3/18/10
Yeah, but I'm a strong naturalist. For I can only experience nature just like everyone else can. So what would you say about an experience junkie like me?
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
117
Offline
Posted 3/18/10 , edited 3/18/10
I think originally atheism was just the belief that there was no God, so 'strong atheism,' by your definition. Ignorant people starting using atheism to describe simply not believing God exists, 'weak atheism,' and that idea stuck. I think that idea is incorrect, atheism should simply be believing that there is no God.

So the honest, rational 'weak atheists' are all really just agnostic.

Are you sure "disbelief" is the right word? I don't think a disbelief is also a belief, it's just not accepting a belief. So agnostics have a disbelief in God.
1718 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
66 / M / Croatia
Offline
Posted 3/18/10
I have never heard about "weak atheist" and "strong atheist". I can see what they are but are those terms "official" - used in scientific communities around the world, or do they only exist in American English? From which books are they? Who made them up? How are those terms, if they are, translated in other languages? (Seraph says he knows german, so I am just interested in how are those terms translated and defined in german... if its not too difficult.) sorry for lot of questions, but I am really interested.
19949 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 3/19/10 , edited 3/19/10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPluw0Ici-c

Other way around; honest agnostics are atheist.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zS0FY68lw0&feature=sub
Just because their is no evidence Godzilla does not exist, still makes it dishonest to say he can exist, without some form of evidence.. Hence agnosticism fails. Lack of knowledge in something does not change the yes or no question. If you and everyone else lack knowledge in something, and their is know way to find knowledge of it. Then it is only honest to admit your atheistic toward it. (because that is what Atheism is.) Lack of belief in a god or gods.. If I had knowledge of it then I not lack a belief in it would I.!

"I do not have evidence/knowledge that Elves do not exist. Does that mean to be honest I have to accept that Elves might exist.. Or is it more honest to say their lack evidence/knowledge of elves and so at this time I can not believe their are Elves. "

Logically most Agnostics are atheist, they just do not like the hype built around the word Atheist, and so they avoid it with a illogical Non-stance.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
117
Offline
Posted 3/19/10 , edited 3/19/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPluw0Ici-c

Other way around; honest agnostics are atheist.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zS0FY68lw0&feature=sub
Just because their is no evidence Godzilla does not exist, still makes it dishonest to say he can exist, without some form of evidence.. Hence agnosticism fails. Lack of knowledge in something does not change the yes or no question. If you and everyone else lack knowledge in something, and their is know way to find knowledge of it. Then it is only honest to admit your atheistic toward it. (because that is what Atheism is.) Lack of belief in a god or gods.. If I had knowledge of it then I not lack a belief in it would I.!

"I do not have evidence/knowledge that Elves do not exist. Does that mean to be honest I have to accept that Elves might exist.. Or is it more honest to say their lack evidence/knowledge of elves and so at this time I can not believe their are Elves. "

Logically most Agnostics are atheist, they just do not like the hype built around the word Atheist, and so they avoid it with a illogical Non-stance.


I don't know how many times have I explained it to you, but you still have the same misunderstandings.


"I do not have evidence/knowledge that Elves do not exist. Does that mean to be honest I have to accept that Elves might exist.. Or is it more honest to say their lack evidence/knowledge of elves and so at this time I can not believe their are Elves. "

Yes, it's honest to conclude I cannot believe there are elves. But that's not what the atheist would conclude; atheism would come to the conclusion that elves, in fact, do not exist. Simply not believing elves exist would be part of the agnostic's stance, no conclusion has been made, it's just rejecting a conclusion that has no evidence for it. The other conclusion with no evidence is that elves don't exist, the honest intellectual would admit it is possible, why isn't it? Do you have any evidence that says they cannot exist? So the agnostic would also reject that conclusion because there's no evidence for it, and the atheist would irrationally accept it.

It's as simple as saying you have no evidence for your conclusion that God doesn't exist, so your stance is irrational.
Posted 3/19/10
I feel that an honest atheist simply has no belief in anything spiritual. Agnosticism is a sort of lesser atheism. If you are going to deny the possibility of gods and the afterlife, then come forth with it directly.
353 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23
Offline
Posted 3/19/10
I don't know what a god is, so I just say atheist because I don't like thinking too much.

I wouldn't consider myself agnostic as I don't have a religion that I may or may not believe in.
Posted 3/19/10

OrangeAipom wrote:

I don't know what a god is, so I just say atheist because I don't like thinking too much.

I wouldn't consider myself agnostic as I don't have a religion that I may or may not believe in.
Even that attitude can be dangerous somehow.
353 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23
Offline
Posted 3/19/10

DomFortress wrote:


OrangeAipom wrote:

I don't know what a god is, so I just say atheist because I don't like thinking too much.

I wouldn't consider myself agnostic as I don't have a religion that I may or may not believe in.
Even that attitude can be dangerous somehow.


I'm not sure about what you're implying with the link.
Posted 3/19/10

OrangeAipom wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


OrangeAipom wrote:

I don't know what a god is, so I just say atheist because I don't like thinking too much.

I wouldn't consider myself agnostic as I don't have a religion that I may or may not believe in.
Even that attitude can be dangerous somehow.


I'm not sure about what you're implying with the link.
That's because you don't like thinking too much. Now imagine that trait of yours becomes a trend for the majority because it's so easy and effortless not to think, what kind of world you'll be in?
353 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23
Offline
Posted 3/19/10

DomFortress wrote:


OrangeAipom wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


OrangeAipom wrote:

I don't know what a god is, so I just say atheist because I don't like thinking too much.

I wouldn't consider myself agnostic as I don't have a religion that I may or may not believe in.
Even that attitude can be dangerous somehow.


I'm not sure about what you're implying with the link.
That's because you don't like thinking too much. Now imagine that trait of yours becomes a trend for the majority because it's so easy and effortless not to think, what kind of world you'll be in?


The same one? O_o
Posted 3/19/10

OrangeAipom wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


OrangeAipom wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


OrangeAipom wrote:

I don't know what a god is, so I just say atheist because I don't like thinking too much.

I wouldn't consider myself agnostic as I don't have a religion that I may or may not believe in.
Even that attitude can be dangerous somehow.


I'm not sure about what you're implying with the link.
That's because you don't like thinking too much. Now imagine that trait of yours becomes a trend for the majority because it's so easy and effortless not to think, what kind of world you'll be in?


The same one? O_o
A world that's perpetuated by those that are the blissful ignorance, without knowledge, compassion, nor understanding. Kinda like keep having a lot of you around, until the whole world became too ignorant about that fact.
4463 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / England
Offline
Posted 3/19/10
Athiesm, linguistically speaking, is as the name suggests. The opposite of Thiesm.

Athiesm by general definition is the rejection of thiesm, the doctrine or belief that Deities do not exist.

Agnostic by general definition is someone who claims we do not have enough knowledge to claim that a god exists, but agnostics will not deny that it is a possibility.

Thiesm is the opposite of athiesm, the doctrine or belief that deities do exist.

"weak athiesm" and "strong athiesm" are pointless terms, which mean nothing - You are either Athiest, Agnostic or Thiesm. There is no areas in between. Athiests do not believe, Agnostics say we can not know and Thiests do believe.
353 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23
Offline
Posted 3/19/10

DomFortress wrote:


OrangeAipom wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


OrangeAipom wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


OrangeAipom wrote:

I don't know what a god is, so I just say atheist because I don't like thinking too much.

I wouldn't consider myself agnostic as I don't have a religion that I may or may not believe in.
Even that attitude can be dangerous somehow.


I'm not sure about what you're implying with the link.
That's because you don't like thinking too much. Now imagine that trait of yours becomes a trend for the majority because it's so easy and effortless not to think, what kind of world you'll be in?


The same one? O_o
A world that's perpetuated by those that are the blissful ignorance, without knowledge, compassion, nor understanding. Kinda like keep having a lot of you around, until the whole world became too ignorant about that fact.


But is it different?
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.