Atheist vs. Agnostic

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Maybe I'm missing something, but what I'm trying to say is that the "stance" you've assigned to me using YOUR terminology, doesn't seem to adequatly describe my position.

So we have all this thread for you to conclude that, using a kindergarten definition of atheism, you're not an atheist.

Bravo.

Originally posted by Palynka
So we have all this thread for you to conclude that, using a kindergarten definition of atheism, you're not an atheist.

Bravo.

lol

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Maybe I'm missing something, but what I'm trying to say is that the "stance" you've assigned to me using YOUR terminology, doesn't seem to adequatly describe my position.

We'll go back to the beginning then. You claimed "I don't know enough to draw a conclusion" is a valid position. I asked you why, if somebody did not know enough to draw a conclusion, they would change from the implicit stance of atheism to that of an agnostic? We come across a plethera of things we don't have enough to draw a conclusion from everyday, we do not suddenly claim to be agnostic about them, we merely remain in our current stance until such time as we see fit to change it to something else. My question is, why should atheism be any different?

Originally posted by vistesd
Strong agnosticism - This is the silliest of all, to positively assert that we cannot know god or claim that there is an exact 50-50 spilt on credence for or against is either on the grounds of laziness, or triviality. If you're a strong agnostic, then accepting an explicit position of indecision instead of an implicit position of denial is just poor epis it.

____________________________________

With all that said, still a good post, Starr.

I have to say I'm not big on metaphysical skepticism, I lean towards the positivists in thinking that much of such endeavours are a bottomless well. No matter how deep you drop the bucket, you're not going to bring back water.

I shall add Sextus to my list, though it grows too large to fit into one lifetime; perhaps I shall consider believing in reincarnation so as to finish it off in another.

Originally posted by Starrman
We'll go back to the beginning then. You claimed "I don't know enough to draw a conclusion" is a valid position. I asked you why, if somebody did not know enough to draw a conclusion, they would change from the implicit stance of atheism to that of an agnostic? We come across a plethera of things we don't have enough to draw a conclusion from ever ...[text shortened]... e fit to change it to something else. My question is, why should atheism be any different?

I suppose that we can all make up our own definitions for all words, however cumbersome that may be. However, I'm willing to accept the common dictionary definitions. Evidently you are not. If you choose to call something an 'implicit stance of atheism', I suppose you can do so. I can also choose not to recognize whatever authority you may believe you have. I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to comprehend.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I suppose that we can all make up our own definitions for all words, however cumbersome that may be. However, I'm willing to accept the common dictionary definitions. Evidently you are not. If you choose to call something an 'implicit stance of atheism', I suppose you can do so. I can also choose not to recognize whatever authority you may believe you have. I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to comprehend.

What has that got to do with anything? I don't think you understand what I'm saying. When you are born you are not yet a theist, you know nothing of god and it's not until you are able to learn about the concept that you first become aware of theism. At this point, you are an atheist, you are without god. If you decide to explore the notion and realise that you don't have conclusive reasons to believe in god or nay, are you going to be an agnostic all of a sudden? I don't believe this happens, you remain in your previous state, until you find a reason to change.

Originally posted by Starrman
What has that got to do with anything? I don't think you understand what I'm saying. When you are born you are not yet a theist, you know nothing of god and it's not until you are able to learn about the concept that you first become aware of theism. At this point, you are an atheist, you are without god. If you decide to explore the notion and realise ...[text shortened]... believe this happens, you remain in your previous state, until you find a reason to change.

I have a friend who's into the whole quantum gravity malarky.
Anyways, being the intellectual four-eyes he is, he comes up with theories based on assessement and deduction.

He has this theory than theism is genetic.
His reasons for thinking this (he's too busy disproving black holes or something to actually have done any research into the matter though) is that you can't convince an atheist that there's a God and visa versa.

He suggests that like all inherited factors people fall by the way-side, and that one of the two is probably a recessive factor. Meaning you need two to procreate together to form a third. But, that there's a possibility of it skipping generations in the right circumstances.

Obviously I don't have any idiots in my direct family, so It's hard for me to tell...

Originally posted by Starrman
What has that got to do with anything? I don't think you understand what I'm saying. When you are born you are not yet a theist, you know nothing of god and it's not until you are able to learn about the concept that you first become aware of theism. At this point, you are an atheist, you are without god. If you decide to explore the notion and realise ...[text shortened]... believe this happens, you remain in your previous state, until you find a reason to change.

One can use the common dictionary definitions and say that one is born agnostic. That one neither denies nor affirms the existence of God until there are conclusive reasons to do so.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
One can use the common dictionary definitions and say that one is born agnostic. That one neither denies nor affirms the existence of God until there are conclusive reasons to do so.

That's just silly. For every definition there is another which offers a different intention. If you re-read this thread you'll see plenty of disagreement with that dictionary definition. Far better to actually decide what it is that the words really entail.

Originally posted by Starrman
Weak Atheism - The passive view of god's non-existence. It says that since there is no evidence to support god's existence we should put no credence in such a claim. Until evidence comes to light which adds credence, an implicit state of denial regarding god should be held. A weak atheist should, upon presentation of evidence to prove god's existence, move to theism with no complaint.

This is a knife-edge definition that cannot hold for a non-zero measure of atheists as long as absence of evidence is considered as evidence of absence.

Originally posted by Starrman
That's just silly. For every definition there is another which offers a different intention. If you re-read this thread you'll see plenty of disagreement with that dictionary definition. Far better to actually decide what it is that the words really entail.

lol

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol

Great way to have a debate...

Originally posted by Palynka
This is a knife-edge definition that cannot hold for a non-zero measure of atheists as long as absence of evidence is considered as evidence of absence.

I'm not sure I understand, can you elaborate?

Originally posted by Starrman
I'm not sure I understand, can you elaborate?

Do you consider absence of evidence to be evidence of absence?

Sorry to ask you this first, but my point rests heavily on this assumption/premise.

Originally posted by vistesd
The Sextian position of god is that the arguments are equipollent, such that one can neither believe nor refuse to believe, and the question remains in tension. Pyrrhonic skeptics make the claim generally that such metaphysical claims are indeterminable if you look deep enough.

Originally posted by vistesd
This seemed to me to fit the case of strong agnosticism of the second kind.If such an “I don’t know” is best labeled weak atheism, that’s fine with me.

I'm not convinced by that. If one assesses the question directly and cannot come up with either:
1) A belief in God
2) A belief in the absence of God
3) A belief that theists have failed to demonstrate their theistic claims.

Then, surely this person must be an agnostic.

I don't know the philosophical definition of a Bayesian view of belief probability but, if I'm interpreting it correctly, the above described perspective would mean that the probability distribution of those three beliefs is unknown (Edit - Although not necessarily unknowable).