religious idiocy

[Greebo]

Bitchboy I'm sorry but you're so far wrong it amazes me - have you any idea how insulting it is that you are cutting out the vast majority of atheists in one sweeping (wrong) statement?

http://forums.about.com/ab-atheism/start
I dare you to take this up there (will need to join for free or look as a guest) - you'll find that not only is weak atheist an accepted form of atheism - you'll find that there's a helluva lot of us.
Also check out their FAQ - might learn a thing or two.

And don't rely on dictionaries for definitions of religious terms especially not ones out of america - likes of Webster and stuff define Atheists as "heathens" - what does that tell of you of their bias?

Tell me folks, what do you call someone who has no belief in any god, if not an atheist - forget the doubt thing - that's an unnecessary complication right now - we'll build this one up slowly.

[Biitchboy]

I don't know why you have to make this complicated.

If you believe in God you are a:
THEIST

If you believe that there is no God:
ATHEIST

If you're not sure or ANYWHERE IN BETWEEN, you are an:
AGNOSTIC

Why do you need a further postion between atheist and agnostic? Yes you may be almost an atheist but have a few lingering doubts, is that what you call a weak atheist? Or is an "agnostic atheist" someone who does not believe that there is a God but who also believes that it is impossible to know? Maybe you just haven't explained it well before.

[hr]
If I gave a shit, you'd be the first person I'd give it to.

[Greebo]

[s]Biitchboy wrote on 02:33, 6th Mar 2003:
I don't know why you have to make this complicated.

Mainly it's because you're wrong and you're saying it's not possible that someone can merely not have any belief in any god?


If you believe in God you are a:
THEIST

Well done!

If you believe that there is no God:
ATHEIST

Yes...but that's not the ONLY type of atheist there is.


If you're not sure or ANYWHERE IN BETWEEN, you are an:
AGNOSTIC

So what you're saying it's it's not possible to be both a theist and agnostic?


Why do you need a further postion between atheist and agnostic?

Because there is a further position perhaps?

Yes you may be almost an atheist but have a few lingering doubts, is that what you call a weak atheist?

Nope - you're trying to get me to say that all atheists actively believe that there is no god - which simply is not the case.

Or is an "agnostic atheist" someone who does not believe that there is a God but who also believes that it is impossible to know? Maybe you just haven't explained it well before.

Does not believe in a god yet acknowledges that there is a possiblity of a god amounts to that.

Are you saying - that I, in saying that I do not actively believe there is no god (as opposed to the more passive not believing in any god), am a liar?

[Biitchboy]

I'm not calling you a liar. I just question your terminology.

[hr]If I gave a shit, you'd be the first person I'd give it to.

[Greebo]

Ok if you're not calling me a liar, then you acknowledge that it is possible to be someone who does not believe in any god, and further are acknowledging that this is different from actively believing there are no gods, correct?

[James]

This is all very subtle:

- "believing that there is no god"
- "not believing in god"

I see what you mean ... the first is a strong atheistic claim that there is no god. The second is awkward to classify, so I see how confusions arise. For me, to classify the second claim would require knowing what further claims were made:

- "I don't believe in god, but there might be one" (or something like that)
- "I don't believe in god, and I think it probable that there isn't one" (or something similar)

Would the Greebo-Bitchboy debate be resolved if the terms were changed into:

- atheistic agnostic

- theistic agnostic

I would certianly prefer these terms, since they make it a bit clearer for me. These terms move the emphasis to being a certain type of agnostic.

I can also see that someone could argue that "atheistic agnostics" and "theistic agnostics" (as I'm calling them) are just kidding themselves, not wishing to make the final step (of faith?) into one or other camp.

[Anon.]

[s]Greebo wrote on 03:21, 6th Mar 2003:
So what you're saying it's it's not possible to be both a theist and agnostic?


Of course! Because it isn't. A theist definitely believes in some sort of a deity, an agnostic is prepared to admit the possibility that no such deity exists. They are two irreconcilable positions.

[Miss Maryland]

Theist come from the greek word root "dios", meaning god.

add "a", meaning "without", to "theist", and you have athiest, meaning literally "without god".

add "a" to "gnostos", greek word meaning "knowing," and you have "agnostic", literally "without knowing".

Etymologically, this is how the words are defined. Sometimes a word that may have a different meaning in the vernacular than its etymological one, but I have never heard of a "weak atheist." Not to say that it is wrong to use it in the vernacular, it is etymologically wrong.


I'm sorry if someone may have already said this, but I didn't feel like reading some of the really long posts.

[Al]

Isn't the Greek word for god "theos"? Hence "theology" etc. And the word for knowing/knowledge is "gnosis". Apart from that, what you say is true.

However, Greebo is also correct - it is perfectly possible to be both a theist and an agnostic. A theist believes in God. An agnostic does not know whether there is or is not a God. It is the difference between believing something to be true and knowing it to be true. As no one can know for certain that God exists, all theists are agnostics. If they are honest....

And by "weak atheist", I think he means someone who, while not personally believing in God, is not prepared to totally dismiss the possibility of God's existence. As opposed to a "strong" or "total atheist" who totally denies the existence of God.

[hr]We are near waking when we dream we are dreaming.

[Greebo]

Ho Hum where to start...might as well take it in order:

James
This is all very subtle

It is extremely subtle - but the difference is there and most atheists will make the distinction between actively believing there is no god and passively just not believing.

I see what you mean ... the first is a strong atheistic claim that there is no god. The second is awkward to classify, so I see how confusions arise. For me, to classify the second claim would require knowing what further claims were made:

- "I don't believe in god, but there might be one" (or something like that)
- "I don't believe in god, and I think it probable that there isn't one" (or something similar)

Hrm...I don't think the 2nd *requires* further claims, though admittedly they usually come with them. Otherwise what would you classify a baby (as mentioned above?) - a baby by default is without theism/god (due to not having such concepts)...aka atheism.

Would the Greebo-Bitchboy debate be resolved if the terms were changed into:

- atheistic agnostic

- theistic agnostic

I would certianly prefer these terms, since they make it a bit clearer for me. These terms move the emphasis to being a certain type of agnostic.

I'll go along with that for the most part - is more or less what I've been saying anyway. However it doesn't totally cover all cases (baby) but I'll let that go for now.

I can also see that someone could argue that "atheistic agnostics" and "theistic agnostics" (as I'm calling them) are just kidding themselves, not wishing to make the final step (of faith?) into one or other camp.

They could argue that....they'd be arseholes for being so condescending but yes they could. And you're right - the final step into either extreme (theism without doubt, atheism without doubt...let's call them strong theism and strong atheism) *does* require some amount of faith - either faith that there is a god or faith that there ain't.
You can't prove it either way though - so I'd be more likely to say that it's the strong elements of both that are on shakey ground.

Anon
Of course! Because it isn't. A theist definitely believes in some sort of a deity, an agnostic is prepared to admit the possibility that no such deity exists. They are two irreconcilable positions.

No they're not - a theist has faith, they actively believe that a god exists right?
Now - they cannot prove the existence of a god (hence why it's called faith), therefore they cannot know for certain whether or not a god exists right?
So if they have faith that a god exists but cannot prove the existence either way - and acknowledge that they cannot prove it, what does that make them?
It makes them a theist who acknowledges that they cannot *know* that a god exists (because they cannot prove it). Now there's a word for the 2nd part of that sentence - Agnostic.
Agnostic theist - easy.

Miss Maryland
Lets solve it with etymology!
Theist come from the greek word root "dios", meaning god.

add "a", meaning "without", to "theist", and you have athiest, meaning literally "without god".

add "a" to "gnostos", greek word meaning "knowing," and you have "agnostic", literally "without knowing".

Well that's what I've been saying (without using greek) atheist means - without god, a passive statement. That's not the same as "believes there is no god" - an active statement.
Same with agnostic - cannot know = without knowing, same thing....

Etymologically, this is how the words are defined. Sometimes a word that may have a different meaning in the vernacular than its etymological one, but I have never heard of a "weak atheist." Not to say that it is wrong to use it in the vernacular, it is etymologically wrong.

Hang on, you were agreeing with me just then - why this?
Why can't someone say they do not believe in (any) god while also saying they acknowledge that it's impossible to know?

Al
And by "weak atheist", I think he means someone who, while not personally believing in God, is not prepared to totally dismiss the possibility of God's existence. As opposed to a "strong" or "total atheist" who totally denies the existence of God.

Woo-hoo!
Someone got it!
*does the happy dance*

[Anon.]

[s]Greebo wrote on 12:10, 6th Mar 2003:
Now - they (theists) cannot prove the existence of a god (hence why it's called faith), therefore they cannot know for certain whether or not a god exists right?


Well... some theists would claim to be personally acquainted with their god, and would thus "know" this god exists. They would still be unable to prove this to anyone else, however.

Bit of a tangential point, but I thought I'd make it anyway.

[Greebo]

[s]Anon. wrote on 13:08, 6th Mar 2003:
Well... some theists would claim to be personally acquainted with their god, and would thus "know" this god exists. They would still be unable to prove this to anyone else, however.


*shrugs* I'd just term them strong theists.

[Biitchboy]

I like the terms of theistic and atheistic agnostics better. That makes sense, it shows what side the agnostic is swinging towards, without breaking the definitions of the categories.

[hr]If I gave a shit, you'd be the first person I'd give it to.

[Anon.]

Same here.

[NicC]

Not surely there's much point in me weighing in here, but what the hell...

Greebo:
Why can't someone say they do not believe in (any) god while also saying they acknowledge that it's impossible to know?

They can. They're called agnostics.

If you say that you can never know for certain, you don't *believe* that there are no gods, you just think there probably aren't. That isn't atheism, any more than believing in god but suspecting you could be disproved isn't theism. If you believe in the existence of god, you by definition *don't* believe in the existence of any proof to the contrary.

"Agnostic atheist" is a contradiction in terms. If you truly *believe* in no god, of course you believe that it's possible to *know* this! You may be unaware of the exact route to this knowledge, but you do believe it is out there. If you don't believe it is possible to obtain absolute knowledge of the non-existence of god, you're an agnostic - YOU AREN'T SURE.

And rejecting the dictionary out of hand is pointless and self-defeating - how else are we to communicate unless we do so from some universally recognised standard of meaning, such as dictionary definitions of the words we are using in our debate.

[hr]"'Our Mrs Peel in Ladies Underwear'. I rattled up the stairs three at a time..."
--Steed, The Avengers

Soldier in the War on the Brain since October 2002

[Al]

Surely it depends upon what one means by the terms "belief" and "knowledge", and how one uses them. They are not synonyms. Believing something is not the same as knowing it. To believe in the existence of God is not to know that God exists. Therefore all people, whether theists, deists, or atheists, are, at least in part, agnostics. The dictionary definition of "atheism" is disbelief in the existence of God". However, that covers a wide spectrum of thought. A personal lack of belief in God ("weak atheism") is quite different from an absolute denial of God both for yourself and others("total/strong atheism").

[hr]We are near waking when we dream we are dreaming.

[Biitchboy]

[s]Al wrote on 18:40, 6th Mar 2003:
Surely it depends upon what one means by the terms "belief" and "knowledge", and how one uses them. They are not synonyms.



No, they're not. But I am an atheist. I believe there is no God. I don't KNOW this for certain: I can't, there is no proof. Thus it is a belief. No athiest knows there is no God, they just believe this to be so. So thus i think your argument is irrelevant.

[hr]
If I gave a shit, you'd be the first person I'd give it to.

[Al]

"So thus i think your argument is irrelevant."

Why? You agreed with what I wrote. And then said that my argument was irrelevant.

It's quite simple. Agnosticism is concerned with knowledge or the lack thereof. Atheism, deism and theism are concerned with belief. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

[hr]We are near waking when we dream we are dreaming.

[NicC]

I'm not saying that knowledge and belief are the same things, but that one tends to presuppose the other - at least where religion is concerned. (I think that's what I'm trying to say, anyway).

Essentially: if you're a theist, you *believe* it is possible to *know* that god exists. If you're an atheist, you believe it is possible to know that *no* god exists. If you're an agnostic, you believe it *may* be possible to know god exists, but equally it may be possible to know that no god exists.

Put another way, for a theist there is no conceivable possibility that god does not exist. He/she/it simply exists, whether or not we can prove it; proof is irrelevant.

(If nothing else, you'll find out when you die, right?)

Does that make sense?

I also disagree with the idea that everyone is basically agnostic; as was pointed out further up this thread, there are people who "know" that their god exists, because they have had personal experience of him/her/it. It might not work as proof for anyone else, but in their terms they know, and are secure in their knowledge.

[hr]"'Our Mrs Peel in Ladies Underwear'. I rattled up the stairs three at a time..."
--Steed, The Avengers

Soldier in the War on the Brain since October 2002

[S.P.I.G]

Bloody Christians, bloody Muslims, bloddy Jews, bloody Hindus, bloody Sikhs, bloody every bloody stupid religion.
Idiots all of them, mentally retarded fools