Agnosticism vs. Atheism

holly, But surely an atheist makes the same claims without evidence as a religious person does? A theist says God exists without evidence, an atheist the opposite. Surely the logically correct stance is to say, there is no evidence of God, but it can't be ruled out, ie what an agnostic says?Of course, it depends how you define terms, but I'm using the standard; theist believes in God; atheist believes there is no God; agnsostic refuses to confirm or deny God without evidence. This means that agnosticism isn't watered down, it is logically correct. An atheist advocates as much as a theist.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

PaulK, I agree, but atheists by definition deny the existence of God, this is 100% denial, there is no tentativity involved. If there were, they would be agnostics, not atheists.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Crashfrog, The existence of something has nothing to do with your choice, it exists or it doesn't. So why are you making a choice that is logically impossible to make? Wouldn't it be correct simply not to make it & leave the issue open?If there were a sliding scale with absolute theism at one end, & absolute atheism at the other, I would be 99.99% recurring at the atheist end. The reason I couldn't be at the 100% position is because it is unknowable, & unknowable doesn't mean wrong. It is a common misconception that agnosticism is at the 50% position.I have defined my terms, this thread is about agnosticism & atheism, I find your position not a little bit odd when you claim everything is agnostic, yet you are an atheist? Like I said to PaulK, atheism is the assertion that there is/are no God(s), there is no recognised limitation in that statement that would make it agnostic. If you are saying there is, then you've pretty much defined atheism out of existence. Atheism = agnosticism.You seem amenable to the concept of agnosticism, that the existence of God, or not, is unknowable, sooooo.... How can I take up a position on something that is unknowable without it being an arbitrary decision? I may as well flip a coin. Making decisions sans evidence is not good practice, there is no evidence whereby you could even make a decision based upon probability. The assertion that God doesn't exist is an argument from ignorance, I charge creationists with making logical flaws all the time, I would be a hypocrite if I started making them myself.The best that can be said, is that there is no evidence for or against the existence of a God or Gods, so it is a moot point. Continue your life as if there isn't a deity. You are not compelled to accept the existence of anything without evidence, so don't start now. The burden of proof is on theists to show that there is a God, not on the rest of us to disprove it.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

compmage, Using this definition I'm an atheist, so why are there so many people telling me I'm sitting on the fence?Mark

Crashfrog, So you know God can't exist? Please tell me how you came to this logically unequivocal conclusion? You're beginning to sound like a creationist! That is not logical, captain. How can new evidence come to light for something you have agreed is unknowable? WE appear to agree that there is no evidence that would falsify God, so why adopt a position where God has been falsified when he hasn't?It can't be sane to reject the notion of Gods before you have evidence to do so, surely? It is by definition more sane to ignore the question of the existence of God/s until evidence comes to light. If we are associating logic & sanity, that is. I'm sorry, Crash, but you are sounding like an out and out rejecter of the notion of God, rather than one who is agnostic on the subject. Why else would you tell me I have to make a choice?You can't assume a position that God definately doesn't exist, & still claim agnosticism. No, I am making a logically required demand to someone who rejects God/s out of hand. Provide evidence for your assertion. Making a claim of non existence based upon no evidence is logically flawed; argument from ignorance. I'm not going to get into arguing about definitions, there are two positions that are under scrutiny; the absolute rejection of the notion of Gods; & the notion that such rejection is tentative, based upon lack of evidence. I put it to you that the absolutist position isn't evidentially supported, & is logically flawed. You see my confusion? One the one hand you are arguing with me telling me you agree with me, on the other I am too afraid to make a choice! You can only have one position on this, not both (well, three, if you are a theist).This is my position; there is no evidence of the existence or non-existence of Gods, therefore the entire notion is an irrelevant non-sequitur, there is no decision to be made, in the same way I don't have to say yay or nay to the potential existence of a chocolate asteroid orbiting Betelgeuse.Why is this such a headache for you?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

compmage,We seem to be in agreement.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

PaulK, Fine by me, it is the class of atheist that reject any possibility that my argument is with.And the definition I use is irrelevant, I have defined my terms & been perfectly clear as to exactly what my objection was to.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-21-2003]

Crashfrog, I have been perfectly clear as to what my objection was, I have gone to the trouble of defining terms just so that this sort of misunderstanding wouldn't occur. My objection to a certain group of atheists (using your definition, since no one is taking notice of anything I write) is that they reject outright any notion of God based on lack of evidence. I have pointed out that this is logically flawed.Hence: Which is precisely why it is such a stupid position for these people to place themselves in. Bad analogy. I have knowledge of monkeys & their habitat of choice, I also have a working knowledge of your "nethers" (deny it, Big Boy!), I have no knowledge of God, however, with which to come to a likelihood based conclusion. False. This gets more & more like arguing with a creationist. Does this sound familiar - "Because there are no intermediates between fossil taxa X & Y, therefore I KNOW that there aren't?" You, nor they, don't know anything of the kind, they, & you, just lack evidence. The non-existence of God is unknown.I'll state it again, it is logically flawed to make an untentative statement that God doesn't exist. It is similarly impossible to arrive at a conclusion based on likelihood or probability. We have NO positive evidence on which to base such a study, unlike the behaviour of anthropoids as they pertain to your bottom .If you hold that your position is tentative, (which I think you do), then we, at least, are in agreement.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

PaulK, But it isn't, I have made it abundantly clear that it is the 100%, untentaive rejection of God that that is my beef. These agnostic/atheist debates always go down the same route because no one defines their terms, & even when they do, it seems.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Crashfrog, I have friends who take this position, & who define themselves as atheists the way I began this thread.But a quick trip & a skip over to Agosticism/Atheism.... Gnostic Atheism: disbelief in gods while being certain that none (can or do) exist.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-21-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 09-21-2003]

That was rather the point.Mark

Paul,Irrelevant, I stated what was atheist & agnostic for the purposes of my post. I wasn't aware I had to make a disclaimer.Mark

Hi Crash, But they don't necessarily believe the same thing.If atheism (& I am now using a more mainstream definition for any future posts) is the absence of belief in God, & agnosticism is the belief that we can't know for sure of the existence of Gods. This basically makes agnostic a subset of atheism, but it doesn't = atheism. Why? Because the so called gnostic atheists deny the existence & possibility of God. So, a better descriptor of me is agnostic. Perhaps atheist agnostic would be a better descriptor, since it defines my genus & species, if you will? Gnostic atheism does take as much faith as believing in God. Not really, but perhaps now we are using yours & PaulK's definition you can see why I take dim view of atheists telling me I'm not an agnostic.What Is the Definition of Weak Atheism?

quote:

---

The truth is that the broad definition of atheism is most accurate. Some atheists go on to deny the existence of some or all gods, but not all do, and by no means is this a necessary step to be considered an atheist. This is fully attested in comprehensive, unabridged dictionaries and it is how atheists in the West have been using the term for a couple hundred years.

​

The superiority of the broad over the narrow definition can be found in the fact that it simply allows us to describe a wider range of positions. For those who insist on the narrow definition, there are three basic positions:

​

Theism: belief in (my) God.

​

Agnosticism: don't know if any gods exist.

​

Atheism: denial of (my) God.

​

Once we introduce the broad definition and recognize that agnosticism is about knowledge rather than belief (a related, but separate issue), we find that there are now four categories available:

​

Agnostic Theism: belief in a god without claiming to know for sure that the god exists.

​

Gnostic Theism: belief in a god while being certain that this god exists.

​

Agnostic Atheism: disbelief in gods without claiming to know for sure that none exist.

​

Gnostic Atheism: disbelief in gods while being certain that none (can or do) exist.

---

I confess I was using the former definition which it now seems apparent is used by theists to undermine atheism. I actually prefer it, since it means I don't get lumped together with people who are actually as much opposed to my view as theists, but since it's just definition, & since neither of us are Syamsu, who argues by definition, I'll go with the mainstream.But my actual objection stands, gnostic atheism is faith & not evidence based. Do you think this is a superior view? There is no tentativity allowed in this view. Atheists don't all think the same thing, I would fall into the agnostic atheist category, you?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

PaulK, Having gone back & read the post, you're right, I should have been clearer.HOWEVER! Whether you accept my original definition of atheist as absolute rejection of God, or the more mainstream gnostic atheist definion which asserts the same, my complaint is levelled at exactly the same people. I am not playing definitional gamesMark

Mr Jack, How do you propose to come by the knowledge that God doesn't exist?Most agnostics & atheists, like myself, propose that the scientific method is the best way of getting closer to the "truth". But like intelligent design, if you can't propose a testable hypothesis, & that means positive evidence, the hypothesis that God doesn't exist isn't worth a bean.I'm sorry you feel my inability to uphold a theory that is an untestable argument from ignorance is a position of intellectual cowardice, but from where I'm standing, it's the only possible logical position I can place myself in.Interestingly, you put yourself in exactly the same position of an Intellectual Design-ist. They don't have a testable, falsifiable theory, either, yet they maintain their position sans evidence, too! If that's not faith, what is? Gnostic atheism is, if you can't answer the question above.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-22-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 09-22-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 09-22-2003]