Does Atheism = No beliefs?

ringo writes: You insist that I am an atheist.

If you don't believe in god(s), then you're an atheist. It's very simple.

quote:

---

You seem to want me on your side even though you think I'm dumb.

---

Couple of points, I don't care which side you're on and you're not dumb, you just regularly say dumb things purely for arguments sake.

quote:

---

You're an evangelical atheist.

---

Maybe. So?

Atheism and agnosticism are different things. They are not different positions on a scale.

Atheism has to do with belief.
Agnosticism has to do with knowledge.

Gnostic Theist - Knows and believes there is a god
Agnostic Theist - Concedes has no knowledge there is a god but believes there is

Gnostic Atheist - Knows there is no god and does not believe either
Agnostic Atheist - Concedes has no knowledge there is no god, but has no belief or reason to believe there is.

They only rational choices are the agnostic ones. It is impossible to know something with no evidence to back up that knowledge.

Atheism has to do with belief. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge. Gnostic Theist - Knows and believes there is a god Agnostic Theist - Concedes has no knowledge there is a god but believes there is Gnostic Atheist - Knows there is no god and does not believe either Agnostic Atheist - Concedes has no knowledge there is no god, but has no belief or reason to believe there is.

Good summation. And this is what I usually try to convey (with limited success) when I have these discussions with religious folks.

Sometimes, the concepts of 'Strong Atheism' and 'Weak Atheism' have also been used in the past, but I have never been a fan of these as they are too vague and open to interpretation.

quote:

---

An evangelical atheist is an atheist who is not content merely with his own lack of faith but is also obsessed with (i) censoring expressions of faith by others and (ii) attempting to sow disbelief in others around him.

---

Thats evil.

You don't strike me as quite that mean, however..Tangle.

After all, what harm can believers cause that would inspire us to try and make fewer of them?

Phat writes: After all, what harm can believers cause that would inspire us to try and make fewer of them?

"True Believers", those who are sure of their beliefs should always be feared. Whether they are "True Believers" in some religion, a political party, a social system or convention, an economic policy, a nation or race, they need to be seen as a potential threat.

Do you mean those people who are so sure of their "answers" that they dare not question them? If so I agree that asking questions is always a good trait.

Phat writes: Do you mean those people who are so sure of their "answers" that they dare not question them? If so I agree that asking questions is always a good trait.

I mean those who are so sure of their answers that there is no need to question them.

I don't understand how that has anything to do with what we're talking about.

Tangle writes: If you don't believe in god(s), then you're an atheist. It's very simple.

And if you don't know, you're agnostic. Equally simple.

If you don't know whether you believe or not, it becomes less simple. Am I an atheist or a deist? I don't know.

Is there such a thing as an adeist in your pantheon of stances?

Tangle writes: ... you just regularly say dumb things purely for arguments sake.

Well, if you can't address the dumb arguments - which you regularly can't - how are you going to address the smart ones?

That explains your problem.

Phat writes: "An evangelical Christian is an Christian who is not content merely with his own faith but is also obsessed with (i) censoring expressions of diferent faith by others and (ii) attempting to sow belief in others around him." Thats evil.

That's the Christian message isn't it?

You don't strike me as quite that mean, however..Tangle.

I don't think it's either evil or mean - but it isn't me. This place is pretty much the only place I discuss this stuff - nobody else cares much where I come from. So if I am, we all are.

After all, what harm can believers cause that would inspire us to try and make fewer of them?

Where do I start.......?

But you were the one who was completely wrong about what I was thinking. So it's your problem not mine.

And apparently you can't even explain how you got there. So that's two problems.

ringo writes: And if you don't know, you're agnostic. Equally simple.

Wrong, but I'm not starting that again here.

Tangle writes: ringo writes: And if you don't know, you're agnostic. Equally simple. Wrong, but I'm not starting that again here.

Feel free to run away when you can't refute the obvious.

Theodoric writes: Gnostic Atheist - Knows there is no god and does not believe either Agnostic Atheist - Concedes has no knowledge there is no god, but has no belief or reason to believe there is. They only rational choices are the agnostic ones. It is impossible to know something with no evidence to back up that knowledge.

This doesn't seem right to me.

If it's not rational to say you "know there is no god..." is it ever rational to say you "know there is no Santa Claus...?"

If we have reports on where something should be, how it should act... and we check those places and the consequences we should find, and nothing is ever found... over and over and over...
When does it become rational to say you know the thing doesn't exist?

"Never." Seems a bit too far fetched, to me.

Rewording the issue another way:
Is it possible to rationally say you know something... and then be proven wrong by additional information obtained at some point in the future?

Does "knowledge" imply "absolute perfection?"