The World without Religion

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
compmage and Schraf:

​

There's an interesting philosophical disagreement between different forms of atheism. From the Internet Infidels discussion boards:

​

"strong atheism" generally refers to the philosophical position "There is/are no god(s)" - an active statement. Since it is essentially a philosophical position (i.e., not necessarily scientific), it doesn't have to conform to scientific logic/epistemology. IOW, in one sense it is a statement of "faith" like any other philosophy.

---

It is exactly because "strong atheism" is a faith based position that I would argue it should not be classed as atheism, which as I have stated before, litterally means without religion/"god belief".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

"weak atheism" generally refers to the position, "There is nothing that leads one to believe in, or requires, the existence of god(s)" - a somewhat less strong statement than the above. This statement leaves a bit of a door open to new evidence, and is probably closer to being consistent with a "pure rationalist" worldview.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

There is a substantial quantitative/qualitative difference between strong and weak, here. Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all gods. Others limit their atheism to specific gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making general denials.

---

I would say that without hearing the god claim it is impossible to sit in judgement. If i do not know what your possition is, how can I tell if you are right or wrong?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

"agnostic" generally refers to what schraf described, "There is no way to answer the question" (strict agnostic), or alternatively, "The evidence is inconclusive one way or the other" (empirical agnostic). Agnostic and weak atheist are often confused - in fact there may some overlap between weak atheism and empirical agnosticism.

---

Both of these I would call atheists as they do not have a "god belief". However, I have heard of agnostics that say, "There is a God, I'm just not sure of his/her/its nature". This I would class as a form of theism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

In other words, it is safe to generalize that atheism is characterized by a "lack of belief", but there are shadings and gradations in the way people apply (or how strongly they state) the disbelief. Dawkins is a strong (and quite vocal) atheist. Gould was what I would characterize as a weak atheist. Futuyma is probably agnostic (of the second type). Huxley was a strict agnostic (first type), etc.

---

I would have to take your word on this as I have no idea what these people believe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

The key point here is that the philosophical stance "atheist" is a generic term covering a wide divergeance of beliefs, opinions, and worldviews. I think it would be a fallacy of the "no true Scotsman" kind to claim that people who state "God does not exist" are not atheists. And vice-versa, of course.

---

Is my definition of atheism then incorrect? Does it not litterally mean to be without belief?------------------
compmage

[QUOTE][B]I have heard of agnostics that say, "There is a God, I'm just not sure of his/her/its nature".[/QUOTE][/B]Wouldn't that be Deism?

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

Wouldn't that be Deism?

---

"One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason."
- http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htmAccoring to this definition it would be.------------------
compmage

quote:

---

Originally posted by compmage:

​

Q: "strong atheism" generally refers to the philosophical position "There is/are no god(s)" - an active statement. Since it is essentially a philosophical position (i.e., not necessarily scientific), it doesn't have to conform to scientific logic/epistemology. IOW, in one sense it is a statement of "faith" like any other philosophy.

​

C: It is exactly because "strong atheism" is a faith based position that I would argue it should not be classed as atheism, which as I have stated before, litterally means without religion/"god belief".

---

I don't disagree with your dictionary definition. I merely wanted to point out that the issue is not black and white - as with many philosophies, there is no one answer. You might want to check out the Internet Infidels library - it contains quite a number of very good essays on atheism. In the meantime, how would you classify the strong atheist position, if it isn't atheism?

quote:

---

Q: "weak atheism" generally refers to the position, "There is nothing that leads one to believe in, or requires, the existence of god(s)" - a somewhat less strong statement than the above. This statement leaves a bit of a door open to new evidence, and is probably closer to being consistent with a "pure rationalist" worldview.

​

C: Agreed.

---

I would guess this is your stance? Or at least you're leaning towards it? It makes logical sense from a scientific point of view, although the various agnostics probably have just as good a claim to scientific validity.

quote:

---

Q: There is a substantial quantitative/qualitative difference between strong and weak, here. Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all gods. Others limit their atheism to specific gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making general denials.

​

C: I would say that without hearing the god claim it is impossible to sit in judgement. If i do not know what your possition is, how can I tell if you are right or wrong?

---

I would disagree. I don't feel the issue is one of "right" or "wrong" in the sense I think you mean it. The bottom line is: there is either evidence for the existence of god(s) or other supernatural beings, or there isn't. The skeptics, even the strong atheist, demand that believers provide compelling evidence for even considering the claim as valid. The theist (and deist/pantheist, for that matter) merely takes the existence on faith, then argues the details.

quote:

---

Q: "agnostic" generally refers to what schraf described, "There is no way to answer the question" (strict agnostic), or alternatively, "The evidence is inconclusive one way or the other" (empirical agnostic). Agnostic and weak atheist are often confused - in fact there may some overlap between weak atheism and empirical agnosticism.

​

C: Both of these I would call atheists as they do not have a "god belief". However, I have heard of agnostics that say, "There is a God, I'm just not sure of his/her/its nature". This I would class as a form of theism.

---

Or deism, as gene pointed out. However you personally wish to describe the agnostic philosophy, it really boils down to "I don't know". (A friend of mine calls himself a "militant agnostic" - "I don't know, AND YOU DON'T EITHER!!" )

quote:

---

Q: The key point here is that the philosophical stance "atheist" is a generic term covering a wide divergeance of beliefs, opinions, and worldviews. I think it would be a fallacy of the "no true Scotsman" kind to claim that people who state "God does not exist" are not atheists. And vice-versa, of course.

​

C: Is my definition of atheism then incorrect? Does it not litterally mean to be without belief?

---

Literally, of course you're correct. I think you're guilty of over-reduction, but that's just my opinion. When describing philosophies rather than science or scientific, empirical facts, usually dictionary definitions are generalizations or represent "most common usage". I think if you speak to the advocates of a particular philosophy - especially one as nebulous as atheism - you'll find that the subject is a whole lot more complicated than first appears if you only look at a definition.So no, you're not wrong in describing atheism as "without a belief in god(s)". However, you may be oversimplifying. "Without a belief" can mean active disbelief, or suspension of judgement, or simply uncertainty before the evidence is in.Just out of curiousity, why are you so adamant that all atheists can only be called atheist if they strictly adhere to your definition?[edited to fix link][This message has been edited by Quetzal, 09-05-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

I don't disagree with your dictionary definition. I merely wanted to point out that the issue is not black and white - as with many philosophies, there is no one answer. You might want to check out the Internet Infidels library - it contains quite a number of very good essays on atheism. In the meantime, how would you classify the strong atheist position, if it isn't atheism?

---

I don't think there is a word that would accurately represent their position.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

I would guess this is your stance? Or at least you're leaning towards it? It makes logical sense from a scientific point of view, although the various agnostics probably have just as good a claim to scientific validity.

---

As I stated earlier, with the definition I use, agnostics could rightly be called atheists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

I would disagree. I don't feel the issue is one of "right" or "wrong" in the sense I think you mean it. The bottom line is: there is either evidence for the existence of god(s) or other supernatural beings, or there isn't. The skeptics, even the strong atheist, demand that believers provide compelling evidence for even considering the claim as valid. The theist (and deist/pantheist, for that matter) merely takes the existence on faith, then argues the details.

---

I think you misunderstood what I ment by right and wrong. What I maybe should have said is either right as in "has merrit" or "supported by the evidence", wrong would then be "without merrit" or "unsupported by evidence".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

Literally, of course you're correct. I think you're guilty of over-reduction, but that's just my opinion. When describing philosophies rather than science or scientific, empirical facts, usually dictionary definitions are generalizations or represent "most common usage". I think if you speak to the advocates of a particular philosophy - especially one as nebulous as atheism - you'll find that the subject is a whole lot more complicated than first appears if you only look at a definition.

---

I agree that philosophies are complex. However, I don't see how not having a philosophy when it comes to God would qualify as a philosophy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

So no, you're not wrong in describing atheism as "without a belief in god(s)". However, you may be oversimplifying. "Without a belief" can mean active disbelief, or suspension of judgement, or simply uncertainty before the evidence is in.

---

Depends on what you mean by disbelief. I would agree with the other two though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

Just out of curiousity, why are you so adamant that all atheists can only be called atheist if they strictly adhere to your definition?

---

I think it is because I am tierd of people telling me what I believe. Christians especially insist that because I am an atheist I obviously belief that God does not exist. I should perhaps take a closer look at agnosticism instead of trying to force the world into a using the literal meaning of atheist?------------------
compmage

Okay, I think I see where you're coming from. Nothing here to really argue about from my POV. My opinion's a bit different than yours, is all.As to the last question, my only suggestion would be to at least take a look at the link I provided. If you're feeling ambitious, the Infidels site has a good BB discussion board as well, with a lot of topics and fora related to your question. You can get just about any POV on that site, but the discussions are usually pretty informative, whether you agree with them or not (just like here, btw, but with a broader focus).I agree with you - it's really irritating when anyone tries to tell me what I believe. I always felt that lumping people into categories or trying to pigeon-hole them was a logical fallacy - especially when you're talking philosophy (or politics, or...). Christians do seem to do it a lot (it's the old "you are wrong therefore I am right" false dichotomy thing at heart, just like their "evolution is wrong therefore creationism is right"), but all in all it's a quintessentially human trait. Maybe it was the Fall...

Hi Quetzal and Compmage,
Interesting discussion. I had not really put much thought about the differences in defining atheist and agnostic. I think the terms are somewhat confining as I would have called myself an atheist but leaining more towards Quetzal's soft atheism definition which overlaps with Compmage's agnosticism. On the other hand, Christian is a word that does not immediately suggest the exact beliefs of a person who labels themself as such i.e. protestant, catholic etc. have different worldviews.I think for practical reasons most of us define our positions using colloquial terms, at least on the forum. But it is interesting that in my short experience here on this site, when I say I am an atheist, I occassionally find that some individuals make huge assumptions about what I believe and then consistently proceed to tell me what I believe (Free for All forum comes to mind). I guess the short of it is, it is difficult to represent a personal philosophy in a word, but often the words chosen are loaded.cheers,
Mammuthus

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
Okay, I think I see where you're coming from. Nothing here to really argue about from my POV. My opinion's a bit different than yours, is all.

​

As to the last question, my only suggestion would be to at least take a look at the link I provided. If you're feeling ambitious, the Infidels site has a good BB discussion board as well, with a lot of topics and fora related to your question. You can get just about any POV on that site, but the discussions are usually pretty informative, whether you agree with them or not (just like here, btw, but with a broader focus).

​

I agree with you - it's really irritating when anyone tries to tell me what I believe. I always felt that lumping people into categories or trying to pigeon-hole them was a logical fallacy - especially when you're talking philosophy (or politics, or...). Christians do seem to do it a lot (it's the old "you are wrong therefore I am right" false dichotomy thing at heart, just like their "evolution is wrong therefore creationism is right"), but all in all it's a quintessentially human trait. Maybe it was the Fall...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
Hi Quetzal and Compmage,
Interesting discussion. I had not really put much thought about the differences in defining atheist and agnostic. I think the terms are somewhat confining as I would have called myself an atheist but leaining more towards Quetzal's soft atheism definition which overlaps with Compmage's agnosticism. On the other hand, Christian is a word that does not immediately suggest the exact beliefs of a person who labels themself as such i.e. protestant, catholic etc. have different worldviews.

---

Yepper. And Islam encompasses shi'a, sunni and a dozen sub-groupings under each. Let's not forget the Druze (even Islam has heretics), Ba'hai (another heresy), etc etc etc. I think it's a mistake - which we all make - to try and stuff someone into a generic or stereotyped mold and expect people to conform to a popular understanding of what that mold is supposed to be. Especially if the attempt is based on really broad categories like "Christian", "atheist", etc.

quote:

---

I think for practical reasons most of us define our positions using colloquial terms, at least on the forum. But it is interesting that in my short experience here on this site, when I say I am an atheist, I occassionally find that some individuals make huge assumptions about what I believe and then consistently proceed to tell me what I believe (Free for All forum comes to mind). I guess the short of it is, it is difficult to represent a personal philosophy in a word, but often the words chosen are loaded.

---

And therein lies the rub, as it were. We often toss off rubriks because it's simply easier than asking the question in the first place. OTOH, to argue with a YEC, for instance, it isn't often necessary to get all of the particular idiosyncratic details of the person's viewpoint. There are a fair number of common elements you can count on to be consistent. However, when you run into someone like TC from this forum even that can break down.Also, there aren't too many people that fit tightly into a given stereotype. Me, for instance. I tend to migrate between weak (in the form of "the existence of a deity or deities is unnecessary to explain the natural world") and strong (when my back's put up by some fundy - "your hell/sin doesn't scare me 'cause neither it nor the putative deity exist") atheism depending on context. So I'm not eternally (or internally) consistent - sue me.I generally just let people make up their own minds concerning my worldview based on my posts. I don't think it really matters for my arguments. I do make an effort (not always successfully) to return the favor. (This can also be kind of fun when you have the opportunity to regretfully inform someone frothing at the mouth about your supposed worldview that, no, that simply isn't the case. Nothing like putting your debate opponent on the defensive because they're starting out with erroneous assumptions.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
Okay, I think I see where you're coming from. Nothing here to really argue about from my POV. My opinion's a bit different than yours, is all.

---

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and this would be a very boring existance if everyone always agreed with each other.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

As to the last question, my only suggestion would be to at least take a look at the link I provided. If you're feeling ambitious, the Infidels site has a good BB discussion board as well, with a lot of topics and fora related to your question. You can get just about any POV on that site, but the discussions are usually pretty informative, whether you agree with them or not (just like here, btw, but with a broader focus).

---

I am working my way threw their articles at the moment. I have also registered to take part on the forum. It appear far more active than I am used too, I just hope that I have time to follow it closely.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

I agree with you - it's really irritating when anyone tries to tell me what I believe. I always felt that lumping people into categories or trying to pigeon-hole them was a logical fallacy - especially when you're talking philosophy (or politics, or...). Christians do seem to do it a lot (it's the old "you are wrong therefore I am right" false dichotomy thing at heart, just like their "evolution is wrong therefore creationism is right"), but all in all it's a quintessentially human trait. Maybe it was the Fall...

---

It is a trait that I am not fond off. I prefer things organised and clear cut. The world is not very accomodating.------------------
compmage

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
Hi Quetzal and Compmage,
Interesting discussion. I had not really put much thought about the differences in defining atheist and agnostic. I think the terms are somewhat confining as I would have called myself an atheist but leaining more towards Quetzal's soft atheism definition which overlaps with Compmage's agnosticism. On the other hand, Christian is a word that does not immediately suggest the exact beliefs of a person who labels themself as such i.e. protestant, catholic etc. have different worldviews.

---

I am trying to get into the habbit of asking a person about their belief before agruing against what I think it is (having fallen into this trap before). However, it is sometimes very difficult, especially with people who have not fully considered the consequences on their belief.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

I think for practical reasons most of us define our positions using colloquial terms, at least on the forum. But it is interesting that in my short experience here on this site, when I say I am an atheist, I occassionally find that some individuals make huge assumptions about what I believe and then consistently proceed to tell me what I believe (Free for All forum comes to mind). I guess the short of it is, it is difficult to represent a personal philosophy in a word, but often the words chosen are loaded.

---

Often I find that I lack the ability to fully explain my thoughts. I was never very good at languages, especially in the written form. I am of the opinion that I am not alone in this. This is maybe where a large part of the problem lies?------------------
compmage

Seems to me like an anti-conclusion vs. a conclusion ... i.e.,No conclusions may be drawn via your agnostic (albeit empirical) scheme.

From a practical standpoint, to be agnostic is to act as though God did not exist. Atheism seems to me dogmatic. There is no proof that God does not exist. Of course, there's also none that he does. Agnosticism is not a "cop-out." It's the most reasonable position to take.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robinrohan:
From a practical standpoint, to be agnostic is to act as though God did not exist. Atheism seems to me dogmatic. There is no proof that God does not exist. Of course, there's also none that he does. Agnosticism is not a "cop-out." It's the most reasonable position to take.

---

I don't think any atheist would say they could prove that God did not exist - he's a slippery customer by definition - I personally find the concept quite absurd. To be agnostic about it to me is like being agnostic about Santa Claus, the Jolly Green Giant or the Munchkins.PE------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
I don't think any atheist would say they could prove that God did not exist - he's a slippery customer by definition - I personally find the concept quite absurd. To be agnostic about it to me is like being agnostic about Santa Claus, the Jolly Green Giant or the Munchkins.PE[/B][/QUOTE]the only real problem here comes about when something like an actual debate takes place between an atheist and a theist... we've all seen, heard, or taken part in those... i think the theist is warranted in asking the atheist for proofs for her beliefs... see, if a person says "God does not exist" then that person is making a truth claim, the same as the person who says, "God exists"... an atheist making a truth claim should be held to the same standards the theist is held to...this is why a lot of people have stopped saying they're atheist (in the strong sense from above)... they'd rather shift the burden of proof to the theist while not being forced to support their beliefs, their truth claims

[QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
I don't think any atheist would say they could prove that God did not exist - he's a slippery customer by definition - I personally find the concept quite absurd. To be agnostic about it to me is like being agnostic about Santa Claus, the Jolly Green Giant or the Munchkins.PE[/B][/QUOTE]the only real problem here comes about when something like an actual debate takes place between an atheist and a theist... we've all seen, heard, or taken part in those... i think the theist is warranted in asking the atheist for proofs for her beliefs... see, if a person says "God does not exist" then that person is making a truth claim, the same as the person who says, "God exists"... an atheist making a truth claim should be held to the same standards the theist is held to...this is why a lot of people have stopped saying they're atheist (in the strong sense from above)... they'd rather shift the burden of proof to the theist while not being forced to support their beliefs, their truth claims[/B][/QUOTE]Unfortunately for atheists, its impossible to disprove a negative - thats why I resort to comparisons with fictional characters...its more like demonstrating my viewpoint by puuting forward a logically identical argument which looks absurd (logically even if I could prove SC didn't exist (which I can't) this would not then mean that God didn't exist). It is true to say that I "know" God doesn't exist in the same way that I "know" Santa Claus doesn't exist but my thought processes have arrived at this due to a lack of positive evidence rather than some affirmative negative evidence.Just to clarify - strictly speaking an atheist is one who lacks a God belief. You can therefore have atheistic agnostics (don't know if there is a God, therefore lack a God belief) and theistic agnostics (think God(s) exist(s) but is(are) essentially unknowable).Weak atheism is simply not having a God belief.
Strong atheism is believing that God is a falsehood.I'd say I oscillate between weak and strong. I can't prove that God doesn't exist, no. But then I can't prove that Santa doesn't exist either.Now if we were to agree on the premise that the Invisible Pink Unicorn didn't exist, I could probably fashion an argument....PEedited typos
------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 11-24-2002]