By your definition, if I am fairly sure there is no God but I have doubts and think there might be a god, am I Agnostic or Atheist. I still lean toward defining myself as an Agnostic. But maybe to some, I am an Atheist.
Of course I do not rule out the existence of Ghosts, Elves, Fairies, Santa Claus or Gods, I just find them very improbable.
Jim
I’ve always thought that a ‘strong’ atheist is someone who wouldn’t believe ever if 100% irrefutable proof where shown that god/s exist.
I myself would say I’m a weak atheist but if say, Mary appeared to me and others as part of a group experience. I’d still take a lot of convincing she wasn’t a work of an illusionist or a more intelligent being i.e. alien, before I’d go with the paranormal explanation. I could get there though I think.
I tend to call myself an agnostic apathetic (I don’t know and I don’t care), but have no idea if that’s right or not.
Great summation, that is it exactly, I do not believe it is possible to know for sure whether God exists. I just add the kicker that I have strong doubts about Gods existance.
Thank you very much for that definition,
Jim
I think the taxonomy of belief could be expressed most simply like this"
Theist: “God exists!”
Strong Atheist: “God does NOT exist!”
Weak Atheist: “I don’t know if God exists.”
Agnostic: It isn’t POSSIBLE to know if God exists."
Bucknerist: It isn’t possible to know if it’s possible to know if God exists.
There is actually a word for a person who is completely indifferent to the question – an “ignostic” (I’ve also seen the word “apatheist” more than once but I think that might be more of an internet neoligism than an academic philosophical term).
Agnostic is unfortunately, for many, the catchall for pretty much everything that isn’t strong atheism. But trying to use it that way means there’s no word for people who fell an intangible something, but aren’t sure what to attach that to of existing religions. So I generally try to push it that way.
I would define your case as agnostic, personally. To do the Santa test, “I am fairly sure that Santa Claus doesn’t exist, but I still doubt and think he may.” Since that sounds absurd, you’re an agnostic.
Eh, I get a little annoyed by the semantic quibbling about “strong” and “weak” atheism. While it may seem like a large logical difference, the reality is that there really isn’t that much real difference.
Are you a strong or weak a-SantaClausist? I don’t believe in Santa Claus, and I believe that Santa Claus doesn’t exist. Anyone want to claim that strong aclausism is logically insupportable? Or that it requires some leap of faith that weak aclausism doesn’t?
So I’m an atheist for the same reason that I’m an aclausist. I’m a strong atheist in the same sense that I’m a strong aclausist. If you want to claim that only a madman with delusions of omniscience would claim to be a strong aclausist, well, I don’t know how to respond to that.
There’s the satirical Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic for “ignostics”, I suppose. “I don’t know, and I don’t care” increasingly fits my mindset, and always has to some degree, I think. Of course, I’m rather forced to care on occasion by external influences beyond my control, but had I my druthers, I’d be done with the subject of my own beliefs or lack thereof.
I didn’t make up the distinction. I think strong atheism sounds stupid as well, but I do have to admit that there probably is some person out there in the world who “denies” the existance of God (or others.) He probably is a delusional madman, but that doesn’t mean he can’t have his own word.
I think the belief in god is silly. It is evidence of effective programming. Atheists recieve the programming too. Do believers ever doubt? Do they watch the tv evangalists and laugh at the silliness they offer?
Ok, good enough.
Ok.
As Mace points out, this statement assumes that there is such a thing. No one knows if there is or not. Asserting that there is is a faith-based belief, not an “understanding.”
You’re wrong. It requires precisely no thought at all: not a second of thought is necessary to be an atheist, nor a jot of conviction, nor even the ability to think at all. Some atheists, myself included, have given a lot of thought to the claims made by theists about how there is this God thing we should consider. However, we are not obligated to give the matter any consideration at all: it isn’t important to think about just because YOU say it is. And while we have given the arguments of theists plenty of thought, we find them fundamentally unconvincing. That is all.
Ok.
Very few atheists really knowingly positively assert this idea. The vast majority, myself included, do not believe because we think the arguments FOR god are lousy, and because we have no inclination to believe.
Without the above, not believing takes no effort at all.
Well, I hope you understand why you are 100% wrong here. Not having faith is not a type of faith, just like not having an apple is not a type of apple. You are arrogantly assuming that your beliefs are SOOOOOO important that we must run around all day trying not to believe in them. But that’s not so. I’ve from time to time looked at your beliefs, and I find in them little worth my further consideration. The End.
As far as atheist/agnostic, I generally find that calling myself an agnostic atheist serves to clear up all doubts about my status. Somtimes a person asks how I can be both, and thus, I get to explain exactly how. Knowlege is not the same thing as belief.
I think I’m the one who brought up bald as a hair color here, but it isn’t original to me. I have no idea where it comes from as a phrase, though. Could be George Smith, could be that positive atheism guy.
Ignoring the debate over the term “non-physical” for the moment, it’s easy enough. If part of your brain is destroyed, you lose part of your mind. It is a straightforward extrapolation that if all of your brain is destroyed, all of your mind is as well.
Maybe. Religious gene ?
This has always screamed “divide and conquer” to me. The distinction between believers and everyone else is more important, IMHO.
It’s important that “weak atheist” be more than “I don’t know if god exists.” It’s also “I do not believe that god exists.” Again, belief is different from knowledge, and these distinctions have to leave room for the possibility of, well: faith: belief WITHOUT knowledge. Likewise, the idea that a lack of knowledge for many equals a lack of belief or faith.
This is what often gets both atheists and theists into trouble, because they confuse “do not believe in X” with “believe in no X.” But they aren’t logically equivalent at all. Theists often think that stating “I do not believe X” is equivalent to stating that one is a strong atheist. It ain’t. Sometimes even atheists fail to understand this distinction.
Not much new to add, just chiming in to back up the posters who say the OP doesn’t get what makes an atheist an atheist. First of all, I never–personally–claim to be sure there is no god. I just say that I’m comfortable not knowing. Religions happen because people are scared of uncertainty, so they make up myths they can believe in. Me, I’m happy to live in a myth-free world. So I don’t have any “faith” in the nonexistence of god; I just don’t make any attempt to actively convince myself of his existence.
I have some very basic problems with Dr. Hamer’s particular “God Gene” hypothesis, which I suppose a search could dredge up, in the interests of avoiding a hijack. Suffice to say the search for a biological component may be a fruitful one, and there are some tantalizing hints, in the estimation of some. Whatever the exogenous and/or endogenous factors responsible for our differences may be, however, they have precisely zero bearing on the Diety’s existence or lack thereof, because no empirical evidence is deemed applicable, by definition.
I hereby deny the existance of God. I deny the existance of Santa Claus. I deny the existance of unicorns. I deny the existance of Zeus. I deny the existance of Kali. I deny the existance of genies.
Why is the first denial the denial of a delusional madman, but the other five are just common sense? I hold that there is nothing to distinguish the first denial from the others, and if only a madman would make the first denial then only a madman would deny the existance of Santa.
But it doesn’t take a madman to not believe in Santa, or to believe that Santa doesn’t exist. One way of stating aclausism is not rational while the other is delusional. They are equivalent statements.
I deny the existance of God. There is no such entity. Now, I may be WRONG. And I certainly don’t expect that other people must agree with me, or find my reasoning persuasive. But there it is. There is no such thing as God. Didn’t happen. Nope. There ain’t no such animal.
I am not a madman.
All six are delusional. You’re missing the difference between denial and not believing.
I think part of the problem is when people talk about Santa and unicorns they are being rather particular, and given the terms with which they define those creatures, the question of the existence of same can be attacked to some degree on evidential grounds. Of course, there are potentially an infinity of such creatures folks could baldly demand exist, and it would take an infinitely long time to evaluate all such claims. It’s hopeless in the grand scheme to consider every mythical beast. The same sort of goes with God. One can make specific claims about things God has done, and so forth, and those may be subjectable to scrutiny. Trouble is, God could potentially be said to take an infinite variety of forms, have no form, have all forms at once, be the source of form and The meta-form, make your head explode, send you to Hell for even asking, and really whatever else anyone wishes to say, or is even capable of saying given an infinite amount of time to make any possible claim. That’s what happens when you assert the existence of a Being with infinite potential: It’s automatically too much. What can you do? It might be fair to say it’s insane by defition, and it makes you insane to say anything about it with conviction.