I am not and you know it. We’ve been over this at least three times before in previous discussions, so I know that you’re fully aware of this matter. I was specifically addressing the claims that (a) atheism is derived from “a-theism” and (b) that atheism is specifically defined as the absence of theism. It isn’t. At best, one can argue that this is one possible usage, and it’s by no means THE definition of the term.
Whenever this comes up though, you always say, “Why are you trying to convince me that I’m a strong theist? I know what I believe!” You know full well that I was only addressing your usage of the term, though – specifically, the insistence that atheism only means an absence of belief in God. We’ve been over this often enough that I know you’re aware of this, which is why I’m disappointed that you’re pretending otherwise.
Strong atheism is a subset of atheism. It is not the sum definition of atheism. Maybe it would be better if there were a clearer semantic distinction than “strong and weak atheism,” but there isn’t. “Agnostic” is inaccurate.
I find the idea that religion is just wish-fulfillment to be precisely as convincing as the idea that atheists are actually just in rebellion against God’s Law – i.e., the rationalization of someone who can’t understand how someone can come to a different conclusion about matters of religion than he himself has.
At the moment you actually consider a proposition, you have two ways you can go:
You believe it
You don’t believe it
It’s silly to try to make the argument that you’ve considered something and were left without a position; otherwise, you didn’t consider it.
Absence of belief can really only rightly be attributed to something that’s never been considered. Clearly, if one calls herself an atheist, she’s considered it.
It’s one thing to say, “There is no god”, “I know there is no god” or “It’s not possible for there to be a god.” That would be strong atheism. It’s something entirely different to say, “I don’t believe in any god (but you know… it’s possible, just not very probable in my estimation, given the lack of evidence).” That’s what weak atheism really is (IMO) and where it intersects with agnosticism.
How is that not a positive affirmation that God does not exist? It is a tentative affirmation, but all reasonable affirmations are tentative. Usually we don’t feel the need to explicitly state that, but because theists claim to hold theistic propositions with absolute certainty, we atheists sometimes feel the need to exaggerate our uncertainty just to show that we aren’t unreasonable. I think this is silly. God does not exist. This is not merely a default position. I have examined the evidence for and against the existence of God and in my opinion, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of God’s non-existance. If the evidence (or my perception of it) changes, I will happily change my tune. But until that happens I feel perfectly confident stating that God does not exist. China does exist. I don’t have any milk in my fridge. One and one make two. There is no greatest prime number. All of those are positive statements and I affirm them all as true. I am prepared to be proven wrong about any of them, but I don’t expect to be, and I don’t see any need to hem and haw about how I could be living in the matrix and all of my beliefs be false. Of course I could be wrong. But I’m not. So there.
Etymology is not evidence of how a word is defined. (See the last section in this post for more on its etymology.)
You’re cherry picking and you know it.
I’ve shown you that they all do, but you want to be intellectually dishonest and cherry pick definitions for other words also, such as “believe” and “denial.”
Said the pot to the kettle.
I showed you what denial means. Let’s look again:
Refusal to believe does not mean belief for nonexistence. The next entry says disbelief in the existence or reality of a thing. What does disbelief mean?:
BTW, encyclopedia’s don’t have more authority than dictionaries or common usage when it comes to arguing word definitions.
You’ve already proven in this thread that you cherry pick and edit to your pleasing, so I won’t take your word for it.
Ha! I’ve provided plenty of evidence for how words are defined.
I’ll decide if arguing with you is a waste. As far as you claiming I’m wasting yours, you’re wrong. I’m not making you take the time to do anything. If you find this a waste of time but choose to participate anyway, take that up with yourself, not with me.
No, your source said it comes from the French word athéiste, which in turn comes from the Greek atheos, which as Contrapuntal’s source defined as meaning “without gods” or “lack of belief in gods”.
Because it does not assert that God does not exist. It asserts that I personally have not been persuaded that God exists, but I recognize that non-existence can’t be technically proven.
“God almost certainly does not exist” is a statement about God, not the speaker (except to the extent that all statements are implicitly about the speaker). Nothing but tautologies can be “technically proven,” whatever that means. (I assume you’re talking about logical proof. Dawkin’s makes the explicit claim that God’s existence of non-existence can be investigated and determined by science to the same extent as any other claim about the world. We usually refer to science “proving” things, but all we mean is that the evidence makes something almost certainly true or false.) Does that mean that only tautologies can be asserted? If not, how does Dawkins statement about God differ from my statement about China or your belief about where you live? They are all claims about what is almost certain but cannot be logically proven.
Consider the case of aliens (around other stars, not claims that they have visited us.) I think having no belief in their existence is reasonable, since we have no evidence that any do exist, yet. However many of us would consider a belief that they do not exist unreasonable, since we have one example of life and we see no good reason why they can’t exist.
Gods confuse the matter somewhat since we have so much negative evidence - in the form of falsified religious claims, that believing gods do not exist is reasonable.
Since atheism and theism are both about belief, it makes no sense to bring in knowledge here. I see weak atheism as lack of belief, and strong atheism as belief that there are no gods - which is not a claim to knowledge about this, and which is provisional. A claim to knowledge that there are no gods is an odd claim indeed, given the millions of possible gods defined here on earth alone, not to mention the possibility of others. I really don’t know of anyone who holds this position after any reflection, and it makes no sense to define a category with no members.
This whole thing is silly. The “hard” atheism is essentially a straw man argument more or less created by people who are overly anal about semantical arguments. It doesn’t really matter.
Let’s change the subject for a moment. New age retards believe in crystal healing therapy - that the presence of certain types of crystals in certain alignments use some mystical energy to heal you. Anytime we’ve tried to objectively study this phoenomina, no effect has been detected. There is no plausible mechanism through which this property would work. I can safely say that crystal healing therapy doesn’t work. Am I a “soft” anti-crystal therapy advocate or a “hard” one? If I were to say that okay, so everything we know about crystal therapy suggests it doesn’t exist, but I can’t rule out the tiny possibility that we find some new crystal or some new arrangement of crystals that actually does have healing powers. Would saying this move me from hard to soft? Does it matter?
I don’t see how this is any different than the issue at hand. Who is really a “hard” atheist? Really, the debate stems from overly stringently interpreting certain statements and then making semantical arguments. If someone says “God is a magic bearded sky dude and here’s his book” and someone else in response says “there is no god” - are they more likely saying “There’s no reason to suspect that your idea of god exists” or are they saying “actually, I know everything there is to know about reality, and I can conclusively say that nothing resembling a god in any way exists or possibly can exist”? To care about the “hard atheism” argument, you have to believe that there are people who believe and are attempting to say the latter.
Atheism is essentially just skepticism applied to belief in a deity. There’s no evidence for a god, so there’s no reason to make beliefs about him. That’s it. If a giant hand came out of the sky tomorrow and picked me up and a booming voice said “I AM GOD!” suddenly I would probably be a believer, since I would have evidence. There would be other possibilities - maybe I was mentally ill or some aliens were pulling a really badass magic trick - but my reaction would certainly not be “yeah, sorry giant hand, there is no god” - since I would have some evidence to consider.
So let’s put this whole hypothetical “hard atheist” to rest, because I don’t think he exists in the real world, only in these silly semantics arguments.
Diogenes wrote: “Agnosticism is the position that it’s impossible to know whether gods exist.”
I called his attention to the inaccuracy of that comment.
He replied: “That is the actual definition. Educate yourself. Don’t use words if you don’t know what they mean.”
I suggest to Diogenes that he ought to follow his own advice.
The definition given in the sited “educate yourself” does not claim “Agnosticism is the position that it’s impossible to know whether gods exist.” It simply indicates that agnostics take the position that answer to questions like “do gods exist” is unknown or unknowable.
That is a significant qualifier there…and at least in this cited definition…trashes Diogenes’ original comment
I freely acknowledge that whether or not gods exist….is unknown…and may well be unknowable.
But saying that indicates that it may be knowable.
If it were “impossible to know”, as Diogenes rashly and incorrectly suggested, they would have said that.
In any case, any agnostic who claims to KNOW that “it is impossible to know if gods exist”…is not much of an agnostic.
If there is a god…obviously there is at least the possibility that the god could make its existence known to humans. Whether or not it would…is a different question. But the possibility exists.
Said another way: I know what the word means, Diogenes. Do you?
I still contend that saying, “I have no belief in the existence of aliens” nets out to the exact same thing as “I believe no aliens exist.” Whether it’s reasonable or not to believe aliens exist is irrelevant to this point. It’s the same as, “I have no reservations” net’s out to, “I’ve reserved nothing.” It says nothing about what you may or may not do in the future. It just describes the current state of things. You could make a reservation if needed at some point, just like new evidence could cause you to believe a god is a reasonable proposition.
Well, just because you haven’t met anyone doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I’ve certainly met people who claimed they knew there was no god, and I’m quick to point out that it’s just as much an assertion of faith as “knowledge of god” (and btw, while many people will claim belief in god a matter of faith, there are certainly a great number of people who think they *know *god exists). Thankfully, their numbers are small.
Unless you are rejecting inductive reasoning completely, a statement about the evidence for God logically leads to a statement about God. Please show me where he says that God’s non-existence cannot be tested or proven. If that is so, what is his basis for saying God almost certainly doesn’t exist?
Again, can any proposition besides a tautology be poitively affirmed? Please respond to the rest of my last post.
No, you clearly don’t know what the word means. You really should take some special time to investigate the definition of the word, “unknowable.”
I am telling you – and I am not guessing – how the word is used in serious academic discussion. “Agnosticism” is a position on what is knowable, it’s not a position on the existence of God.
As it happens, there is one guy who gets to be the final authority on his, and that guy’s names is Thimas Huxley. He’s the final authority on the meaning of the word because he is the one who coined it. Here is how he explained it (from the wiki link above):
If you really want to parse a tiny distinction between “unknown,” and “unknowable,” you may, but that doesn’t alter the fact that agnosticism is still a poistion on the knowable, not a belief position on gods.
If you want to be really pedantic about it, agnosticism does not categorically deny the possibility that the unknown can ever become known, but that the unknown is currently unknowable.
