Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ampersand]

Agnostic means that it does not know. Yes. The Rock is also agnostic, because it does not know whether or not God exists. But it is an Atheist too, because it does not believe that God exists. They re two different things existing on two completely different spectra. It does not know because it can't know. It does not believe because it cannot believe. That doesn't make it 'on the fence' it is squarely on one side.

The question is one of exclusion not one of inclusion. Once one man conceived of a god, as was the only person in the world to believe in it, everyone else in the world was an Atheist, because they did not believe. It doesn't matter if the reason that they did not believe is because they were unaware.

To put it more formally, Theists are a subset of all things whom believe in god, and Atheists are all things who do not fall within that subset. Agnostics are a subset of all things that overlap with Theists that do not know for sure whether or not a god exists.

[Neruz]

And now it becomes apparant why Atheism is further divided into Implicit and Explicit Atheism, along with Weak and Strong Atheism.

[IndonesiaWarMinister]

A rock is an Atheist. A rock does not believe in god.

It does.

And now it becomes apparant why Atheism is further divided into Implicit and Explicit Atheism, along with Weak and Strong Atheism.

What? The 4 basic faction of Atheism? Can it be merged, like Implicit-Explicit, or Implicit-Weak?

[Neruz]

Implicit Atheism is Atheism without thought, basically a child is an Implicit Atheist, as a child has not yet been told about God and thus cannot believe in God, due to not knowing about God.

Explicit Atheism is Atheism with thought; one has been informed about God and chooses not to believe in God.

Weak Atheism is where one says "I do not believe that God exists."

Strong Atheism is when one says "I believe that God does not exist."


So by definition Weak or Strong Atheism is always Explicit.

[Ampersand]

I will state my personal conclusion as simply as possible.

There is as of yet insufficient evidence to make any positive claim about the nature or existence of any object or entity that exists outside the boundaries of the physical universe.

That is not a denial of the claim, but an assertion that the claim cannot be logically concluded given the premises.

[Muz]

Implicit Atheism is Atheism without thought, basically a child is an Implicit Atheist, as a child has not yet been told about God and thus cannot believe in God, due to not knowing about God.

A child is not an implicit atheist. I know a lot of kids who believe in God. Likely they've been informed, but the default stance is certainly not "there is no god". If anything, a child would be Agnostic, not Weak Athiest.

If you believe that God(s) is a made-up idea with no proof, then you're Athiest. If you believe that there's insufficient evidence to support the existence or non-existence of God(s), then you're Agnostic. If you believe that there's not enough existence to support the existence of God, and that the pressure lies on believers to prove God's existence, then you're an Athiest. If you believe that the pressure lies on non-believers to disprove God's existence, then you're a Theist.

If you don't believe in anything, well, you're probably a rock.

[Neruz]

I'm not going through this again. If you really want to debate the meaning of Atheism there is a huge section of the philosophical community dedicated to just that. I suggest you start on Wikipedia and follow the reference links at the bottom of the page.

[RAM]

Can we agree that the fact that all gods are unknown by some people through no fault of those people's own that there is no all powerful compassionate god that believes that treatment of people should be based upon belief in itself?

[Starver]

I'm afraid everyone i know and all the internet resources i can uncover define Atheism as 'rejection of theism.' So apparently you're wrong, or the rest of the world is wrong.

No, it's just a predominant misconception among people who tend to argue against it.  Akin to Pagan==Devil Worshipper.  Or the whole Pro-Life lot being called Anti-Choice and the Pro-Choice being referred to as Pro-Death.  Or this whole silly business where Obama has "Death Panels", adding as fuel a few dissenting (and discredited) voices from the UK regarding a system that is never going to be perfect but works better than the absence of one[1], and can be adopted without the baggage of history and thus without the flaws).

As the future King Verence the Second told Duke Felmet (and probably many real-world people told many other real-world people) "Words have power".  And they can be wielded correctly or incorrectly.

If it's repeated often enough it may seem right, but its basis is all wrong then understanding suffers.  Imagine a world where it is accepted English grammar to use "I could of done this" as a phrase.  While English is mutable, I have no objection to neologisms or neologistic reuses of old words (after all, the words and grammar I'm using today would be strange to someone of Dr Johnson's time), but there are some steps (or leaps!) that really ought not to be taken so lightly.

So "A-theism" (not-aGodbeliever) and "Athe-ism" (notaGod-believer) is a battle-ground of understanding, for which it now seems we need to add the qualifier of "weak" (or soft) and "strong" (or hard).  [Edit: And of course the implicit/explicit thing, which I meant to mention]

My opinion, naturally.  Probably not worth arguing over, but F.Y.I.


[1] I remember an on-line conversation with someone in the US where they were complaining their nose wouldn't stop bleeding, but they didn't want to go to the local doctor/A&E/whatever because of the cost.  Sorry, a slight tangent with that exemplum.  Feel free to ignore.

[Jackrabbit]

You know, we've had this rock argument before.

Jesus Christ/Random Fluctuations in Space, lock this thread now. It's getting recursive.

[Neruz]

Effectively there are 3 stances; Believe in God or Gods/Do not believe, but do not deny\ don't know (fence sitters)/Disbelieve in God or Gods. Practically, these are referred to as Theists/Agnostics/Atheists. This is usually done to avoid all these semantics arguments, which are a favorite of anyone who is losing a debate to try and derail the opposition's train of thought and thus win by default.

[Vester]

You know, we've had this rock argument before.

Jesus Christ/Random Fluctuations in Space, lock this thread now. It's getting recursive.

I like rocks. Especially quartz.

[Jackrabbit]

I appreciate it, Vester, but I'm not going to try and derail this stupid, pointless thread. It will die soon, I'm certain.

[Starver]

Effectively there are 3 stances; Believe in God or Gods/Do not believe, but do not deny\ don't know (fence sitters)/Disbelieve in God or Gods. Practically, these are referred to as Theists/Agnostics/Atheists. This is usually done to avoid all these semantics arguments, which are a favorite of anyone who is losing a debate to try and derail the opposition's train of thought and thus win by default.

I personally describe myself as Agnostic because of my personal understanding (a.k. 'belief') that one (or certainly 'I') cannot know the Truth, whichever way it might be.  On top of this I adopt a (soft) atheism standpoint insofar as I simultaneously do not believe (as opposed to someone who is an agnostic and a believer, e.g.: "while it is the case that logically it cannot be proved, I subscribe to the religious POV"; and the agnostic strong atheist: "there's not, of course, but I can't prove it").

Think "Political Compass", with Authoritarian/Libertarian axis as well as standard Left/Right.  I tend to think of belief under Theism->Strong Atheism (Weak Atheism being centerline) on one axis, Gnosticism/Agnosticism along another axis ("I know" -> "I cannot know", with "I don't really know" in the middle), Apatheism opposed to Devotion on a third (insofar as the former directly opposes the tennet's of Pascal's Wager[1]) and possibly Evangalism/passivity on a fourth (if you shuffle the previous one around a bit to make room for the distinction).  Add more, to taste, possibly including an honesty/hypocritical distinction which might help distinguish certain televangelists from some other prominent preachers.

I site myself centrally under the Theism/Strong Atheism axis (I tend to look religously inclined to strong atheists, and a denial-type 'atheist' to theists, so it's soft atheism for me... explicitly soft because of my pondering, I suppose), strongly Agnostic (I am convinced that there is no logical way one could prove or disprove a god's existence, inclusive of apparent manifestations), a fair bit apatheist (in that I'm probably relying on earning merits for "he meant well" for any hypothetical checking of the boxes at whatever Pearly Gates equivalent I might attend, if that's what happens), far more Evangelist than I'd like (witness this convoluted explanation of my world-view) and I'm not sure about the honesty/hypocrit side (I'd like to say I'm honest, but then I would say that if I weren't, so it's not for me to say).


Kettle.  Fish.  Or barrel, thereof, to be shot into.  Your choice.

[1] If there's a God, He's going to know if you're worshipping "just in case", best to be true to yourself and not demerit yourself trying to cover your arse.  The middle ground may be those who will pay lip-service (or adjust their outward display of their internal belief) to whatever deity happens to be de jour without worry that it would be ultimately 'received' by an incompatible deity.  At the extreme Devout end, one would find the various martyrs to whatever cause exists.  Inclusive of Dawkins-esque types who devoutly display their explicit and strong non-belief (which, in some times and places would get you 'martyred' as quick, or quicker, than alternate beliefs).

[Vester]

I appreciate it, Vester, but I'm not going to try and derail this stupid, pointless thread. It will die soon, I'm certain.

It is technically severely derailed already, though. Take a look at the OP:

Hi,
I see so many topics concerning atheism or proving that no god exists or reasons to be atheist or whatever...
I just don't get it. When I was young I was teached about Jesus and God and I believe in a God until today. I have had a experience that I'd describe as meeting God (it was not a near-death experience) but even without it I wouldn't be able to understand how you think you're alone in the universe. Everything is so perfect, there's a reason for everything and there are so many "coincidences", how's that? How did everything start?
I understand religion has been transformed in a non-sense thing these days, with people making religions to earn money or to have fun.
In my opinion religion should be the way to find the truth about all those questions. In this point of view, an atheist would be religious too.
So, how do you atheists, explain all these above?

I want to bring a constructive discussion, please don't discriminate atheists or religious people, just say your reasons and why. Thanks ;]

The intent of the original post is entirely different from what people were talking about until recently.

Although in fairness it's now kind of on-topic again because they're discussing atheism itself.

And also the OP is kind of confusing.