Aetheist, Agnostic, or Theist/Religious Believer?

[NonStop]

What are you?

My stance is not theism (the belief in deities or God), so between atheism (generally accepted as what has been most recently called strong atheism; the acceptance that “God does not exist”) and agnosticism (sometimes accepted as what has been most recently called weak atheism; the absence of belief in deities) its agnosticism.

Atheists seem to be holding a belief themselves, the belief that God does not exist (though it is backed up a lot with rationality and science - and is a belief I slip into frequently). Agnosticism is a complete absence of belief, whether it be philosophically; there is no proof as of yet that either theism or atheism are correct, or whether one simply has not heard of God or deities.

[aric]

nonstop said:

What are you?

I'm an atheist. At one point I said that I was an agnostic like you. But when I thought about it, I thought I saw no practical difference between the two positions. Atheism literally means without God or gods. As an agnostic who withholds judgement, I'm a practicing atheist in the broadest sense of the word since I don't bother with any deity anyway. So I personally don't see an important difference between the two.

nonstop said:

Atheists seem to be holding a belief themselves, the belief that God does not exist (though it is backed up a lot with rationality and science - and is a belief I slip into frequently). Agnosticism is a complete absence of belief, whether it be philosophically; there is no proof as of yet that either theism or atheism are correct, or whether one simply has not heard of God or deities.

I agree with you overall, though I should point out that atheism is still a lack of belief, since you don't bother with God or gods at all. In my experience people who describe atheism as an active belief are usually trying to equivocate theism and atheism. Not that I think that's what you're trying to do, but you should be aware that there are theists out there who will use that kind of wording to criticize atheism fallaciously. They are either ignorant of or deliberately ignore the logical reasoning that validates atheism and will try to dismiss it in the way that they dismiss religions that traditionally competes with their own.

- Aric

[NonStop]

Nice posts. I find that if you say, God does not exist, you are advocating a belief.

Yes, atheism is a lack of a belief on one hand, but if you say God does not exist, you're creating another belief on the other.

So, would you say there is a chance God could exist? If you do, in which case you can't be atheist, as they say God does not exist. Atheist deny the existence, agnostics say we can't know.

Don't get me wrong though, I come close to denying it all together a lot of the time. But, the fact is, we just can't know.

[aric]

nonstop said:

Nice posts. I find that if you say, God does not exist, you are advocating a belief. Yes, atheism is a lack of a belief on one hand, but if you say God does not exist, you're creating another belief on the other.

In the basic sense of a belief being an opinion or conviction, then yes, it is a belief. But let's be honest, there's a big difference as to why a theist believes in God and why an atheist disbelieves in one. Faith and rationality are not the same thing. Theistic apologists like to ignore that.

Again, I'm inclined to agree with you overall, but let me point out again that theists may not be using the exact definition of belief that you are using.

nonstop said:

So, would you say there is a chance God could exist? If you do, in which case you can't be atheist, as they say God does not exist. Atheist deny the existence, agnostics say we can't know.

The strictly rational answer is that the existence of God or gods (or anything supernatural) is highly unlikely given the chasmic absence of proof. Not that it can absolutely disprove those things, since it's scientifically impossible to do so. However on the other hand, agnostics should be careful not to stumble over the Golden Mean fallacy and equivocate belief and disbelief. It's something that theistic apologists do quite often.

Besides, when you strip away the fallacies and irrationality, what do you have? Nothing that wasn't there without the original baseless proposal to begin with. And while it's technically improper to deny the existence of God, I wonder how many agnostics are willing to say the same spiel about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Tooth Fairy or some other made-up tripe that isn't taken as seriously by adults the way God is.

nonstop said:

Don't get me wrong though, I come close to denying it all together a lot of the time. But, the fact is, we just can't know.

Until more evidence comes in, you can scientifically use Occam's Razor. You don't need to know absolutely or with any certainty in order to discard the belief. It's unnecessary.

- Aric

[NonStop]

In the basic sense of a belief being an opinion or conviction, then yes, it is a belief. But let's be honest, there's a big difference as to why a theist believes in God and why an atheist disbelieves in one. Faith and rationality are not the same thing. Theistic apologists like to ignore that.

Again, I'm inclined to agree with you overall, but let me point out again that theists may not be using the exact definition of belief that you are using.

Oh, I totally agree. A theist may believe because they want to believe, or have been indoctrinated to do so. An atheist is more likely to believe because of the rationality that surrounds them.

The strictly rational answer is that the existence of God or gods (or anything supernatural) is highly unlikely given the chasmic absence of proof. Not that it can absolutely disprove those things, since it's scientifically impossible to do so. However on the other hand, agnostics should be careful not to stumble over the Golden Mean fallacy and equivocate belief and disbelief. It's something that theistic apologists do quite often.

But that is my point. If there is the slightest chance that it is possible, even with little to no proof, surely one cannot completely deny it?

Besides, when you strip away the fallacies and irrationality, what do you have? Nothing that wasn't there without the original baseless proposal to begin with. And while it's technically improper to deny the existence of God, I wonder how many agnostics are willing to say the same spiel about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Tooth Fairy or some other made-up tripe that isn't taken as seriously by adults the way God is.

Its something I've thought numerous times. In fact, the only reason why I'm not an atheist is because of the reason that the difference between, say a fairy, and God, is that a fairy we can safely say does not exist. An afterlife, is simply that, an{b]after[/b]life, we cannot know about it because it cannot exist here.

Until more evidence comes in, you can scientifically use Occam's Razor. You don't need to know absolutely or with any certainty in order to discard the belief. It's unnecessary.

My same point above ^

[thundertail]

I tend to keep an open mind about everything.
Mythological beings could be true as well as any one god or another - or the opposite could be true. We just don't know, really; so I guess whatever you want to believe in or not believe in is the best way to go for you!
(I preferr the little-green-men theory myself! LOL!)

[aric]

nonstop said:

But that is my point. If there is the slightest chance that it is possible, even with little to no proof, surely one cannot completely deny it?

Its something I've thought numerous times. In fact, the only reason why I'm not an atheist is because of the reason that the difference between, say a fairy, and God, is that a fairy we can safely say does not exist. An afterlife, is simply that, anafterlife, we cannot know about it because it cannot exist here.

What's the fundamental difference between belief in a fairy and belief in a God? People used to honestly believe fairies existed at one point. And now, according to you, we can safely say they don't exist. The same applies to the concept of God. The only reason most people don't is because the God belief is more popular than the one about fairies.

And I should point out that you're using an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy.

nonstop said:

Until more evidence comes in, you can scientifically use Occam's Razor. You don't need to know absolutely or with any certainty in order to discard the belief. It's unnecessary.

My same point above ^

Not really. In this case, one does not need to know for certain that God doesn't exist in order to exclude Him from belief. The belief itself is unecessary for explaining things, therefore under this principle, one should cut it out of the equation. It's not a straight-out denial; just a practical way of eliminating extraneous ideas.

- Aric

[NonStop]

What's the fundamental difference between belief in a fairy and belief in a God? People used to honestly believe fairies existed at one point. And now, according to you, we can safely say they don't exist. The same applies to the concept of God. The only reason most people don't is because the God belief is more popular than the one about fairies.

And I should point out that you're using an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy.

I'm not using an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy as I'm not saying the premise is either true or false.

Not really. In this case, one does not need to know for certain that God doesn't exist in order to exclude Him from belief. The belief itself is unecessary for explaining things, therefore under this principle, one should cut it out of the equation. It's not a straight-out denial; just a practical way of eliminating extraneous ideas.

Indeed, its smart, but the fact is, why take a viewpoint, when we simply can't know?

[aric]

*sigh*

I had this nice post written up and whaddaya know, I forgot to post it and left the ToP to eat dinner....

nonstop said:

What's the fundamental difference between belief in a fairy and belief in a God? People used to honestly believe fairies existed at one point. And now, according to you, we can safely say they don't exist. The same applies to the concept of God. The only reason most people don't is because the God belief is more popular than the one about fairies.

And I should point out that you're using an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy.

I'm not using an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy as I'm not saying the premise is either true or false.

Ah, you're right about that one. My bad.

Still, this does put atheists in an odd position since it's a fallacy to demand proof of a negative assertion....

Anyway, I was wondering where you stand now on the subject of fairies and the like? Do you still think that we "know" they don't exist, or do they now occupy the same twilight area of uncertainty that God inhabits?

nonstop said:

Not really. In this case, one does not need to know for certain that God doesn't exist in order to exclude Him from belief. The belief itself is unecessary for explaining things, therefore under this principle, one should cut it out of the equation. It's not a straight-out denial; just a practical way of eliminating extraneous ideas.

Indeed, its smart, but the fact is, why take a viewpoint, when we simply can't know?

It's not a position. Let me demonstrate with the two following propositions:

1 + 1 = 2

1 + 1 = 2 because God said so.

According to Parsimony (another way of saying Occam's Razor), the first one is preferred because it cuts out the extraneous bits. The second assertion isn't necessarily wrong, but it contains elements (ie, "because God said so") that aren't necessary to understand the concept. Therefore, according to Occam's Razor, it should be eliminated. Not exactly a position, but a methodology for cutting away unfalsifiables and the like.

- Aric

[Aven Bluewing]

This is a very intriguing discussion!

As for me, I'm Christian, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to be specific. Like thundertail, I also like to keep an open mind. I'd like to believe in mythological things (like fairies, dragons, griffins, etc.), but in my opinion, they don't exsist in this plane of reality (I can still make them exsist in my mind, that's what I love about imagination!). They might, who knows? I also believe that there could be life on other planets. Crud, with so many planets in the universe, there's bound to be at least a few with conditions sufficient to support some kind of life.
I feel like I've intruded on this facinating topic of discussion, and I would type more now, but I gotta go. Bye!

[Quickstride]

I am an apatheist. When other people were arguing out the meaning of things, I was busy playing video games.

In all seriousness, though, after thinking it over for many years I decided that the question has no practical value to my daily life, and that my belief or disbelief has no affect on the reality of the universe (barring some really freaky psychological/philosophical ideas of existence.) I'm just a mere primate, after all- I see no reason to assume I'm even capable of comprehending the answer, anyway, and frankly speaking abstract discussions bore me after a while. I'd rather be gaming.

[Deleted]

I'm an atheist, although a more accurate description would be apatheist. I have given the subject a great deal of thought and I don't consider there to be enough evidence to support the idea of a supreme being.

Now, I don't actively disbelieve, I simply lack belief (I see a distinction between the two). Now, the apatheist part of my belief comes from the fact that while I have done alot of thinking on the subject, I do not consider it an issue of major importance. My view of things is that people can believe whatever they want as long as it doesn't cause others harm. Although I do take a rather dim view of some beliefs that I consider extremely illogical and in direct contradiction to reality, but basically what people choose to believe is their choice.

[jewelspike]

I believe that all religions lead to the truth. Wikipedia calls us "liberal theists."