Agnosticism, Theism, Atheism - What does it mean?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Prezbo369

What are you going off as the definition of a theist is the question.

Usually theism is in regards to the study of man made stories and traditions about God. Which is why their is the classification of deism and theism.

Theism:
belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

This is does not define a Deist. Which is why there is a different philosophical modifyer.

The only difference is it's apparent habits ( intervening in the universe etc).

It's still a God, and it's still an off-shoot of theism.

a reply to: Prezbo369

We have to agree to disagree. The way in which people derrived what they believe or don't believe, the claims made, and the position on the neutrality scale all have bearing on the classification.

To my neighbor the guy with the choose Cruz sign I say I am an atheist. On ATS with people who study philosophy I may say I lean towards spinozaism but am agnostic.

Beliefs and nin beliefs are not stamp collections. They are much more complicated and metaphysical or rationally logical.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147

Sure, I accept that definition. I'd also like to add this one...

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God

That would be the same thing but different wording of:

1.a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

But, I'm glad we agree nonetheless.

So, whats the difference between an Agnostic Atheist and a 'soft/weak Atheist"?

Well if we look at the definition of an Agnostic Atheist, it is defined as people who are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

A soft/weak/negative Atheist (they are all interchangeable terms) would be: where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities and does not explicitly assert that there are none.

So you've confused Agnostic atheism with Negative Atheism because agnostic implies that there is no way of knowing where as an negative atheist doesn't hold any beliefs on gods, but doesn't necessarily claim that we cannot possible know of one.

a reply to: Ghost147

So, would it be accurate to say an agnostic atheist is a type of weak atheist....

But a weak atheist is not necessarily an agnostic atheist?

A2D

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Prezbo369
We have to agree to disagree. The way in which people derrived what they believe or don't believe, the claims made, and the position on the neutrality scale all have bearing on the classification.

Not if what they believe in is a 'God', as that's the only decisive factor and not how they came to posses their belief.

To my neighbor the guy with the choose Cruz sign I say I am an atheist. On ATS with people who study philosophy I may say I lean towards spinozism but am agnostic.

Under those definitions you'd still be an atheist here on ATS or anywhere else for that matter

Beliefs and nin beliefs are not stamp collections. They are much more complicated and metaphysical or rationally logical.

The point of the analogy was to demonstrate that it's a binary choice, you either believe or you don't. A person's beliefs can be as complicated as they want them to be, but that then wouldn't add another option to the question 'do you believe in a god?'

a reply to: Prezbo369

I don't agree. The answer yes no or possibly are different.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147

So, would it be accurate to say an agnostic atheist is a type of weak atheist....

But a weak atheist is not necessarily an agnostic atheist?

I don't believe so, only because the agnostic portion is only atheistic because agnosticism is atheistic at it's core until they directly state they believe in a god (but hold on to their agnostic concepts about knowledge and so forth). kind of like many Buddhists, they are only atheistic because of their secular concepts.

A weak atheist would be a person whom simply lacks belief, but for a particular reason other than "there is no way to gain the knowledge to make a statement". My personal reason, as I've stated before, is that all observations we have made so far don't require there to be a god, coupled with there not being any evidence.

The spectrum of all three is where these definitions become confusing.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Prezbo369

I don't agree. The answer yes no or possibly are different.

If you answered 'possibly' you might be open to the 'possibility' of a god, but you then wouldn't harbour such a belief, making you an......

a reply to: Prezbo369

Nope.

Do you believe in God. No..


Do you believe in God Yes....

Do you believe in God possibly....


Possibly and no are not the same position. There is no binary system.

The person who says possibly and the person that say yes or no have an arguement. It is over the claim.

a reply to: luthier

Unless you say 'yes' to the question, then you lack beleif in a god. That includes 'I don't know' and 'possibly'.

a reply to: Ghost147

Are you a weak atheist, strong atheist, or agnostic atheist? It seems to me that your reason for disbelief is agnostic in nature....but if you prefer the term weak atheist i'd be curious to know why you don't call yourself an agnostic atheist....

First, Let's see if I'm doing this right...

100% "there is a god" - gnostic/strong theist
100% "there is no god" - gnostic/strong atheist

"there MIGHT be a god, but it's unknowable and/or I don't personally know, nor do I choose to believe in one" - agnostic/weak atheist
"there MIGHT be a god, but it's unknowable and/or I don't personally know, but I choose to believe in one" - agnostic/weak theist

(It's safe to assume the majority of us fall under the latter two categories...right?)

You see the lack of evidence and choose not to believe. I see the lack of evidence and choose to believe regardless, although I refuse to call myself a theist.

Don't be too frustrated. We're not that different you and I.....

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147

Are you a weak atheist, strong atheist, or agnostic atheist?

Weak atheist. I already mentioned that

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147
It seems to me that your reason for disbelief is agnostic in nature....

No, because Agnosticism states that we cannot know. I don't believe that we cannot know, therefore I'm not agnostic.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147
First, Let's see if I'm doing this right...

100% "there is a god" - gnostic/strong theist
100% "there is no god" - gnostic/strong atheist

Correct so far

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147
"there MIGHT be a god, but it's unknowable and/or I don't personally know, nor do I choose to believe in one" - agnostic/weak atheist

Unknowable is not a trait of weak atheists.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147
"there MIGHT be a god, but it's unknowable and/or I don't personally know, but I choose to believe in one" - agnostic/weak theist

Unknowable is not a trait of a weak theist.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147
(It's safe to assume the majority of us fall under the latter two categories...right?)

No. Because "unknowable" is a trait exclusive to Agnosticism. If you have "unknowable" anywhere within your concept of god, or lack-there-of, then that would make you fall under the agnostic spectrum.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147
You see the lack of evidence and choose not to believe. I see the lack of evidence and choose to believe regardless, although I refuse to call myself a theist.

Except lack of evidence is not a defining feature for agnosticism. Agnosticism states that the concept is unknowable. There may also be a lack of evidence, but without the trait of 'unknowable' it's not an agnostic stance.

This has no profit on progress towards mother earth and her decaying life. While we debate on which religion is fake or not for hours on end, we forget that we all stand on the same dirt that gave a care for us.
Even if you do or do not believe in God, what good is there if all we do is argue?
We do it for self-vaildation and to feel more secure about our answers. Honestly, mother earth could give no care, as long as we help her. bless be

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Prezbo369

Nope.

Do you believe in God. No..

Atheism

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147
Do you believe in God Yes....

Theism

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147
Do you believe in God possibly....

If the answer isn't yes, then it includes a secular (atheist) concept.

Possibly is not a defining feature of agnosticism. 'Unknowable' is.

originally posted by: luciferslight
This has no profit on progress towards mother earth and her decaying life. While we debate on which religion is fake or not for hours on end, we forget that we all stand on the same dirt that gave a care for us.
Even if you do or do not believe in God, what good is there if all we do is argue?
We do it for self-vaildation and to feel more secure about our answers. Honestly, mother earth could give no care, as long as we help her.

bless be

I don't think anyone is debating whether or not religion is real of fake. The topic's concept is on the definition of particular terminology, not the validity behind their respective concepts/positions/beliefs

a reply to: luciferslight

Taxi?

a reply to: luciferslight

Maybe no profit on progress towards mother earth directly...but it does help us better understand each other...

A2D

a reply to: Ghost147

No, because Agnosticism states that we cannot know. I don't believe that we cannot know, therefore I'm not agnostic.

Interesting....How do you think we can come to know whether there is or is not a god(s)?

Sorry if you may feel like I'm wasting your time...just curious.

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147

No, because Agnosticism states that we cannot know. I don't believe that we cannot know, therefore I'm not agnostic.

Interesting....How do you think we can come to know whether there is or is not a god(s)?

Sorry if you may feel like I'm wasting your time...just curious.

A2D

Well I see 2 options to finding out if god is real.

1, god comes down and pronounces the are god.
2, We die and see god.

There's only 1 real way to say for 100% fact there is no god and that involves being dead and seeing nothing.

a reply to: TerryDon79

How could you be 100% certain that is a real god and not simply a hallucination and/or some other phenomena of the brain/consciousness?

Also, being dead and seeing nothing does not mean there is no god...it only means you don't get to see him/her/it or that our understanding was/is flawed.



A2D