Atheism and agnosticism explained

[Star]

I noticed there is quite a bit of confusion here about what an atheist or agnostic is. I find that if a theist doesn't understand what kind of atheist they're engaging, it's difficult for them to avoid strawman arguments.

Agnosticism – Not knowing if there’s a god due to lack of evidence

Primary forms:
- Hard agnostic – Evidence for god can’t be known
- Weak agnostic – Evidence for god could be known

Atheism – Not believing in god/s

Two main types of atheist according to Flew (1976) and Martin (1990):
- Positive atheist (or hard atheist) – Asserts there is no god
- Negative atheist (or weak atheist) – Lacks a belief and rejects evidence, but doesn’t explicitly assert there is no god. This form of atheism is often paired with agnosticism.

Two lesser known categories of atheist according to Smith (1979):
- Implicit atheist – Those who are atheist because they’ve never heard of god/s (no conscious rejection of the evidence)
- Explicit atheist – Those who have consciously rejected the evidence for god/s

Now based on these two terms, you can combine them to create:
- Agnostic atheist- Lacks a belief in god but doesn't know for sure and makes no assertions a god doesn't exist
- Gnostic atheist- Synonymous with hard or positive atheism
- Agnostic theist- Believes in a god but doesn't know for sure.
- Gnostic theist - Asserts there is a god and they know it.

For example, I'm an agnostic and a negative explicit atheist. I'm not sure which kind of agnostic, however, as I'm not sure if evidence can be known. (I would expect ample evidence for a lunatic such as the personal hands-on god described in the Bible, if he does in fact exist.)

[TheTruth101]

Your actually mocking this important post. This is a divine design manifesting physically. God thoughtvof how we are made accordance with spiritual nature.

Says you and who else? Please provide one citation claiming what you have just claimed. Just one.

It does get you thinking dosent it? That's right. I forgive simply because you say you never had anyone approach you with religion. It's all right here in this debate forum.

[SailingCyclops]

BTW - feel free to confirm my analysis by claiming you are an agnostic atheist who doesn't have any reason to explain any of these questions that I just raised ... its actually all up to me.

Perhaps if I give you an analogy you will understand.

Let's say someone comes up to you and says the earth is not orbiting one sun, but it's orbiting two suns. He pulls out an ancient scroll and shows you that is says exactly that. Are you then agnostic about the two sun theory? Or do you call him mad, and send him on his way?

This is the way I approach things. There is only one sun until you provide me with verifiable evidence that there are two. Why should religion be any different?

[stubbornone]

BTW - feel free to confirm my analysis by claiming you are an agnostic atheist who doesn't have any reason to explain any of these questions that I just raised ... its actually all up to me.

Perhaps if I give you an analogy you will understand.

Let's say someone comes up to you and says the earth is not orbiting one sun, but it's orbiting two suns. He pulls out an ancient scroll and shows you that is says exactly that. Are you then agnostic about the two sun theory? Or do you call him mad, and send him on his way?

This is the way I approach things. There is only one sun until you provide me with verifiable evidence that there are two. Why should religion be any different?

The difference is I can prove the earth is orbiting the sun.

You are making a claim that God is absurd, yet millions of people disagree.

A more apt analogy, one that YOU can understand, would be talking about the possible existence of alien life.

Both sides have a burden of proof there.

Simply comparing God to random false things and declaring it solved and proved is extremely illogical, and is indeed fallacious.

Does the opposite work?

God is like a rock you see? Or the Ocean? Or Green Grass? And if someone walked up to you and claimed that grass was green ... well, does your standard work in reverse.

There is an easy way to solve this: simply back up your claim.

You are claiming that God is so obviously untrue that it is comparable to claiming that the earth is NOT revolving around the sun. That is easily falsifiable, and God should be too.

It is the mantel you just claimed, so please ... demonstrate this standard which is apparently so absurdly obvious.

This is why atheists have a burden of proof.

[SailingCyclops]

The difference is I can prove the earth is orbiting the sun.

That is correct. You can prove the earth revolves around one sun so therefor you believe it. What you can't prove is the existence of a god. Why is proof required in one case and not in the other?

You are making a claim that God is absurd, yet millions of people disagree.

Just because millions of people believe something does not make it correct. Millions of people used to believe that the earth was flat. They were all wrong.

A more apt analogy, one that YOU can understand, would be talking about the possible existence of alien life.

Both sides have a burden of proof there.

No! Only the one claiming there IS alien life has the burden of proof. I personally don't know if there is or not. I can think of alien biological life because I have a reference. I see biological life on this planet, and can conceive that there may well be such elsewhere. I have no reference for the supernatural however. I have no idea nor any reference point to even think of such a thing. It is alien to me.

There is an easy way to solve this: simply back up your claim.

You are claiming that God is so obviously untrue that it is comparable to claiming that the earth is NOT revolving around the sun. That is easily falsifiable, and God should be too.

No you misunderstand me again. Why is this so hard for you? One more time. I have no reference point to even conceive of anything supernatural as a god. I see no evidence for such. I see no supernatural "types" in nature, no one has ever provided any evidence that such is even possible let alone exists. So, for me, a god belief is simply non-existent and irrelevant.

You are making the affirmative claim that there is a god without providing any proof to back up that claim. So, like in the case of the man claiming there are two suns, I can safely dismiss your claim on the same basis that I dismiss the two sun claim. Why do you find this so difficult to grasp?

[stubbornone]

The difference is I can prove the earth is orbiting the sun.

That is correct. You can prove the earth revolves around one sun so therefor you believe it. What you can't prove is the existence of a god. Why is proof required in one case and not in the other?

You are making a claim that God is absurd, yet millions of people disagree.

Just because millions of people believe something does not make it correct. Millions of people used to believe that the earth was flat. They were all wrong.

A more apt analogy, one that YOU can understand, would be talking about the possible existence of alien life.

Both sides have a burden of proof there.

No! Only the one claiming there IS alien life has the burden of proof. I personally don't know if there is or not. I can think of alien biological life because I have a reference. I see biological life on this planet, and can conceive that there may well be such elsewhere. I have no reference for the supernatural however. I have no idea nor any reference point to even think of such a thing. It is alien to me.

There is an easy way to solve this: simply back up your claim.

You are claiming that God is so obviously untrue that it is comparable to claiming that the earth is NOT revolving around the sun. That is easily falsifiable, and God should be too.

No you misunderstand me again. Why is this so hard for you? One more time. I have no reference point to even conceive of anything supernatural as a god. I see no evidence for such. I see no supernatural "types" in nature, no one has ever provided any evidence that such is even possible let alone exists. So, for me, a god belief is simply non-existent and irrelevant.

You are making the affirmative claim that there is a god without providing any proof to back up that claim. So, like in the case of the man claiming there are two suns, I can safely dismiss your claim on the same basis that I dismiss the two sun claim. Why do you find this so difficult to grasp?

Same points:

#1 - We Christians have met our burden or proof many times over, The whole apologetics thing. Again. If you refuse to read them ... that is stubbornness not logic.

Once again, NO ONE IS CLAIMING THAT THEISTS HAVE NO BURDEN OF PROOF.

It is a burden acknowledged, and for millenia supported. Please stop making a claim that is clearly, and demonstratively false.

#2 - Your claim to 'caring' is irrelevant to whether or not something is or is not there.

#3 - Its a debate forum, in this debate forum BOTH sides have to support their claims. Always screaming for evidence and never providing any is simple an excuse to abuse the debate process.

Claimants must support what the claim, and even if you don;t think so, it IS this forum's rules and your opinion is noted and irrelevant.

#3 - Here is that proof for you again, explaining why, in contextual cases where expectations cannot be easily met BOTH sides have a burden or proof. Feel free to emotionally reject it without reason again:

The only way an atheist can arrive at the conclusion that no evidence is required for their position is by completely ignoring the rules of logic and context.

We often take the atheists claim of rationality for granted, incorrectly, and assume that atheists are familiar enough with logic that their statements will not be deliberately illogical. Yet the constant demand for proof, coupled with the failure to lay out any of their own – despite the ‘logic’ of their claim is a continuous demonstration of the opposite of the supposed claim to rationality.


Here is why.

First, there is knowing what a logical argument is:

"One must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false)."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

For more, see:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...hew/logic.html

The specific of the burden of proof lies in a portion of what is often highlighted by atheists but, equally often, completely ignored.

As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html

Yes, it is indeed true that this statement is a fallacy.

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

It is why most logical Christians could more accurately be quoted as saying:

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He MIGHT."

It is also why we list things like miracles, answered prayers, calling, and strong, patterns in the universe that indicate purpose rather than accident, and other circumstantial evidence to back up the claim as required by the burden of proof. We also acknowledge that the belief in God is not totally logical, that is requires faith - an exception required by the dictates of logic.

We are also aware of something called the middle ground fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...le-ground.html

It is listed on the same source, and applies directly to the 'in most cases' so often ignored by atheists who offer the burden of proof exemption to their claim.

It is best explained here:

"For example, in the philosophical debate between Theism and Atheism (to some, Strong atheism), theism posits that the nonexistence of God has not been demonstrated and therefore God must exist. This is a burden of proof fallacy. Atheism in turn points out this fallacy and claims that its position is therefore stronger. This is a fallacious defense. In actuality, both positions have a burden of proof, since the Law of the excluded middle does not apply in this scenario."

http://www.associatepublisher.com/e/...l_fallacy).htm

Even honest atheists acknowledge this burden of proof.

"The first thing to keep in mind is that the phrase “burden of proof� is a bit more extreme than what is often needed in reality. Using that phrase makes it sound like a person has to definitely prove, beyond a doubt, that something is true; that, however, is only rarely the case. A more accurate label would be a “burden of support� — the key is that a person must support what they are saying. This can involve empirical evidence, logical arguments, and even positive proof."

http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgode...denofproof.htm

For an even more thorough explanation:

The Ad Ignorantiam Fallacy (Burden of Proof Fallacy)

This fallacy can take two forms:
Form A: Proposition P has not been proven to be true, therefore P is false
Form B: Proposition P has not been proven to be false, therefore P is true
Context and subject matter make all the difference.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-con...of-Atheism.pdf

"All other factors being equal, reasonable expectations can determine when an absence of apparent evidence constitutes a proposition as false. Here we ask how much evidence should we expect in relation to what we have. For example, if someone claims there is a gorilla in the room - the fact that we cannot see the gorilla, hear the gorilla, etc., is an absence of evidence that disproves this proposition. However, if someone says there is a mosquito in the room, then an absence of evidence (not seeing or hearing it) does not disprove the proposition because our reasonable expectations of evidence have changed. In more borderline cases, we should avoid dogmatic conclusions on both sides, for example:

“No one has ever proved that Bigfoot exists, so it must not exist.�
“No one has ever proved that the Bigfoot does not exist, so it must exist.�

Both sides here commit the fallacy of appealing to ignorance in that they derive unwarranted certitude when a more reserved stance seems called for. The certitude on both sides is unwarranted for there seems to be no clear way of establishing how much evidence to expect relative to what we have, nor can this determination even be made until all of the appropriate areas where such evidence would be found have been adequately surveyed. A lesser degree of certitude, or even agnosticism, is warranted here."

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-con...of-Atheism.pdf

Funny that I have long stated that conclusion regarding logic and the debate over God.

And as you can clearly see, based upon the full application of the rules of logic, rather then partical and deliberately non-contextual application thereof, the burden of proof is still a requirement for those claiming that God does not exist.

I hope that explanation is detailed enough to finally bury that pernicious atheist claim.


That is how evidence works brother. Feel free to rebut it. But please stop claiming its not there because only 'I' have a burden of proof and not you.

[stubbornone]

The difference is I can prove the earth is orbiting the sun.

That is correct. You can prove the earth revolves around one sun so therefor you believe it. What you can't prove is the existence of a god. Why is proof required in one case and not in the other?

You are making a claim that God is absurd, yet millions of people disagree.

No you misunderstand me again. Why is this so hard for you? One more time. I have no reference point to even conceive of anything supernatural as a god.

Let me address this one yet again.

You are on a Christian debate forum in the apolgetics section claiming that you have no idea what the conception is of God and are completely disinterested?

In short, your actions and your words do not match.

Furthermore, I disagree with you because the whole premise of rejecting God first requires a conception of God. All you are doing is looking for an excuse to avoid the burden of proof, because exploring the amply provided evidence that you claim erroneously doesn't even exist will lead inexorably to the questioning of your faith.

Your rejection of God presupposes a conception that is there to reject. Indeed, your own complaints about the sheer turbidity of God bear in mind EXACTLY how you perceive God.

Yet when called to task for that clear and enunciated conception, you are suddenly a babe of ignorance who cannot possibly explain his thoughts on the subject?

That my friend smacks of dishonesty. It may not be, but I do not see any other way to hold a perception of someone as pure crack pot while simultaneously claiming you hold no perception of them whatsoever.

Its why I so strongly reject agnostic atheism, because when you peel away all the excuses, you are left with glaring, and IMO, dishonest, contradiction.

[Star]

Where's all this evidence for a Christian god without using the Bible as your sole source again?

I'm still looking. I started a thread for it and didn't get anything that wasn't easily debunked. It would almost seem as though theists don't know what real evidence is.

I may not have the burden to prove your god doesn't exist, but I'll gladly chew up and spit out any poor evidence for specific claims that are provided to me. This much I can offer you.

BTW, Christians, prove the Hindu god Ganesh doesn't exist. By Stubborn's logic, you carry a burden to do so. There are thousands of other gods to disprove, as well. This will take a while going through them one by one, so we better get started...

[TheTruth101]

BTW - feel free to confirm my analysis by claiming you are an agnostic atheist who doesn't have any reason to explain any of these questions that I just raised ... its actually all up to me.

Perhaps if I give you an analogy you will understand.

Let's say someone comes up to you and says the earth is not orbiting one sun, but it's orbiting two suns. He pulls out an ancient scroll and shows you that is says exactly that. Are you then agnostic about the two sun theory? Or do you call him mad, and send him on his way?

This is the way I approach things. There is only one sun until you provide me with verifiable evidence that there are two. Why should religion be any different?

First, two suns orbitaing around the earth is false because we have gone up to space and saw firsthand there is only one sun. Therefore, there is only one sun.

Second, past prophets have claimed they spoke to God and saw and witnessed they saw God. Just like NASA witnessed they saw one sun.

Evidence is left with the bible, whereas suns evidence is left with nasa and science.

Now, have you gone upto space to witness one sun? No. I highly doubt it. But you beielivee the evidence or the word left by science.

Same thing. Gods witnesses have left their witnesses through the bible.

It's this simple.

[dusk]

The second sun might be made of dark matter and invisible to us and our instruments.

We also have witnesses in Qu'ran where Mohammed says he has the final prophecy and loads of people who think this guy is the only proper witness.
We have witnesses in eastern religions promoting or encouraging fundamentally different religions and legends.
More recently we got this Smith guy with the book of Mormon and he has followers too with lots of ambition in missions. Fast forward a few centuries maybe the Mormons take over.

God's so called witnesses are really long dead. A couple of people building on local legends and claiming all kinds of things. If god has something to tell, why only those down there in the middle east. Why didn't the aborigines receive a similar revelation aren't they important enough. If people cannot get to form one religion with somewhat similar believes from the one bible, why cannot god clear things up a little, or was Mr Smith and Mohammed two actual attemps of such intervention.

You don't have a witness. You have hearsay and crazy people who just might not have been crazy.

[Bust Nak]

Once again, NO ONE IS CLAIMING THAT THEISTS HAVE NO BURDEN OF PROOF.

It is a burden acknowledged, and for millenia supported. Please stop making a claim that is clearly, and demonstratively false.

Everytime a Christian ask an atheist to disprove God, and that happens regularly on debate forums including this one, they are denying their burden of proof.

The only way an atheist can arrive at the conclusion that no evidence is required for their position is by completely ignoring the rules of logic and context....

I think it is you who is ignoring the context. Theist clearly have the burden of proof to show God's existence, us bashing theists with that fact doesn't imply that we think we don't need to back up our claims.