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.)

[SailingCyclops]

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.

Yes, and that experiment can be repeated today with the same results.

Second, past prophets have claimed they spoke to God and saw and witnessed they saw God.

If this were true, then the experiment could be repeated today. We should be able to hear and see god today as well, just like we can see and measure the sun today. There is a difference. If an experimenter claims a certain result only one time, and can never be repeated again, the results are not believable.

Just like NASA witnessed they saw one sun.

Yes, but NASA sees the sun all the time. It was not a one-time event.

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

Bible claims of seeing and speaking to god are not verifiable, they can not be reproduced today.

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.

Not at all. I can look up into the sky and see one sun. I can perform a variety of experiments today and verify what NASA wrote down. I do not have to rely on NASA data, I can find out for myself. You don't see the difference here?

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

That is their claim. How can we test whether or not those claims are true?

[SailingCyclops]

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

That is correct. When you mention god, I have no Idea what you mean.

Furthermore, I disagree with you because the whole premise of rejecting God first requires a conception of God.

That's the problem. How can I "reject" something which I have no knowledge of and which you have not defined?

Indeed, your own complaints about the sheer turbidity of God bear in mind EXACTLY how you perceive God.

You keep missing the point. I have NO PERCEPTION of this god you speak of.

[stubbornone]

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...

It ALL over the forum.

I can only state that the refusal to read what is repeatedly provided, repeatedly directed, is a gross and deliberate form of dishonesty:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22109

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22096

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22087

THat one is about how to examine teh Bible critically rather than just declaring it stupid ... which is terribly logical and intelligent and not prejudice at all ...

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=21962

And that is just from the first page.

In fact, I have provided these sources multiple times:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009 ... acles.html

http://listverse.com/2008/07/14/top-10- ... -miracles/

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/eviden ... obability/

I have even pulled out the direct and relevant portions in conversations, and we STILL have a random, propaganda driven atheists in a tissy claiming that no evidence has ever been presented and that the Bible, despite Ph.D level support, is just stupid?

For some reason even hand delivering the evidence with just a simple click is to much of burden for atheists, who demand that the evidence apparently be downloaded straight to their brain ala the Matrix to spare them the couple of minutes it would take to assess various bits of evidence? Which is of course 'logic' rather than simple laziness meant to maintain preconceptions and rude remarks directed at Christians?

Right, we are all fooled.

No worries though, said atheist gets to keep ignoring exactly what she demands because she slips the word 'agnostic' before he rabid denial and is this 'magically' relieved of the burden to actually acknowledge the full weight of evidence and can sit back and petulantly claim that it isn't there ... and she won;t be convinced until ... something forces her to actually acknowledge the very thing she demands?

Yep, its now proven. You can lead an agnostic atheist to evidence, but, quite literally, you cannot under any circumstances for them to so much as acknowledge it.

A terribly rational position isn't it?

[Goat]

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...

It ALL over the forum.

I can only state that the refusal to read what is repeatedly provided, repeatedly directed, is a gross and deliberate form of dishonesty:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22109

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22096

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22087

THat one is about how to examine teh Bible critically rather than just declaring it stupid ... which is terribly logical and intelligent and not prejudice at all ...

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=21962

And that is just from the first page.

In fact, I have provided these sources multiple times:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009 ... acles.html

http://listverse.com/2008/07/14/top-10- ... -miracles/

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/eviden ... obability/

I have even pulled out the direct and relevant portions in conversations, and we STILL have a random, propaganda driven atheists in a tissy claiming that no evidence has ever been presented and that the Bible, despite Ph.D level support, is just stupid?

For some reason even hand delivering the evidence with just a simple click is to much of burden for atheists, who demand that the evidence apparently be downloaded straight to their brain ala the Matrix to spare them the couple of minutes it would take to assess various bits of evidence? Which is of course 'logic' rather than simple laziness meant to maintain preconceptions and rude remarks directed at Christians?

Right, we are all fooled.

No worries though, said atheist gets to keep ignoring exactly what she demands because she slips the word 'agnostic' before he rabid denial and is this 'magically' relieved of the burden to actually acknowledge the full weight of evidence and can sit back and petulantly claim that it isn't there ... and she won;t be convinced until ... something forces her to actually acknowledge the very thing she demands?

Yep, its now proven. You can lead an agnostic atheist to evidence, but, quite literally, you cannot under any circumstances for them to so much as acknowledge it.

A terribly rational position isn't it?

Ah yes.. more and more raw links.. without the extraction and discussion of the points you think are valid.

Don't you realize that providing raw links is not debate?

Care to go into specific about those raw links , and show what arguments in those links you find rational and reasonable??

[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...

It ALL over the forum.

I can only state that the refusal to read what is repeatedly provided, repeatedly directed, is a gross and deliberate form of dishonesty:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22109

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22096

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22087

THat one is about how to examine teh Bible critically rather than just declaring it stupid ... which is terribly logical and intelligent and not prejudice at all ...

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=21962

And that is just from the first page.

In fact, I have provided these sources multiple times:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009 ... acles.html

http://listverse.com/2008/07/14/top-10- ... -miracles/

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/eviden ... obability/

I have even pulled out the direct and relevant portions in conversations, and we STILL have a random, propaganda driven atheists in a tissy claiming that no evidence has ever been presented and that the Bible, despite Ph.D level support, is just stupid?

For some reason even hand delivering the evidence with just a simple click is to much of burden for atheists, who demand that the evidence apparently be downloaded straight to their brain ala the Matrix to spare them the couple of minutes it would take to assess various bits of evidence? Which is of course 'logic' rather than simple laziness meant to maintain preconceptions and rude remarks directed at Christians?

Right, we are all fooled.

No worries though, said atheist gets to keep ignoring exactly what she demands because she slips the word 'agnostic' before he rabid denial and is this 'magically' relieved of the burden to actually acknowledge the full weight of evidence and can sit back and petulantly claim that it isn't there ... and she won;t be convinced until ... something forces her to actually acknowledge the very thing she demands?

Yep, its now proven. You can lead an agnostic atheist to evidence, but, quite literally, you cannot under any circumstances for them to so much as acknowledge it.

A terribly rational position isn't it?

That's the worst "proof" I've ever seen.

The first link actually made me LOL it was so bad. I mean, it's just somebody posting on a message board about how the "laws of logic" are the truth.

Why don't you pick your best two pieces of evidence -- something that isn't a Christian blog or a post -- and I'll tell you why it fails to meet the burden.

[stubbornone]

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...

It ALL over the forum.

I can only state that the refusal to read what is repeatedly provided, repeatedly directed, is a gross and deliberate form of dishonesty:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22109

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22096

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22087

THat one is about how to examine teh Bible critically rather than just declaring it stupid ... which is terribly logical and intelligent and not prejudice at all ...

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=21962

And that is just from the first page.

In fact, I have provided these sources multiple times:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009 ... acles.html

http://listverse.com/2008/07/14/top-10- ... -miracles/

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/eviden ... obability/

I have even pulled out the direct and relevant portions in conversations, and we STILL have a random, propaganda driven atheists in a tissy claiming that no evidence has ever been presented and that the Bible, despite Ph.D level support, is just stupid?

For some reason even hand delivering the evidence with just a simple click is to much of burden for atheists, who demand that the evidence apparently be downloaded straight to their brain ala the Matrix to spare them the couple of minutes it would take to assess various bits of evidence? Which is of course 'logic' rather than simple laziness meant to maintain preconceptions and rude remarks directed at Christians?

Right, we are all fooled.

No worries though, said atheist gets to keep ignoring exactly what she demands because she slips the word 'agnostic' before he rabid denial and is this 'magically' relieved of the burden to actually acknowledge the full weight of evidence and can sit back and petulantly claim that it isn't there ... and she won;t be convinced until ... something forces her to actually acknowledge the very thing she demands?

Yep, its now proven. You can lead an agnostic atheist to evidence, but, quite literally, you cannot under any circumstances for them to so much as acknowledge it.

A terribly rational position isn't it?

Ah yes.. more and more raw links.. without the extraction and discussion of the points you think are valid.

Don't you realize that providing raw links is not debate?

Care to go into specific about those raw links , and show what arguments in those links you find rational and reasonable??

Once again, more supercilious claims. They have been extracted in context, and you are free to go back and look at the inclusion of those texts in their original.

Unfortunately, making vacuous claims is unhelpful and dishonest. Once again, you are making a deliberately false claim, that I have ONLY ever dumped the links and that is simply not true.

It is an excuse to avoid the very evidence you demand, and, as per the forum rules, I demand that you support your claim or apologize.

[stubbornone]

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...

It ALL over the forum.

I can only state that the refusal to read what is repeatedly provided, repeatedly directed, is a gross and deliberate form of dishonesty:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22109

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22096

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22087

THat one is about how to examine teh Bible critically rather than just declaring it stupid ... which is terribly logical and intelligent and not prejudice at all ...

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=21962

And that is just from the first page.

In fact, I have provided these sources multiple times:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009 ... acles.html

http://listverse.com/2008/07/14/top-10- ... -miracles/

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/eviden ... obability/

I have even pulled out the direct and relevant portions in conversations, and we STILL have a random, propaganda driven atheists in a tissy claiming that no evidence has ever been presented and that the Bible, despite Ph.D level support, is just stupid?

For some reason even hand delivering the evidence with just a simple click is to much of burden for atheists, who demand that the evidence apparently be downloaded straight to their brain ala the Matrix to spare them the couple of minutes it would take to assess various bits of evidence? Which is of course 'logic' rather than simple laziness meant to maintain preconceptions and rude remarks directed at Christians?

Right, we are all fooled.

No worries though, said atheist gets to keep ignoring exactly what she demands because she slips the word 'agnostic' before he rabid denial and is this 'magically' relieved of the burden to actually acknowledge the full weight of evidence and can sit back and petulantly claim that it isn't there ... and she won;t be convinced until ... something forces her to actually acknowledge the very thing she demands?

Yep, its now proven. You can lead an agnostic atheist to evidence, but, quite literally, you cannot under any circumstances for them to so much as acknowledge it.

A terribly rational position isn't it?

That's the worst "proof" I've ever seen.

The first link actually made me LOL it was so bad. I mean, it's just somebody posting on a message board about how the "laws of logic" are the truth.

Why don't you pick your best two pieces of evidence -- something that isn't a Christian blog or a post -- and I'll tell you why it fails to meet the burden.

Well, I rest my case. Rather than get involved in a discussion about the current evidence for God ... you simply LOL and avoid it.

Any pretense that you are driven by a desire to examine evidence in an objective fashion or otherwise seek it out for examination just evaporated.

Even agnostic atheism cannot explain away the very clear and deliberate avoidance of evidence ... but then, that IS my beef with agnostic atheism isn't it? That it is little more than an excuse to avoid evidence.

And as we see ...

I will also assume that you ar done using the ignore feature as a weapon?

[Danmark]

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

OK, just to humor you I checked out one of your automatic argument URLs.

Dumb. Sorry. But that site is the most pretentious dumb site I've ever seen.
Long list of silly buttons leading to a false but self satisfied conclusion that essentially, when stripped of its Orwellian buttons of ForceThink says nothing but:

GOD EXISTS! THE BIBLE SAYS SO.

It'll be a while before I check out one of those URLs of yours again.
To use a favorite word of yours: 'silliness.' But to be fair, I should say:
'Silliness wrapped in pretentious, moronic, bullying, puffed up nonsense.'

Well...? I had to be fair didn't I?

I sent that message to the moron who runs the site. If he's creative, I'll send his reply. I wonder if he'll make a button with my name on it.

[Star]

It doesn't seem Stubborn knows what evidence is or how to cite it.

Message board and blog posts in themselves are not acceptable sources of evidence.

I don't expect full citations in APA or MLA style, but the names and years of actual peer-reviewed research done by unbiased professional academics/scientists, who are experts in their fields, should be enough for me to be able to look it up.

I stand by my assertion that somebody anonymously posting on a message board that "the laws of logic are true therefore the Christian god exists" is laughable and not evidence at all. Sorry I laughed, but it's funny. Even if it made coherent sense it still wouldn't prove anything except somebody's amateur opinion.

Somebody may have mentioned this once, or twice, or a hundred times, but the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

Surprise: That's you!

[stubbornone]

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

OK, just to humor you I checked out one of your automatic argument URLs.

Dumb. Sorry. But that site is the most pretentious dumb site I've ever seen.
Long list of silly buttons leading to a false but self satisfied conclusion that essentially, when stripped of its Orwellian buttons of ForceThink says nothing but:

GOD EXISTS! THE BIBLE SAYS SO.

It'll be a while before I check out one of those URLs of yours again.
To use a favorite word of yours: 'silliness.' But to be fair, I should say:
'Silliness wrapped in pretentious, moronic, bullying, puffed up nonsense.'

Well...? I had to be fair didn't I?

I sent that message to the moron who runs the site. If he's creative, I'll send his reply. I wonder if he'll make a button with my name on it.

In short, you didn't go through the very basic process that that particular site walks you through step by step, depending upon how you demand proof? That one?

The one that walks you through moral absolutes and then DEMONSTRATES that these laws are in the Bible, giving truth the prediction/test component of falsifiability?

Wait. If you find truth in the Bible, its automatically rejected ... er, because its in the Bible.

Yep, that is silly.

No sense testing something or attempting to falsify it if its very presence in the document means its already forgone?

Again, do we see the problem? Atheists demand evidence, but no matter what is shown, rather than take the sheer amount of information and discern truth ... ITS ALL ABOUT REJECTING ANYTHING SHOWN YOU

Hence, maybe you should back up and support your own claims?