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.)

[stubbornone]

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!

Suprise, you claim there is no God ... indeed, you have claimed right here in the OP that such notions are sheer lunacy. Guess what princess? That is a claim that requires support.

Guess what else princess, as we are name dropping and other vapid vacuous accuations rather then debating now, guess what only ONE of us just did.

A half dozen sources, and you are are STILL claiming that the other side is not showing evidence ... which is, oddly, what you are doing.

So, why is atheism valid? Because we ignore things and insult people. Yeah atheism!

[stubbornone]

BTW - I have converted the agnostic theism. I am not actually claiming anything about God, as I don;t really understand the process (no really, I am serious) but I am still a theist and believe in God anyway and think that atheism is absolutely terrible.

Why you ask? Sorry atheists, I have no burden of proof because I have decided to barrow the atheistic standard of inserting the word 'agnostic' before my theism and am thus magically relieved of all requirements to support anything at all.

Therefore atheism is wrong UNTIL YOU wrap it in a bow and place the evidence in my lap for me. I might at some point deign to read it ... maybe?

So, hence forth all demands from atheists for evidence will simply have to deal with the apparently logical requirement that I am not an agnostic theist and have no burden or proof whatsoever.

Agnostic Scientologists are also rejoicing, because they to no longer have a burden of proof.

Agnostic Creationists are also rejoicing, as they too have been totally relieved of all evidential requirements and evolution is now defunct and devoid of intellectual value ... that is until Darwin himself manages to appear and explain it all to them? But he'd dead so ... Evolution is fake because agnostic Creationists don;t really know what Evolution is and sheer blind ignorance suffices where logic and problem solving should be fully engaged!

But heh, the magic of inserting the word agnostic relieves you of all requirements to support, and indeed you aren't even claiming anything at all ... so even if you ARE proven wrong ... you aren't wrong.

Deny evolution all you want ... because you arent actually denying it! What a magical word this 'agnostic' precondition is.

Oh Joy of Joy's I can never be wrong again and anything I think is automatically logical and supported ... wondrous freedom of ignorance and obfuscation!

I discovered today that putting the word agnostic before the word theist automatically make God real until atheists disprove it ... God IS REAL!!!! YEAH!!!!!

What? Is good enough for atheism? Why no anything else?

[TheTruth101]

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?

This is simple.

You say you can see the Sun therefore its evidence. Sun itself is a term used by science.

Within the bible, God is referenced as everything and all, so I can see the same 'sun' and see it as God giving us light.

If you conclude the 'sun' and everything is God, then God is within you and all around you as Christ have said.

It's a matter of you having faith in the wordly labels, or that of labels spoken in the bible.

It's called transformation from the physical to the spiritual nature if you decide to do so.

[Star]

BTW - I have converted the agnostic theism. I am not actually claiming anything about God, as I don;t really understand the process (no really, I am serious) but I am still a theist and believe in God anyway and think that atheism is absolutely terrible.

Why you ask? Sorry atheists, I have no burden of proof because I have decided to barrow the atheistic standard of inserting the word 'agnostic' before my theism and am thus magically relieved of all requirements to support anything at all.

Therefore atheism is wrong UNTIL YOU wrap it in a bow and place the evidence in my lap for me. I might at some point deign to read it ... maybe?

So, hence forth all demands from atheists for evidence will simply have to deal with the apparently logical requirement that I am not an agnostic theist and have no burden or proof whatsoever.

Agnostic Scientologists are also rejoicing, because they to no longer have a burden of proof.

Agnostic Creationists are also rejoicing, as they too have been totally relieved of all evidential requirements and evolution is now defunct and devoid of intellectual value ... that is until Darwin himself manages to appear and explain it all to them? But he'd dead so ... Evolution is fake because agnostic Creationists don;t really know what Evolution is and sheer blind ignorance suffices where logic and problem solving should be fully engaged!

But heh, the magic of inserting the word agnostic relieves you of all requirements to support, and indeed you aren't even claiming anything at all ... so even if you ARE proven wrong ... you aren't wrong.

Deny evolution all you want ... because you arent actually denying it! What a magical word this 'agnostic' precondition is.

Oh Joy of Joy's I can never be wrong again and anything I think is automatically logical and supported ... wondrous freedom of ignorance and obfuscation!

I discovered today that putting the word agnostic before the word theist automatically make God real until atheists disprove it ... God IS REAL!!!! YEAH!!!!!

What? Is good enough for atheism? Why no anything else?

Wow, dude. What a bunch of hogwash.

Pull your argument together, man.

You're making the claim that the Christian god is the one true god. You carry the burden. Suck it up.

[TheTruth101]

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.

First, a link is a link and a source is a source. Whether you aprove of it or not, no one cares.

Two, going around the forum trolling endlessly dosent prove that you are speaking in stance with atheism.

Three, prove links as to your belief in 'lukewarm' stance to both sides.

[otseng]

Moderator Action

Moved to General Chat.


______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.

[TheTruth101]

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!

Again, evidence was given why he is taking his stance. The links listed are evidence of his source. If you disaprove, it dosent matter because I think his sources are fine. In other words, thats just your personal opinion, again.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 52:

BTW - I have converted the agnostic theism. I am not actually claiming anything about God, as I don;t really understand the process (no really, I am serious) but I am still a theist and believe in God anyway and think that atheism is absolutely terrible.

Good for you, and we 'preciate it.

Why you ask? Sorry atheists, I have no burden of proof because I have decided to barrow the atheistic standard of inserting the word 'agnostic' before my theism and am thus magically relieved of all requirements to support anything at all.

Pretty much, 'til ya set to makin' claims about it.

Therefore atheism is wrong UNTIL YOU wrap it in a bow and place the evidence in my lap for me. I might at some point deign to read it ... maybe?

I'm getting a sense the atheist could write their argument out in chocolate covered bacon and you still wouldn't accept it.

So, hence forth all demands from atheists for evidence will simply have to deal with the apparently logical requirement that I am not an agnostic theist and have no burden or proof whatsoever.

"No burden or no proof? I'm starting to believe ya.

Agnostic Scientologists are also rejoicing, because they to no longer have a burden of proof.
...
...
...

Yeah, but they're Scientologists, so there's all that.

Dude, if you're so unwilling or incapable of showing you speak truth, can you be so proud about getting upset that folks don't believe ya?

I'm with ya if ya say some atheists fail to convince. I ain't with ya if you indicate their failure means your failure is somehow more acceptable.

Your whole screed here indicates to me one who seeks some reason, any reason, to not hafta support his own claims.

[stubbornone]

BTW - I have converted the agnostic theism. I am not actually claiming anything about God, as I don;t really understand the process (no really, I am serious) but I am still a theist and believe in God anyway and think that atheism is absolutely terrible.

Why you ask? Sorry atheists, I have no burden of proof because I have decided to barrow the atheistic standard of inserting the word 'agnostic' before my theism and am thus magically relieved of all requirements to support anything at all.

Therefore atheism is wrong UNTIL YOU wrap it in a bow and place the evidence in my lap for me. I might at some point deign to read it ... maybe?

So, hence forth all demands from atheists for evidence will simply have to deal with the apparently logical requirement that I am not an agnostic theist and have no burden or proof whatsoever.

Agnostic Scientologists are also rejoicing, because they to no longer have a burden of proof.

Agnostic Creationists are also rejoicing, as they too have been totally relieved of all evidential requirements and evolution is now defunct and devoid of intellectual value ... that is until Darwin himself manages to appear and explain it all to them? But he'd dead so ... Evolution is fake because agnostic Creationists don;t really know what Evolution is and sheer blind ignorance suffices where logic and problem solving should be fully engaged!

But heh, the magic of inserting the word agnostic relieves you of all requirements to support, and indeed you aren't even claiming anything at all ... so even if you ARE proven wrong ... you aren't wrong.

Deny evolution all you want ... because you arent actually denying it! What a magical word this 'agnostic' precondition is.

Oh Joy of Joy's I can never be wrong again and anything I think is automatically logical and supported ... wondrous freedom of ignorance and obfuscation!

I discovered today that putting the word agnostic before the word theist automatically make God real until atheists disprove it ... God IS REAL!!!! YEAH!!!!!

What? Is good enough for atheism? Why no anything else?

Wow, dude. What a bunch of hogwash.

Pull your argument together, man.

You're making the claim that the Christian god is the one true god. You carry the burden. Suck it up.

Hogwash is it? That is amazing. When YOU claimed it about atheism is was all fine and dandy. Yet when I took YOUR standard and applied it MY position ... suddenly the SAME standard becomes ... Hogwash?

You do realize the whole concept of objective standards is that the induce a level playing field? So, either atheism which is defined as WITHOUT GOD, has a burden of support just like WITH GOD also has a burden of support ... or ... we will continue the game of magic use of 'agnosticism' which magically means you have no burden of proof.

So, with you star, I am officially an agnostic theist with no burden of support.

It is your standard. I am simply applying it.

If the standard is Hogwash, so be it.

[SailingCyclops]

You say you can see the Sun therefore its evidence. Sun itself is a term used by science.

Within the bible, God is referenced as everything and all, so I can see the same 'sun' and see it as God giving us light.

The sun is a star. It is a fusion reaction converting hydrogen to helium. It is not a "term", it is a very real thing.

You are free to "see it" as whatever you like. You can see it as a jack-o-lantern if you want. That's your prerogative. However if you are going to re-define what the sun is, then you had better provide evidence. What exactly do you mean by this term "God"?

If you conclude the 'sun' and everything is God, then God is within you and all around you as Christ have said.

"IF" I conclude everything is gelatin then jello is within me and all around me and we are all jello-people living in a jello-world. What utter nonsense and total gibberish!

It's a matter of you having faith in the wordly labels, or that of labels spoken in the bible.

It has nothing to do with "labels" it has everything to do with definitions of real things which function in specific ways, according to known laws of nature, for which there is much evidence. The sun is defined and understood as a star. We know a great deal about it's workings, where it came from, what it is composed of, how long it has been around, and how long it will last. We know how it will end it's life and the ramifications that end will have on the solar system.

Now YOU Define this thing you label "god", which you claim, without evidence, is everything everywhere all the time. Is it animal, mineral, or vegetable? What laws does it follow? Where did it come from? What evidence can you provide to support those specific claim?

It's called transformation from the physical to the spiritual nature if you decide to do so.

The only transformation here is hydrogen being fused (transformed) into helium and generating vast amounts of energy in the process.

What is this "spiritual nature" thing you have introduced and now are talking about? I have no idea what that is, please define it and provide evidence to back your definition up.