Agnosticism is more honest than Atheism

[pokeegeorge]

Agnostics say "We cannot know if there is a God."

Atheists say "We know there is no God."

Their main line of defense of this premise so far to me here is that, "There is no evidence there IS a God, therefore there is no God."

Then the naysayers of the naysayers say "Prove there is no God."

Then the Atheists say, "YOU have to prove there IS a God; I don't have to prove there ISN'T a God." Why? Since we are making a claim of something, THEY only resided in Unbiased Land.

Not true. Atheism ASSERTS there is no God. It is in fact a stance of CERTAINTY.

Agnosticism says no one can be certain. My family was agnostic, and I grew up in this milieu. I don't understand Atheism and this is why. Please correct or inform.

[Artie]

You being entirely arbitrary here. Babies have no concept of god/s.

That is PRECISELY my point. They are weak atheists and have an absence of belief and an absence of nonbelief in gods by default because what else can they be when they have no concept of gods? They most certainly can't be agnostics because that would require them to become rationalists and then require the view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist.

When they hear of the concept, many people will be inclined to consider the concept either plausible or implausible - some might even immediately believe or reject the idea. But even if some folk somehow manage to form no opinion whatsoever, something has still changed, the simple fact that they now understand the concept.

You don't form no opinion whatsoever, you start off with no opinion whatsoever and then form an opinion. If you don't form an opinion you are left where you started with no opinion.

That is a very clear and obvious point of distinction between the earliest state and all later states. It is entirely arbitrary to say that some other characteristic defines a 'default state,' simply because your alternative 'default' happens to also include a state which you claim to embody.

?

You can quote as many dictionaries as you like but times have changed and the meaning of words change with them. Atheists have the right to define themselves and call themselves whatever they like regardless what theists say.

And yet the point of contention here is not atheists defining what atheists are, it is atheists (and perhaps a couple of radical Christians) trying to define babies and folk who'd never even heard of god-concepts into atheists.

No they don't. They explain that there are two kinds of atheists, weak and strong. Everybody who isn't a theist is either a weak or a strong atheist. Being a weak atheist is the default. It is not something you become, it is something you are born as. It means a person is neither a believer nor a nonbeliever, he is simply not a believer.

I have repeatedly and consistently agreed, contrary to the OP (and a couple of those dictionaries I referenced), that atheism need not mean denying the existence of god/s - need not mean believing something contrary. That is a comparatively extreme or 'strong' viewpoint which some theists prefer to attack or caricature, but which many self-described atheists have quite fairly rejected as a sole defining characteristic of atheism.

That is the definition of strong atheism.

But that still requires having encountered a god-concept.

Strong atheism requires having encountered a god-concept, weak atheism doesn't.

Every single self-described atheist has encountered and disbelieved god concepts.

Not true. Every single self-described HARD atheist has encountered and disbelieved god concepts.

What I do not accept is self-described atheists attempting to define atheism in a manner which includes babies, dogs, folk who'd never even heard of god... and me. It is a disingenuous propagandistic ploy which is serves only to confuse, as the past 19 pages of this discussion prove beyond any reasonable doubt.

After as you say 19 pages you still haven't managed to understand the difference between weak and strong atheism. How sad.

And with that said, I think it's time for me to bow out of the discussion

See you around.

[pokeegeorge]

[Replying to Artie]

Art, it would seem you are trying to make all men women and children weak atheists as default, and this agenda to rub us theists the wrong way.

So then YOUR defn of atheism esp. WEAK atheism is simply the LACK of belief in God,
which IS NOT the dictionary defn at all...

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Miriam-Webster...see how DISbelief and a LACK of belief are not in fact the same thing.

I would allow for a stance of KNOWING why the subject has a LACK of belief. This KNOWING or set of things 'known' by an atheist is why he says he lacks belief.

Therefore a child is not an atheist by default. Neither an agnostic, neither a theist.

A child belongs in no category since like I've amended my own OP...ATHEISM is a stance of KNOWING something. Remember the 'A' in Atheism, sir.

[pokeegeorge]

[Replying to post 230 by Artie]

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Your WEAK atheism is not a correct defn. Because an atheist KNOWS why he lacks belief. Or thinks he knows, anyway. To smudge children and non-caring individuals into this category of people is wrong. It is not default for anyone, and atheism is a STANCE which implies commitment to SOMETHING even if this is a lack of belief, i.e. weak atheism.

[Artie]

To smudge children and non-caring individuals into this category of people is wrong. It is not default for anyone,

Of course weak atheism is the default. The definition of a weak atheist is a person who is neither a believer nor a nonbeliever. And an infant is neither a believer nor a nonbeliever. So what must he be when he comes out?

An atheist is simply any person who is not a theist. Then you separate atheists into two groups: weak atheists are those who are without belief in gods but don't believe that gods don't exist. Strong atheists are those who are without belief in gods but categorically believe that gods don't exist.

[Angel]

Agnostics say "We cannot know if there is a God."

Atheists say "We know there is no God."

Their main line of defense of this premise so far to me here is that, "There is no evidence there IS a God, therefore there is no God."

Then the naysayers of the naysayers say "Prove there is no God."

Then the Atheists say, "YOU have to prove there IS a God; I don't have to prove there ISN'T a God." Why? Since we are making a claim of something, THEY only resided in Unbiased Land.

Not true. Atheism ASSERTS there is no God. It is in fact a stance of CERTAINTY.

Agnosticism says no one can be certain. My family was agnostic, and I grew up in this milieu. I don't understand Atheism and this is why. Please correct or inform.

According to Thomas Huxley, not only are agnostics more honest but they were also more scientifically minded than atheists and theists. I'll quote from his writings (based on the context, the terms "heterodox" and "anti-theology" refer to atheists and their views):

From The Agnostic Annual (1884)

Some twenty years ago, or thereabouts, I invented the word "Agnostic" to denote people who, like myself, confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with the utmost confidence; and it has been a source of some amusement to me to watch the gradual acceptance of the term and its correlate, "Agnosticism"...

1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.

2. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.

3. I have no doubt that scientific criticism will prove destructive to the forms of supernaturalism which enter into the constitution of existing religions. On trial of any so-called miracle the verdict of science is "Not proven." But true Agnosticism will not forget that [6] existence, motion, and law-abiding operation in nature are more stupendous miracles than any recounted by the mythologies, and that there may be things, not only in the heavens and earth, but beyond the intelligible universe, which "are not dreamt of in our philosophy." The theological "gnosis" would have us believe that the world is a conjuror's house; the anti-theological "gnosis" talks as if it were a "dirt-pie" made by the two blind children, Law and Force. Agnosticism simply says that we know nothing of what may be beyond phenomena.

[Artie]

According to Thomas Huxley, not only were agnostics more honest but they were also more scientifically minded.

More scientifically minded?! Of course they were scientifically minded. Agnostics are per definition scientifically minded rationalists believing in reason and evidence and the scientific method and use this method to come to the conclusion that there isn't enough evidence either way to believe in the existence of gods or not.

[Philbert]

So judging by the last few pages of the discussion, the 20th century attempts to redefine 'atheist' and 'agnostic' have not helped anyone, merely created endless confusion.

Bingo. Dictionary debates are a waste of time.

[no evidence no belief]

Agnostics say "We cannot know if there is a God."

Atheists say "We know there is no God."

Their main line of defense of this premise so far to me here is that, "There is no evidence there IS a God, therefore there is no God."

Then the naysayers of the naysayers say "Prove there is no God."

Then the Atheists say, "YOU have to prove there IS a God; I don't have to prove there ISN'T a God." Why? Since we are making a claim of something, THEY only resided in Unbiased Land.

Not true. Atheism ASSERTS there is no God. It is in fact a stance of CERTAINTY.

Agnosticism says no one can be certain. My family was agnostic, and I grew up in this milieu. I don't understand Atheism and this is why. Please correct or inform.

You are at a crossroad. You have a decision to make. Once we've clarified this for you, you can either admit you misspoke, or not. By your actions we can all determine if you truly love Jesus or not.

Here goes:

Atheists do NOT say "we know there is no God". That would be just as insane as saying "we know there is a God" (remind you of anyone?)

This is ALL that atheists say "We will start believing in Allah, Zeus, Yahweh, Santa, Krishna and Spiderman AS SOON AS YOU PROVIDE VALID EVIDENCE FOR ANY OF THEM, and as soon as you nullify the overwhelming evidence AGAINST them".

Also, this will come as a shock, but most atheists.... also consider themselves agnostic.

I am an agnostic in that I do not claim to know whether Zeus exists.

I am also an atheist in that I am not convinced of Zeus's existence by the evidence provided.

[Artie]

This is ALL that atheists say "We will start believing in Allah, Zeus, Yahweh, Santa, Krishna and Spiderman AS SOON AS YOU PROVIDE VALID EVIDENCE FOR ANY OF THEM, and as soon as you nullify the overwhelming evidence AGAINST them".

No that is not what atheists say that is what agnostics say. You are confusing agnostics and atheists. Simply think of it like this:

Weak atheists have an absence of belief in gods and an absence of nonbelief in gods. That is the default state. Agnostics have an absence of belief in gods and an absence of nonbelief in gods because they are rationalists and have consciously weighed the evidence and found there isn't enough evidence to have a belief or a nonbelief.

[alive]

Agnostics say "We cannot know if there is a God."

Atheists say "We know there is no God."

Their main line of defense of this premise so far to me here is that, "There is no evidence there IS a God, therefore there is no God."

Then the naysayers of the naysayers say "Prove there is no God."

Then the Atheists say, "YOU have to prove there IS a God; I don't have to prove there ISN'T a God." Why? Since we are making a claim of something, THEY only resided in Unbiased Land.

Not true. Atheism ASSERTS there is no God. It is in fact a stance of CERTAINTY.

Agnosticism says no one can be certain. My family was agnostic, and I grew up in this milieu. I don't understand Atheism and this is why. Please correct or inform.

You are at a crossroad. You have a decision to make. Once we've clarified this for you, you can either admit you misspoke, or not. By your actions we can all determine if you truly love Jesus or not.

Here goes:

Atheists do NOT say "we know there is no God". That would be just as insane as saying "we know there is a God" (remind you of anyone?)

This is ALL that atheists say "We will start believing in Allah, Zeus, Yahweh, Santa, Krishna and Spiderman AS SOON AS YOU PROVIDE VALID EVIDENCE FOR ANY OF THEM, and as soon as you nullify the overwhelming evidence AGAINST them".

Also, this will come as a shock, but most atheists.... also consider themselves agnostic.

I am an agnostic in that I do not claim to know whether Zeus exists.

I am also an atheist in that I am not convinced of Zeus's existence by the evidence provided.

I believe that many believed in Zeus at one time because they did not know the science behind most of his powers...Firing lighting bolts as a example... All the Olympians explained most of the powers of nature... We know how those things work now...

You surely can't sit here and say that there's a chance that Zeus and the Olympian's actually exist?