Agnosticism vs. Atheism

[ST88]

Atheism is traditionally divided into two groups: strong and weak.

The strong-atheist actively disbelieves in a God. s/he has considered the question of whether or not there is a God or gods, and has answered the question "no".

The weak-atheist passively disbelieves in a God. s/he has heard the question of whether or not there is a God and refuses to answer because no available evidence exists in either direction. The question itself is meaningless.

In practice, agnosticism and weak-atheism are identical and strong-atheism is often translated as just atheism when the two are mentioned together. The agnostic does not trust conclusions that are not based on empirical evidence and/or logic. Thomas Huxley, who coined the modern-day term "agnostic" in 1869, has this to say.

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as: in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. ... The application of the principle results in the denial of, or the suspension of judgment concerning, a number of propositions respecting which our contemporary ecclesiastical "gnostics" profess entire certainty.

In terms of everyday life, both agnostics and atheists behave as if there were not a God or gods. But the agnostic tends to consider the various questions posed by religion and judge them on their merits, while the atheist tends to reject religious doctrine outright as it applies to invisible deities.

There are also shades of in-betweenness, but this seems like a good place to start. Where do your values fall? And what are your views concerning "proofs" of God, Heaven, etc.?

[concerro]

Where do your values fall? And what are your views concerning "proofs" of God, Heaven, etc.?

I'm a weak atheist and a weak agnostic. I remain unconvinced by philosophical arguments in either direction, because it's easy to go wildly wrong if one doesn't grasp the nature of the thing one's arguing about, and who could grasp the nature of God if he exists? And the empirical evidence strikes me as inconclusive.

I don't much like uncertainty, as a matter of temperament; most of the time I think I'd rather be a deist or a strong atheist. But I have no sufficient reason for adopting a position of more certainty.

I dont see why someone could not be able to understand God if he existed. I dont think he could expect us to relate to him if we were not capable of understanding him.

[TransverseWave]

I dont see why someone could not be able to understand God if he existed. I dont think he could expect us to relate to him if we were not capable of understanding him.

Does he expect us to relate to him, in deist conceptions?

I didn't mean to imply that God would be completely unknowable, but more that there are some ways in which any being capable of creating a universe would be likely to escape human understanding.

[concerro]

I dont see why someone could not be able to understand God if he existed. I dont think he could expect us to relate to him if we were not capable of understanding him.

Does he expect us to relate to him, in deist conceptions?

I didn't mean to imply that God would be completely unknowable, but more that there are some ways in which any being capable of creating a universe would be likely to escape human understanding.

I never realised anyone replied but anyway.
I am sure that if such a being existed that being would be able to do things we could not understand, but I dont think he would commit the actions of the God of the bible who's actions are contradicting and irrational at times. I am also sure he would not require beings of logic to follow him based on faith with no proof. Even before I admitted to myself I was becoming a non-beleiver I started to think that if there was a God it would not behave like the christian god. The only that I was asking for when it still would have been possible for me to go back to Christianity was answers that made sense and were not vague. The reason I started debating was to see if someone could answer the questions but all I got was copout after copout.

[SarraceniaScott]

I do not believe that any gods exist, thus I simply regard myself as atheist to avoid further confusion. (Please adjust local labels as necessary.) However, my atheism does not completely rule out the existence of any god, should the affirmative evidence make a convincing case. Until then, trying to distinguish the unobserveable from the nonexistent remains a tedious task.

Very well said, and identical to my feelings.

And what are your views concerning "proofs" of God, Heaven, etc.?

People who need to construct proofs of god/heaven probably, like me, aren't wired for faith; they need evidence to believe something. However, their fear of death has overwhelmed their reason, forcing them to construct elaborate fantasies.

This, in itself, isn't a big deal to me. Whatever allows them to cope, more power to them. However, the same people who need to construct proof in the form of these elaborate fantasies often need to convince others of it, as well. It's as if they think if they can convince enough people it's true, then it will be true. In this sense, it is a pernicious mind-virus, and must be stopped. (I'm referring, e.g., to literal creationists who try to spread their nonsense in schools, not the theistic evolutionist who has managed to reconcile faith with science in a manner that does not degrade either.)

[CJO]

I label myself a "Devout Atheist" yes, of the "strong" variety.

It's my beleif that any position other than agnosticism requires a leap of faith. Ultimately, one is fooling oneself with the proposition that scientific discoveries force one to adopt any religious conviction, theist or not.

Just as a religious person looks at the universe around him and decides, as a thinking, feeling part of that universe, that a beneficent deity must pervade it, so, I look around at the exact same universe and "know" in my bones, that we are alone.[/i]

[starseyer]

I have recently considered myself a strong atheist, because I firmly believe that if there is any being that exists that may be godlike by human standards, it would still not properly be called a god. It could be some sort of advanced alien, but not a god.

(Note that I say "believe" and not "know." My definition of a strong atheist--the one I'm used to--is the belief that there is no god. As opposed to the lack of belief in a god, which is weak atheism.)

[Alien]

It was my intention to post here, but I went to another thread.

Please have a look, if you wish, at my post #10 in this thread

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=1135

I can't see differences defined as "weak" or "strong", or others.
Traditionally, these apply to the english world: in Italy they are not actually used.

[Agnostika]

There are also shades of in-betweenness, but this seems like a good place to start. Where do your values fall? And what are your views concerning "proofs" of God, Heaven, etc.?

Here are my thoughts...

Atheism can be defined as:

Weak Atheism: a lack of belief in god(s)
Normal Atheism: a lack of belief in all god(s)
Strong Atheism: there is no god(s)

I am therefore a weak atheist when it comes to HaShem(Judaism), Allah(Islam), Brahma(Vishnu, Brahman, Shiva, and all other hindu gods and avators). I have studied the Messianic, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant views of Ieosus and YHVH, and lack belief in most of these gods, however there are over 30,000 christian churches, so its hard to keep up. I am an agnostic (uncertain) about all other gods I have yet to study. Also I do not lack belief in the supernatural, rather I am agnostic about it, after experiencing it.

[Cephus]

As I understand it:

Strong Atheism = "I can prove there is no god."
Weak Atheism = "There is no sufficient evidence or proof to believe in gods. Therefore, I must conclude that gods do not exist."

Strong Agnosticism = "We can never know whether there are any gods or not."
Weak Agnosticism = "Given the evidence and proofs before me, I do not know whether there are gods or not"

Just bumping a bit...

Theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism are not part of the same continuum, but are two separate questions.

Theism/atheism deals with belief.
Gnosticism/agnosticism deals with knowledge.

Therefore, everyone, Christian, atheist, Hindu, Scientologist... EVERYONE is both a theist/atheist and a gnostic/agnostic. To claim to be one without the other is to present an incomplete picture of your belief system.

Personally, I'm a gnostic atheist, which means that I do not believe in god(s), but I think that it is possible that man should be able to demonstrate their existence. In popular parlance, that also translates into "weak" atheism, I lack belief, I do not actively claim disbelief.

Personally, I think that's the only rational position to take.

[McCulloch]

Theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism are not part of the same continuum, but are two separate questions.

Theism/atheism deals with belief.
Gnosticism/agnosticism deals with knowledge.

Therefore, everyone, Christian, atheist, Hindu, Scientologist... EVERYONE is both a theist/atheist and a gnostic/agnostic. To claim to be one without the other is to present an incomplete picture of your belief system.

Personally, I'm a gnostic atheist, which means that I do not believe in god(s), but I think that it is possible that man should be able to demonstrate their existence. In popular parlance, that also translates into "weak" atheism, I lack belief, I do not actively claim disbelief.

Why do I feel a strong urge to draw a two by two matrix?