Are You Atheist or Agnostic

[Tnerb]

Agnosticism. Atheism deals with absolutes, so it cannot be better than theism.

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes. Very well I will do what I must." "You will try," anikan says, preparing his emotional assult.

 

[Dinosaur]

Sarkus: You are creating semanitc confusion by introducing irrelevant terms. The following is obfuscation.

All well and good, but "Believing God Exists" is a 2-dimensional statement compared to the 1-dimensional "God Exists".

And logic of a 2-dimensional array leads to more outputs than simply X / Not-X.

"Belief that God exists" is an XY statement (X related to "belief" and Y related to "exists")

There are 4 logical outputs:
XY - theism (belief that God exists)
X Y' - atheism (belief that God does not exist)
X' Y - atheism (no belief that God exists)
X' Y' - theism (no belief that God does not exist)

[X Y'] is very different to [X' Y].

You obviously fail to grasp this, probably because you simplified the atheistic and theistic position to a simple 1-dimensional statement.

1-dimensional & 2-dimensiaonal are mathemtaical concepts. Bringing such terms into this discussion is an attempt to baffle with bulls**t when you cannot dazzle with brilliance.

You seem to saying "belief that god exists" is a more complex statement than the statement: "god exists." Why not just say so instead of bringing in terms like dimension & array? Of course expressing your notion in a simple direct fashion would be an oviously trivial observation, not suitable for obfuscatiing the issue being discussed.

You are complicating a simple matter of definitions. I wonder if you have any background in formal logic. I suppose you will come up with even more obfuscation in response to the above.

As an exercise, try applying your weird analysis to some simple statement like "2 Plus 2 = 4" instead of "god exists." You might then understand that (to use your notation) X'Y is not so different from XY'

"God exists" is a simple statement. It could be true or false, but anyone iwth a background in formal logic knows that it is more in the nature of an axiom than a theorem subject to proof or disproof.

The definitions are very simple:

• Theist: One who bleieves that at least one god exists. Id est: One who claims that "god exists" is is a true statement.
  
• Atheist: One who believes that no god exists. Id est: One who claims that "god exists" is a false statement.
  
  
• Agnositic: One who assigns neither a true nor a false value to the statement.

The thread is alleged to merely ask the question: "Are you an atheist or a theist?"

Apparently agnostics were not invited to this party, and I should have left off the last definition, which I do not think much of as a definition.

BTW: Note that the definitions are much easier to understand when expressed in terms of assiging true or false to the statment:"god exists." The methods of formal logic make simple concepts easy to express. A natural language like Exglish always muddies the waters a bit.

Has anyone here paid attention to the Sarkus posts? If so, do you think he has some cogent point of view on the subject?

 

[Cybernetics]

as long as the theism adds to ideas and dose not clash then it cant be defined as bad, more options are good option you hust dont have to take them

 

[Cybernetics]

on the sarkus post: please explain the difference between X'Y XY' and XY X'Y'. Would you say you had "no belief that God does not exist"? also the difference between belife and presenting that belife as a fact is irelavent because they are in ecence the same

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus: You are creating semanitc confusion by introducing irrelevant terms.

No - you are creating misunderstanding through your lack of comprehension.

The following is obfuscation.1-dimensional & 2-dimensiaonal are mathemtaical concepts. Bringing such terms into this discussion is an attempt to baffle with bulls**t when you cannot dazzle with brilliance.

Apologies, but logic is logic, whether you deal in mathematics or in any other field. If you can't handle what you began... :shrug:

You seem to saying "belief that god exists" is a more complex statement than the statement: "god exists." Why not just say so instead of bringing in terms like dimension & array? Of course expressing your notion in a simple direct fashion would be an oviously trivial observation, not suitable for obfuscatiing the issue being discussed.

Because YOU were the one introducing mathematical notation... X as "God exists".
I was merely following suit.

You are complicating a simple matter of definitions.

I am trying to clarify YOUR lack of understanding of simple terms.

As an exercise, try applying your weird analysis to some simple statement like "2 Plus 2 = 4" instead of "god exists." You might then understand that (to use your notation) X'Y is not so different from XY'

Logical fallacy on your part, I'm afraid... as your analogy is flawed.

X'Y can be very different to XY'.

Imagine the sentence "I like black".
X = "I like" and X' = "I don't like"
Y = "black" and Y' = "white".

If you can't tell the difference between "I don't like black" and "I like white" then there is no hope in you understanding the fact that atheists do NOT need to believe that God does not exist.

The definitions are very simple:

• Theist: One who bleieves that at least one god exists. Id est: One who claims that "god exists" is is a true statement.
  
• Atheist: One who believes that no god exists. Id est: One who claims that "god exists" is a false statement.
  
• Agnositic: One who assigns neither a true nor a false value to the statement.

The line I have highlighted is where you error lies... Atheists merely lack the positive belief that God exists.
They do NOT have to go so far as to claim that God does NOT exist.

Apparently agnostics were not invited to this party, and I should have left off the last definition, which I do not think much of as a definition.

Agnosticism is NOT a middle ground.

As Enmos has stated elsewhere:
As yourself this question: Do you believe that God exists?
If you say "Yes" then you are a theist.
If you say "No" then you are an atheist.

Note that by saying "No" you are not necessarily claiming that you believe that God does NOT exist.

 

[Sarkus]

on the sarkus post: please explain the difference between X'Y XY' and XY X'Y'. Would you say you had "no belief that God does not exist"? also the difference between belife and presenting that belife as a fact is irelavent because they are in ecence the same

I would say I have no belief that God exists. That makes me an atheist.
I would also say I have no belief that God does not exist. That makes me a weak atheist, compared to someone who has the belief that God does not exist (strong atheist).

XY = I believe God exists
X'Y = I do not believe God exists
XY' = I believe that God does not exist
X'Y' = I do not believe that God does not exist

Please note: The claim "I believe that God exists" is very different to "God exists".

 

[(Q)]

Nothing can come from nothing. That's completely illogical.

Perhaps to you, but to those who have an education, it isn't illogical at all.

 

[Cybernetics]

Sarkus, your last sentence did not answer the question also i would note that giving X/Y properties as example has no profe elsewhere
how can you not belive god exists and yet also not believe he dose not. this canot be agnoscticisam as that would need to be undecided. two totalitarian statements do not create a middle ground

 

[Norsefire]

Perhaps to you, but to those who have an education, it isn't illogical at all.

It's entirely illogical regardless.

 

[Dinosaur]

Sarkus: Is English your primary language? If not, I would prefer to end this discussion with you. You posted the following:

As Enmos has stated elsewhere:
As yourself this question: Do you believe that God exists?
If you say "Yes" then you are a theist.
If you say "No" then you are an atheist.

Note that by saying "No" you are not necessarily claiming that you believe that God does NOT exist.

Consider the following two statements.

• I do not believe that god exists. This is the semantic equivalent of answering "No" to the question: "Do you believe that god exists?"
  
  
• I believe that god does not exist.

I claim that the above two bolded statements are semantically equivalent. Id Est: Both statements have the same meaning.

Do you claim otherwise? Id est: Do you claim that the above two statments have differing meanings?

If you so claim, can you explain the difference between the meaning of those two sentences?

 

[Norsefire]

They aren't semantically equivalent.

If you were asked "Do you believe that God exists" and answered "No", it means " I do not believe that God exists", not "I believe that no God exists"

 

[Dinosaur]

NorseFire: I would agree with you if the question was "Do you believe that the Christian god exists?" One who believes in the existence of Shiva or Zeus would be quite likely to say that he did not believe in the existence of the Christian god.

However, saying "I do not believe that god exists" at least implies that the speaker is indicating a disbelief in the existence of any god.

If I believed in the existence of Zeus, I might say "I believe that Zeus is the only god who exists" or I might say "I do not believe in Shiva." I would not say "I do not believe in the existence of god."

If somebody asks me: "Do you believe that god exists?' I consider "No" a sufficient answer. I do not think it is necessary for me to embellish by replying: "I do not believe in the existence of any god."

In some contexts, I might give a more detailed answer. If an evangelistic Christian asked me, I might assume that a simple "No" would imply that I was a Muslim or a believer in some god other than his.

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus: Is English your primary language? If not, I would prefer to end this discussion with you.

LOL. I was actually going to ask you the same thing.

Consider the following two statements.

• I do not believe that god exists.
  [*]I believe that god does not exist.

I claim that the above two bolded statements are semantically equivalent. Id Est: Both statements have the same meaning.

Do you claim otherwise? Id est: Do you claim that the above two statments have differing meanings?

If you so claim, can you explain the difference between the meaning of those two sentences?

Yes. I not only claim they are different - but they logically ARE different.

"I do not believe that God exists" makes no statement regarding one's belief (or lack of) in God's non-existence. Many make the mistake of assuming that there is, within this statement, an implicit claim being made regarding one's belief in God's non-existence. But, strictly speaking, this assumption is incorrect, and it is the error you are making.

Semantically the two sentences are very different:
If liking X and Y are mutually exclusive, by your understanding of semantics, saying "I do not like X" is the same as saying "I like Y".
But clearly the first statement says nothing of your like (or dislike) for "Y".
Can you see the difference in meaning now?


And on clarifying where agnosticism fits in...

Imagine there are two objects you can pick up...
Box1 is "belief that God exists".
Box2 is "belief that God does not exist".

The rules are simple... you can not pick up both boxes (they are mutually exclusive) but you also don't have to pick any at all.

You claim, unless I am mistaken, that not picking either is agnosticism.
This is incorrect.
- Picking Box1 is theism.
- Not picking Box1 is atheism - whether you pick Box2 or not.
If you pick Box2 you are a "strong" atheist. You are saying I believe that god does not exist
If you pick neither Box1 nor Box2 you are a "weak" atheist. You are saying I do not believe that god exists, nor do I believe that God does not exist.

Agnosticism relates purely to one's stance on the epistemology of the subject (e.g. god). In many cases agnosticism (lack of knowledge or claim that knowledge is impossible) leads (rationally) to (weak) atheism - i.e. how can one believe in God's existence or non-existence if there is no knowledge, or if god is inherently unknowable. But some say that God is unknowable (agnostic) but still believe in God's existence (theist). And some in God's non-existence (atheist).

Agnosticism is NOT a middle ground between theism and atheism.
Atheism and theism is a binary position - you are either one or the other. If you are not a theist then you are an atheist, whether a result of agnosticism or any other thought process (or lack thereof). And as said, it is possible to be an agnostic theist as well.

 

[(Q)]

It's entirely illogical regardless.

To YOU.

 

[Norsefire]

If somebody asks me: "Do you believe that god exists?' I consider "No" a sufficient answer. I do not think it is necessary for me to embellish by replying: "I do not believe in the existence of any god."

In some contexts, I might give a more detailed answer. If an evangelistic Christian asked me, I might assume that a simple "No" would imply that I was a Muslim or a believer in some god other than his.

All "Gods" are the same concept.

To YOU.

And to you likewise about God.

 

[Dinosaur]

Sarkus: You create confusion in your own mind by not using and analyzing simple statements. Use of natural language easily causes confusion, which is the reason that mathematics and logic avoid natural languages as much as possible, inventing such disciplines as symbolic logic and axiomatic mathematics.

Let us avoid complications due to consideration of polytheistic religions. With that caveat, the following is a simple statement.

• God exists.

Asking a person to assign a logical value of true or false to that statement is all that is required to determine his status as a theist or an atheist.

• A person who claims that the statement is true is a theist.
  
  
• A person who claims that the statement is false is an atheist.
  
  
• A person who assigns neither true nor false to that statement is an agnostic.

It is not necessary to introduce the term Belief.

The agnostic view is admittedly a bit complicated, probably requiring analysis of why the person does not assign a logical value.

Statements & games like the following are obfuscations.

• "I do not believe that God exists" makes no statement regarding one's belief (or lack of) in God's non-existence.
  
  
• Imagine there are two objects you can pick up...
  Box1 is "belief that God exists".
  Box2 is "belief that God does not exist".
  
  The rules are simple... you can not pick up both boxes (they are mutually exclusive) but you also don't have to pick any at all.
  
  You claim, unless I am mistaken, that not picking either is agnosticism.
  This is incorrect.
  - Picking Box1 is theism.
  - Not picking Box1 is atheism - whether you pick Box2 or not.
  If you pick Box2 you are a "strong" atheist. You are saying I believe that god does not exist. If you pick neither Box1 nor Box2 you are a "weak" atheist. You are saying I do not believe that god exists, nor do I believe that God does not exist.
  

Contrary to your claim, I have made no error: You have complicated a simple issue by not analyzing the simple statement

• God exists

Note the sentences you have bolded in the above. these are complicated sentences requiring careful analysis. Your game is an unnecessary complication. If assigning a logical value to "god exists" does not float your boat, how about analyzing the following mutually exclusive statements.

• "God exists" is true
  
• "God exists" is false.

Theists make statement one. Atheists make statement two. Is there some error in the above?

BTW: What you call a "weak athesit" seems to me to be the standard definition of an agnostic or a reasonable facsimile there to.

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus: You create confusion in your own mind by not using and analyzing simple statements. Use of natural language easily causes confusion, which is the reason that mathematics and logic avoid natural languages as much as possible, inventing such disciplines as symbolic logic and axiomatic mathematics.

Unfortunately it is you who does not accept the complexity that IS there... but would rather simplify everything - and in doing so you introduce inaccuracy to the terms you are using.

Let us avoid complications due to consideration of polytheistic religions. With that caveat, the following is a simple statement.

• God exists.

Asking a person to assign a logical value of true or false to that statement is all that is required to determine his status as a theist or an atheist.

• A person who claims that the statement is true is a theist.

And already you have introduced a secondary element to the statement... the term "claim".
If you can not see how this introduces complexity into the situation then I suggest you bow out of the discussion as it is clearly beyond you, and I mean that with all due respect.

[*]A person who claims that the statement is false is an atheist.

Note the bolded element - the additional complexity that YOU have introduced but seem unable to analyse.

[*]A person who assigns neither true nor false to that statement is an agnostic.[/list] It is not necessary to introduce the term Belief.

But you have used the term "claim". Go figure.

The agnostic view is admittedly a bit complicated, probably requiring analysis of why the person does not assign a logical value.

Statements & games like the following are obfuscations: (deleted my earlier comments to save space)

Contrary to your claim, I have made no error: You have complicated a simple issue by not analyzing the simple statement

• God exists

But you have not analysed the more complex statement "I claim God exists". You are trying to do the simple one, yet in doing so you can not see that you have had to introduce the complexity yourself - and you thus subsequently fail to analyse it fully.

Your game is an unnecessary complication. If assigning a logical value to "god exists" does not float your boat, how about analyzing the following mutually exclusive statements.

• "God exists" is true
  
• "God exists" is false.

Theists make statement one. Atheists make statement two. Is there some error in the above?

Yes.
While some atheists do make statement two, Atheists are not defined by making statement two, as you seem to think.
Atheists are merely defined by NOT making statement one.
Not making statement two is different to making statement two.
You can not seem to see this difference.
And just so you know - there is already in your statement the added complexity that you have tried so hard not to analyse... the term "make".

Make / claim / belief... you can not avoid this additional complexity when trying to determine theism and atheism.

BTW: What you call a "weak athesit" seems to me to be the standard definition of an agnostic or a reasonable facsimile there to.

Possibly because the lack of knowledge (agnosticism) rationally leads to the weak atheist stance.
However, you can get agnostic theists as well as agnostic atheists.


To summarise... you are simplifying the atheist position to the "strong atheist" position, and putting agnosticism in lieu of "weak atheism". This is not uncommon among those who do not fully understand the terms they are using.
But it is incorrect.

As it has been said... if you can say "I believe God exists" you are a theist. ALL others are atheist. But not saying it does not necessarily mean you are saying "I believe God does not exist".

 

[Dinosaur]

Sarkus: As per your suggestion, I am bowing out of this discussion.

I suggest you bow out of the discussion as it is clearly beyond you, and I mean that with all due respect.

However, I am bowing out because of the following from some Chinese philosopher.

If a wise man and a fool argue long enough, it becomes difficult to decide who is the fool.

In case you do not understand my implication: As of now, you are the fool, and I say that with all due respect.

BTW: Just in case, you are even duller than I think you are & need an explanation: Adding "with all due respect" to an insult does not negate the fact that it is an insult.

 

[shaman_]

It really shouldn't be this complicated.

We are born atheists. We are born without this particular belief. Some of us choose to stay that way.

That's all it takes to be an atheist. Just don't have a belief in any gods.

:shrug:

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus: As per your suggestion, I am bowing out of this discussion.However, I am bowing out because of the following from some Chinese philosopher.In case you do not understand my implication: As of now, you are the fool, and I say that with all due respect.

BTW: Just in case, you are even duller than I think you are & need an explanation: Adding "with all due respect" to an insult does not negate the fact that it is an insult.

I can only apologise for any perceived insult in stating my assessment of your intelligence based upon the discussion... yet your continued misunderstanding of the terms, and your inability to grasp the rather simple concepts being discussed really left little choice... my head could only take so much beating against the proverbial brick wall of your apparent lack of inability to grasp the point.

And if you wish to see me as the fool, then again, so be it. I have tried to explain the inaccuracy of your position, but if you do not wish to understand, or are incapable of such, then there is little left in such endeavours.