Athiesm and Theism

[notPresidentAndrew]

Re: Re: Re: Athiesm and Theism

Originally posted by wesmorris
Sorry to be such a cock, but thank you captain obvious. *giggle*

Oh, and I'm of the opinion that weak aitheism is a pussy way to say agnostic. I'll use my typical analogy as follows: The relationship between the words theist, agnostic and aitheist is as 1 > agnostic > 0. Imagined as a Venn Diagram one can imagine a circle split in two with "yes" on one side, "no" on the other and the circle is surrounded infinitely by an area labelled "no decision". To say "weak aithiest" in my opinion is to say "kind of not". Why not just say "I'm not sure"? Which is more direct? Which is more true?

I realize the dictionary allows for both arguments to be correct as each word has multiple definitions. I just think that the language adapted to the misuse of the words... and the most rational applications of the words is as I stipulated.

What say you?

**refer to Adam's avatar for my reaction**

 

[wesmorris]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Athiesm and Theism

Originally posted by notPresidentAndrew
**refer to Adam's avatar for my reaction**

Well, you'll certainly NEVER be President Andrew if you keep up like that.

 

[IXL777]

O.K.Marac,
if we ask all the people on this forum their notion of what "God"is, we will get a billion different answers... what we should be saying is, "who or what is the creator?"

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by wesmorris
that is not a valid line of reasoning. think about it a bit eh? I believe that is a classical example of circular reasoning no? Pretty close if I've missed it, I don't think you made all the statements directly but let me see what you've implied:

a) god created the earth
b) the earth exists
c) the earth wouldn't exist if god were taken from earth

see how c refers back to a?

God is creator and sustainer - at least from the Christian point of view, thus ,this line of resoning is totally valid and relevant. If it was taken another way it would mean if God didn't exist the earth wouldn't exist. Read carefully wes, and research - you don't know everything, which you made obvious - me neither - so you're not alone.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by IXL777
O.K.Marac,
if we ask all the people on this forum their notion of what "God"is, we will get a billion different answers... what we should be saying is, "who or what is the creator?"

I don't get it. What's the difference?

 

[IXL777]

Originally posted by MarcAC
I don't get it. What's the difference?

God..means many things to many religions, pseudo religions, cults and so on..
The creator on the other hand could be light and sound...different
in interpretation
dominic

 

[Raithere]

Re: Re: Re: Athiesm and Theism

Originally posted by wesmorris
Oh, and I'm of the opinion that weak aitheism is a pussy way to say agnostic. I'll use my typical analogy as follows: The relationship between the words theist, agnostic and aitheist is as 1 > agnostic > 0. Imagined as a Venn Diagram one can imagine a circle split in two with "yes" on one side, "no" on the other and the circle is surrounded infinitely by an area labelled "no decision". To say "weak aithiest" in my opinion is to say "kind of not". Why not just say "I'm not sure"? Which is more direct? Which is more true?

I realize the dictionary allows for both arguments to be correct as each word has multiple definitions. I just think that the language adapted to the misuse of the words... and the most rational applications of the words is as I stipulated.

While I agree that the two are very close in meaning, still I think that there is enough difference to warrant both. It has more to do with one's attitude towards the concept of God. Agnosticism gives me the impression that one is still looking. That there is enough of an indication that God does exist to warrant a continued search. While weak atheism does not make the assumption of non-existence of God it takes a similar attitude that there really isn't anything to warrant a search. If we happen to run into evidence along the way, fine, but otherwise it's like going out to hunt unicorn.

Of course, there is always a problem with categorization and I find it difficult to pigeonhole myself into a specific slot and say, "This is exactly what I believe, this term defines me perfectly." So I find that it is better to have more definitions than less. It may complicate things but oversimplification causes just as many, if not more, problems.

~Raithere

P.S. You can leave the name calling out next time... it's unnecessary.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Athiesm and Theism

Originally posted by Raithere
Agnosticism gives me the impression that one is still looking. That there is enough of an indication that God does exist to warrant a continued search. While weak atheism does not make the assumption of non-existence of God it takes a similar attitude that there really isn't anything to warrant a search.

I've always appreciated the Drange article referenced below, but I reference it here mainly for the following:

Another definition of "agnostic" which is at variance with common usage is that of Thomas Huxley, who first coined the word in 1869. He said the following:

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.

- see Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (1998)

I suspect that today he would refer to the method as methodological naturalism.

To the best of my knowledge, the most common distinction made between so-called weak and strong atheism is between:

• no belief in god, and
• the belief in no god

This is discussed by Drange [see above] and also HERE

 

[IXL777]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Athiesm and Theism

To the best of my knowledge, the most common distinction made between so-called weak and strong atheism is between:

• no belief in god, and
• the belief in no god

This is discussed by Drange [see above] and also HERE [/B][/QUOTE]
Well put young man,I believe that this is a truism......, however we were all created through light and sound..
dominic

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Thanks!

Originally posted by IXL777
Well put young man, ...

This grandfather thanks you.

 

[heflores]

A strong Atheistic must be a pure Theistic...strong conviction
A strong Theistic must be a pure Atheistic....no conviction at all

So all you theists love your atheists, for they're literally your children.
And you atheists.....you don't need to love anyone....

 

[heflores]

I repeat....All Atheists...don't love anyone but yourself....

That will take you safely out of the viscious most horrible Atheistic cycle.

 

[notme2000]

I'm athiest, well agnostic, and I love plenty of people other than myself. I see how you could think that about athiests, if you don't know any in person of if the only ones you know are just rebelling teens, lol. Athiests, on a personal level, are the same as any other human being.

 

[heflores]

Originally posted by notme2000
I'm athiest, well agnostic, and I love plenty of people other than myself. I see how you could think that about athiests, if you don't know any in person of if the only ones you know are just rebelling teens, lol. Athiests, on a personal level, are the same as any other human being.

No contradictions here....if you love yourself, you can love others..you have to start with the self first.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
To the best of my knowledge, the most common distinction made between so-called weak and strong atheism is between:

• no belief in god, and
• the belief in no god

I was specifically addressing wesmorris's comment regarding agnosticism vs. weak atheism but yes, I agree.

Originally posted by heflores
A strong Atheistic must be a pure Theistic...strong conviction
A strong Theistic must be a pure Atheistic....no conviction at all

Not sure I understand what it is you're saying here.

I repeat....All Atheists...don't love anyone but yourself.

Where would you get this idea from? You know, it's really quite offensive when theists propose that all atheists are entirely self-centered and have no morals. In my experience, atheists tend to have a more fully developed sense of ethics than the Christians do. They actually have to apply some thought to these issues, rather than looking it up in the "Big Book of Answers" or waiting for some "authority" to give them their opinion.

That will take you safely out of the viscious most horrible Atheistic cycle.

LOL Which is?

~Raithere

 

[IXL777]

Where would you get this idea from? You know, it's really quite offensive when theists propose that all atheists are entirely self-centered and have no morals. In my experience, atheists tend to have a more fully developed sense of ethics than the Christians do. They actually have to apply some thought to these issues, rather than looking it up in the "Big Book of Answers" or waiting for some "authority" to give them their opinion.

I totally agree with you on that one Raith...some people have some inane ideas