Socratic Spelunker
Registered Senior Member
I'm having trouble understanding the difference.
Can anyone explain?
Can anyone explain?
Weak Atheist vs. Agnostic
- Thread starter Socratic Spelunker
- Start date
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
Atheist is the position leaning toward the non-existence of God and remain skeptical, agnostic is the position that the truth-value of the unknown cannot be known but remain a meaningful proposition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism
Last edited:
Weak atheism is just the lack of belief in God (an infant is a weak atheist), an agnostic has considered the question and thinks it's unanswerable.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
Last edited:
It's a fact.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
It depends on how one defines belief.
No it doesn't.
Yes, it does.
^ Can't see how it does, to be honest.
Whatever you define as belief - Spidergoat is saying that a weak atheist lacks it.
Can't see where this is dependent upon the definition of "belief".
Personally I think it depends upon one's definition of "atheism".
Some tend to define it as a considered opinion... i.e. only applicable to those that have asked, and understood, the question.
This would therefore discount infants, and chairs, from being considered atheist.
In answer to the OP - my view is as follows:
Theism is an ontological position - with regard the existence of God: a theist holds the belief / claims that God exists.
An atheist is someone who has considered the question ("do you belief God exists?"), understood it, and can not consider themself a theist.
A strong atheist goes further and holds the belief (or claims) that God does not exist.
A weak atheist does not go this extra step but, for whatever reason, does not hold the belief that God exists.
An agnostic, however, is someone who holds either that the question of God's existence is unanswerable, or unknowable, either absolutely or on their own personal level (i.e. they don't have any knowledge themselves).
Note how there is no direct issue here of whether one holds a belief in God's existence or not.
That said, an agnostic will tend toward a position of weak atheism... how can they hold a belief in God's existence, or in God's non-existence, if they consider the question of God to be unknowable?
However, this is not to say that agnosticism is the middle-ground between theism and strong-atheism, although agnosticism can lead to one taking such a position.
It is entirely possible that someone is both agnostic AND a theist... i.e. they think God is unknowable, yet do believe that God exists.
In summary, agnosticism is quite often the reasoning behind one being a weak-atheist.
But not always: e.g. one could be a weak-atheist without even considering whether God is knowable or not.
Whatever you define as belief - Spidergoat is saying that a weak atheist lacks it.
Can't see where this is dependent upon the definition of "belief".
Personally I think it depends upon one's definition of "atheism".
Some tend to define it as a considered opinion... i.e. only applicable to those that have asked, and understood, the question.
This would therefore discount infants, and chairs, from being considered atheist.
In answer to the OP - my view is as follows:
Theism is an ontological position - with regard the existence of God: a theist holds the belief / claims that God exists.
An atheist is someone who has considered the question ("do you belief God exists?"), understood it, and can not consider themself a theist.
A strong atheist goes further and holds the belief (or claims) that God does not exist.
A weak atheist does not go this extra step but, for whatever reason, does not hold the belief that God exists.
An agnostic, however, is someone who holds either that the question of God's existence is unanswerable, or unknowable, either absolutely or on their own personal level (i.e. they don't have any knowledge themselves).
Note how there is no direct issue here of whether one holds a belief in God's existence or not.
That said, an agnostic will tend toward a position of weak atheism... how can they hold a belief in God's existence, or in God's non-existence, if they consider the question of God to be unknowable?
However, this is not to say that agnosticism is the middle-ground between theism and strong-atheism, although agnosticism can lead to one taking such a position.
It is entirely possible that someone is both agnostic AND a theist... i.e. they think God is unknowable, yet do believe that God exists.
In summary, agnosticism is quite often the reasoning behind one being a weak-atheist.
But not always: e.g. one could be a weak-atheist without even considering whether God is knowable or not.
It goes back to the whole God-gene business and that some beliefs are supposedly ingrained.
So it does make a difference in how we define "belief."
So you think an atheist can still have a belief in God?
Can you give me one example/definition of "belief" whereby an atheist can still have a belief in God?
I'm just trying to satisfy myself that you're not merely redefining words, such as defining plastic as a type of food just because you can eat it, or defining your dog as a table merely because it has four legs etc.
Can you give me one example/definition of "belief" whereby an atheist can still have a belief in God?
I'm just trying to satisfy myself that you're not merely redefining words, such as defining plastic as a type of food just because you can eat it, or defining your dog as a table merely because it has four legs etc.
Atheism is someone lacking a belief in god.
Agnosticism is the position where you accept you will always lack the knowledge to prove the position either way - obviously provided no distinctly testable definitions are provided.
Many agnostics are in fact atheists. They are not two points along the same line. In fact technically the line is vertical and you are on one side of it or the other, you are either theist, or you are not.
Weak atheism is a hamfisted attempt from theists to try to redefine atheism into two camps, one they consider more convertable (and perhaps logical) than the other.
Agnosticism is the position where you accept you will always lack the knowledge to prove the position either way - obviously provided no distinctly testable definitions are provided.
Many agnostics are in fact atheists. They are not two points along the same line. In fact technically the line is vertical and you are on one side of it or the other, you are either theist, or you are not.
Weak atheism is a hamfisted attempt from theists to try to redefine atheism into two camps, one they consider more convertable (and perhaps logical) than the other.
Agnosticism is not necessarily the position that the truth of a proposition is inherently unknowable (although it sometimes is), it also encompasses those who feel they are currently unable to make a determination, or even those who are simply content to remain agnostic even though they accept that a more serious and protracted investigation could at least theoretically yield a result.
Infants only have a few beliefs, milk is good, mommy and daddy are good, poop in my diapers is uncomfortable... They don't have any conceptions about religious concepts.
LIGHTBEING
Registered Senior Member
How exactly can an infant subscribe to a belief?
For one, the God-gene camp could argue (I don't know if they actually do) that since humans can overcome or to some extent control their instincts, they can also overcome things programmed into them by their genes - and thus a person could overcome their gene-given belief in God and be an atheist.
Secondly, it is not uncommon for theists to claim that atheists "know God" - since atheists otherwise could not claim there is no God (and they must know what it is they are talking about when they say "there is no God"); or that they have a "belief that God exists" but "choose not to surrender to God's will."
Other than that, I think the concept of belief is one that is defined by what it is the belief is about. Which is what makes it a bit difficult to talk about it.
For example, the belief in a table is different from the belief in God.
Good point.
Inasmuch is a belief something that a person just has, and inasmuch is it something that a person consciously chooses to do (such as "subscribe to")?
And Spidergoat's atheist would say "I have no gene-given belief".
So again, irrespective of your definition of "belief", Spidergoat's atheist would say "I don't have it".
You may get an atheist who accepts that genes give us a "belief" - but I doubt it. They may give us a propensity to think certain ways - but a belief is surely the end result of a conscious process, irrespective of cause. That a gene may be the cause does not mean we will have the belief.
And their flaw would be two-fold: first in assuming that knowledge of a concept of X means X exists, and the second is that atheists claim God does not exist, rather than merely having no belief that God exists (given that we are discussing Spidergoat's definition).
Bear in mind we are discussing "belief in the existence of..." - so there is no such difference that you are suggesting with regard the nature of the belief in the table or God.
There is one way. If the religion defines God is being an existing person or object. That would make me a theist, since you cannot deny that the person or thing exists. You can still be skeptical that they or it has any supernatural powers.