cottontop3000: I am a (strong) Atheist, so none of the above, because to deny something is too have a belief in something, there is no god/gods etc, no fantasy figures. however the second part of the atheist sentence, I agree with, as there is no god, then all poly/monotheistic religions are based in fantasyland, therefore it would be irrational to worship, follow, have faith in, a fantasy.
Who denies god then?
- Thread starter Light Travelling
- Start date
sarkus said:
Again I'll clairfy - theism and atheism revolve around the BELIEF.scorpius said:
Theists have the belief.
Atheists do not have the belief (and some have belief in the non-existence of god).
But it is all about "belief".
This compares to Agnositicism which revolves around KNOWLEDGE.
Ok?
Are we now clear?
I can only agree in so much as to say, that it is the very negative end of belief, so I would say on the atheist side it's all about disbelief, non-belief, unbelief, no belief, etc...belief does'nt come into it, quite the opposite.Sarkus said:
so this line should read "weak Atheists have no belief (and all strong atheist have no belief in the existence of god)".
and all atheism revolves around KNOWLEDGE.
you only become an atheist through gaining knowledge.
This is getting confusing. :bugeye:audible said:
Strong atheists have no belief in the existence of god, but they DO have a belief in the non-existence of god. i.e. they have a BELIEVE that GOD(s) DOES NOT EXIST.
Weak atheists are the ones who merely have no belief in the existence of god, but they don't go as far as to have a belief in the non-existence of god.
And I'm not saying belief comes into it compared to un-belief / disbelief etc - but that it is a matter of belief as opposed to a matter of knowledge. So encompassed in "belief" I include all matters of un-belief / disbelief / no belief etc.
No - "weak Atheists have no belief (and all strong atheist have a belief in the non-existence of god)".audible said:
I am not disputing HOW you become or don't become an atheist.audible said:
Of course it is knowledge - all views are (or should be) based on knowledge gained.
But Atheism is the end-point and knowledge is the journey. The end-point is one of your stance on belief / un-belief / no-belief / disbelief etc.
Agnosticism is your stance on the KNOWLEDGE.
If you think there is sufficient knowledge - you are not Agnostic
If you think there is insufficient knowledge - you are Agnostic.
I can see where your coming from but I don't agree.water said:
Knowledge is the sum of what is experienced.
I see Belief as a possible conclusion you reach on that which you have no (or inconclusive) knowledge.
For example (and I appreciate that this is a very simple example):
I KNOW that a coin, when tossed, will land on Heads or Tails (except in bizarre circumstances when it lands on its edge).
But when asked I say I BELIEVE it will land on Heads, knowing that it might not.
I also BELIEVE my brother has my best interest at heart - but this is based on KNOWLEDGE of having been around him for the past XX years, experiencing how he has treated me in the past.
So I see a BIG difference between KNOWLEDGE and BELIEF.
When it comes to god, the BELIEF is based on zero information that can be attributable purely to god.
I DEniE GoD, Coz I HAvE tHE ritE 2
there is a huge difference between belief and knowledge.water said:
A belief is any cognitive content held as true, but not known as true( Faith, Conviction, Suppose, Assume)
to know is any cognitive reasoning known as true(conscious, intentional, deliberate)
for this very same reason Sarkus I cant accept your slant on belief
for instances
I dont assume there is no god, I dont have faith there is no god, in my heart I know it, it's intentional, deliberate.sarkus said:
it is not a belief, I know there is no god. the exact opposite of a theist he does'nt just believe theres a god, he feels he knows it.
so for me that line must read "weak Atheists have no belief (and all strong atheist have no belief in the existence of god)"
a god does'nt exist, therefore I have no knowledge of an objective god/gods, it would be irrational to thing otherwise.
but I do have knowledge of a fantasy god/gods, a subjective god/gods, which it would be extremely irrational to worship as real.
Last edited:
I'd be remiss if I failed to point out that we're speaking about god here (sadly, undefined by the thread starter). Almost every common definition of god contains implicitly that one cannot have knowledge of it. Ergo, what we are speaking of here is one's Belief concerning one's Knowledge.
Just to further confuse the issue.
Athesits then, believe they have knowledge of the non-existence of god.
Just to further confuse the issue.
Athesits then, believe they have knowledge of the non-existence of god.
Okay - I see where you're heading - and it stems from differences in what we regard as knowledge.audible said:
Given what you define as knowledge (I'm not saying I agree, nor am I yet disagreeing 'cos I'm sort of thinking out loud) then what you say does follow.
The problem arises, I think, in trying to prove your cognitive reasoning as true - and thus as knowledge.
Surely until proven true it is a matter of faith - and thus belief?
For example - You KNOW the number line of integers - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc.
You also KNOW 1+1 = 2.
You can consciously, intentionally and deliberately reason that, following the same logic, 2+2 = 4. But how do you know you are correct?
It is only when you have it confirmed that it becomes KNOWLEDGE, surely?
Until then you only believe it be true - on a matter of faith / probability / assumption / whatever?
I couldn't agree more. Furthermore, confirmation only makes the content knowledge because it conforms to a structure that has been given the power to 'grant' truth. The Copernican astronomical system was true, even though we now know that the earth is not the center of the Universe.
Fair enough.
But then we'll need a criterion to decide which is better (I say better to avoid saying things like, 'more true'). I believe this criterion is utility. And I believe that this is the criterion of truth we've been using, quite fruitfully, for some time now (speaking particularly within the scope of scientific endeavor, as opposed to philosophical, but that's an entirely different topic).
But then we'll need a criterion to decide which is better (I say better to avoid saying things like, 'more true'). I believe this criterion is utility. And I believe that this is the criterion of truth we've been using, quite fruitfully, for some time now (speaking particularly within the scope of scientific endeavor, as opposed to philosophical, but that's an entirely different topic).
pavlosmarcos said:
Funny, I never really thought of myself as atheist...
I find abrahamic religions are seriously retarded as a whole, and their ideas of god all manner of stupid, making me 100% certain those idiot gods in fact do not exist.
But Shiva, Vishnu, Odin, Thor, Zeus, Oxala, Ogum, Ra, Set, The Senior Partners, and anyone else you can think of... I dunno, maybe. Honestly don't care, though, until one of them talks to me.
I think the confusion occurs when (some) people seek to become adherents of atheism. This becuase of itself atheism is nothing - it doesn't exist.
Atheism is a perfectly valid word (the strength of meaning may vary) and indeed it is a perfectly valid viewpoint, but of itself it is not a philosophy or a system. It is not really an 'ism' one can belong to. "I am an atheist" fullstop.
Another thought - if an Agnostic is someone who opposes Gnosticism, does this not make most modern christians agnostic?
Atheism is a perfectly valid word (the strength of meaning may vary) and indeed it is a perfectly valid viewpoint, but of itself it is not a philosophy or a system. It is not really an 'ism' one can belong to. "I am an atheist" fullstop.
Another thought - if an Agnostic is someone who opposes Gnosticism, does this not make most modern christians agnostic?
I think most theists are actually agnostic.Light Travelling said:
Most I have ever known accept that they believe without any actual knowledge, and that there may never be the knowledge to confirm their position. Yet still they believe. These are agnostic theists.
Or am I misunderstanding your term Gnosticism?
water said:
Exactly - it may turn out that we know very little. What we now have is what we currently believe to be true, based on what we are currently able to perceive.
As perception widens what we 'know'' to be true may change. As it has through time. Remember, WE are still evolving - evolution never stops.
Only a fool claims he surely knows a thing.
Sarkus said:
No you dont misunderstand - I agree with you. But most theists would not admit to being agnostic. Which shows the common misusage of the word.
Seems to me the common vernacular and what people usually gather from a dictionary regarding the terms theist, atheist and agnostic... are pretty much at odds with the way its taught in philosophy.
In the vernacular, it's generally easier to discuss three possibilities, believe, disbelieve or abstain. People call it "theist", "athiest" and "agnostic".
In philosophical teachings, the term agnostic isn't used as in the common vernacular. It makes sense if you go the long way through the argument. I was with Khazakan when I first came to sci, but ConsequentAtheist showed me the light.
I cannot show you the light as clearly as he showed me, but you can read what he said to me here. I was quite stubborn in resisting his argument, but eventually his superior argument won me over. I really like that thread because of that.
Regardless, all I can remember of it is that the term agnosticism was concieved in the context of epistemology, and applies there rather than to the notion of the existence of god(s). While adopting an agnostic position has consequences regarding one's belief in god(s), it does not directly address the issue. The main objection I have to Khaz's argument is that an agnostic can be either a weak athiest or a weak theist.
I think "believe or don't" is an over-simplification of the concepts surrounding the issue of gods and its relation to the nature of knowing.
In the vernacular, it's generally easier to discuss three possibilities, believe, disbelieve or abstain. People call it "theist", "athiest" and "agnostic".
In philosophical teachings, the term agnostic isn't used as in the common vernacular. It makes sense if you go the long way through the argument. I was with Khazakan when I first came to sci, but ConsequentAtheist showed me the light.
I cannot show you the light as clearly as he showed me, but you can read what he said to me here. I was quite stubborn in resisting his argument, but eventually his superior argument won me over. I really like that thread because of that.
Regardless, all I can remember of it is that the term agnosticism was concieved in the context of epistemology, and applies there rather than to the notion of the existence of god(s). While adopting an agnostic position has consequences regarding one's belief in god(s), it does not directly address the issue. The main objection I have to Khaz's argument is that an agnostic can be either a weak athiest or a weak theist.
I think "believe or don't" is an over-simplification of the concepts surrounding the issue of gods and its relation to the nature of knowing.