Why I am agnostic rather than atheist.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Since you use the word "reasonably", that would require having reason to draw a conclusion. Complete absence of evidence is cause to be reasonably sure. That still leaves the door open for agnosticism.

You will have to claim knowledge to be considered gnostic.

 

[Souron]

Yeah, I did not mean to imply that atheism requires evidence. By reasonably, I did not mean related to reason, but rather a synonym for "relatively" and "very," the exact degree lying between these two words.

 

[warpus]

Do you have no idea if God exists, or are you reasonably sure God doesn't exist?

Neither. I just don't believe that he does. (meaning, I lack the belief that he exists)

Both strong and weak athiests could be said to think that God doesn't exist, though a weak athiest would claim that they don't have sufficent evidence to claim knowlege of the non-existence of God (knowledge requires evidence).

The technical difference between weak and strong atheism is this:

Weak atheist: "I don't believe that god exists"
Strong atheist: "I believe that god doesn't exist"

So no, a weak atheist wouldn't say "I think that god doesn't exist" because that would probably make him a strong atheist.

 

[Souron]

Neither. I just don't believe that he does. (meaning, I lack the belief that he exists)

So you don't think God exists, and you don't think God doesn't exist, and you aren't unsure about whether God exists, what's left?

The technical difference between weak and strong atheism is this:

Weak atheist: "I don't believe that god exists"
Strong atheist: "I believe that god doesn't exist"

So no, a weak atheist wouldn't say "I think that god doesn't exist" because that would probably make him a strong atheist.

Belief implies a high degree of certainty. A weak atheist could still, if pressed, express an opinion of the existence of God, despite lacking the confidence to say he "believed" in the non existence of God. Also, in practice, the distinction between week and strong atheism is a matter of how strong a point one is willing to argue, not a characterization of people. Particularly if you don't try to shoehorn people who identify as agnostics into weak atheism.

 

[warpus]

So you don't think God exists, and you don't think God doesn't exist, and you aren't unsure about whether God exists, what's left?

My position is that I don't believe that God exists. That's it.

To attempt to illustrate my position to make it a bit more clear.. Imagine that there is a set B which contains of all of my beliefs. So B = {A,B,C,..}, A, B, C, and so on being beliefs that I hold.

This set does NOT contain the belief "I believe that god exists" <- this makes me atheist
It also does not contain the belief "I believe that god doesn't exist" <- this makes me a weak atheist

My position is essentially very simple. I hold no beliefs regarding the existence of god at all.

Belief implies a high degree of certainty. A weak atheist could still, if pressed, express an opinion of the existence of God, despite lacking the confidence to say he "believed" in the non existence of God.

Sure, but technically weak atheists don't think that god doesn't exist; that would imply a belief of some sort regarding the non-existence of god. They simply lack a belief regarding the existence of such a deity.

Also, in practice, the distinction between week and strong atheism is a matter of how strong a point one is willing to argue, not a characterization of people

That's not really true. In practice the distinction between weak and strong atheism doesn't really come up... and if it did, weak / strong atheism isn't in any way defined by the willingness to argue the point.

Particularly if you don't try to shoehorn people who identify as agnostics into weak atheism.

Technically most agnostics are (weak) atheist.

 

[Borachio]

<random nonsense deleted>

 

[warpus]

Well, this is just what I object to. Not only am I criticised for not being able to make up my mind, I'm also informed (technically) what my mind is.

What? I don't think you understand what I meant by that, if that's what your response is.

My position is: I don't know. That's it. And in my mind, thank you, I self-identify as an agnostic.

If you don't know, you are an agnostic. You are also technically a weak atheist, since by inference I can conclude that you don't believe that god exists, based on what you just said above.

But hey, self-identify as whatever you want. Who am I to stop you?

I self-identify as a 6'5 African man from Sudan. This is my right.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

.Let&#8217;s give an example. You&#8217;ve probably heard a theist ask &#8220;if there is no God than what created the cosmos?&#8221; In response you may have replied &#8220;if there is a God than what created him?&#8221;

There is no need for something to create God. If that was true God could not be eternal and if that was true he couldnt be God.
In words of Sri Aurobindo:

Because this temporal universe was a paradox and an impossibility, therefore the Eternal created it out of His being.

EDIT: Thats right God is perfectly normal it is everything else what we usualy consider normal that is supernatural, impossible and paradox.

 

[Souron]

My position is that I don't believe that God exists. That's it.

To attempt to illustrate my position to make it a bit more clear.. Imagine that there is a set B which contains of all of my beliefs. So B = {A,B,C,..}, A, B, C, and so on being beliefs that I hold.

This set does NOT contain the belief "I believe that god exists" <- this makes me atheist
It also does not contain the belief "I believe that god doesn't exist" <- this makes me a weak atheist

My position is essentially very simple. I hold no beliefs regarding the existence of god at all.

That's not related to my rough definition of atheism though. People are atheists if they think there is no God. A person can think a proposition is true, false, or not have an opinion. If true or false, there is a mutually exclusive scale of confidence (or doubt) that applies, from inkling to beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Belief in something is equivalent to having a sufficiently high degree of confidence in either truth or falsehood. You could say it's the maximum degree of confidence, as long as you separate confidence from knowledge -- that is if you allow a person to claim that they are sure of something and at the same time claim that they do not know that thing to be true.

That's not really true. In practice the distinction between weak and strong atheism doesn't really come up... and if it did, weak / strong atheism isn't in any way defined by the willingness to argue the point.

Sure it does. You identify as a weak atheist, I identify as a strong atheist. Our views are mostly the same, except with regard to epistemology and it's semantics.

Technically most agnostics are (weak) atheist.

Most agnostics are like Drool4Res-pect, on the fence. What added clarity do you seek to gain by calling Drool4Res-pect an atheist?

Sure, but technically weak atheists don't think that god doesn't exist; that would imply a belief of some sort regarding the non-existence of god. They simply lack a belief regarding the existence of such a deity.

This is answered in parts above.

EDIT:changed "certainty" to "confidence"

 

[timtofly]

That's not related to my rough definition of atheism though. People are atheists if they think there is no God. A person can think a proposition is true, false, or not have an opinion. If true or false, there is a mutually exclusive scale of confidence (or doubt) that applies, from inkling to beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Belief in something is equivalent to having a sufficiently high degree of confidence in either truth or falsehood. You could say it's the maximum degree of confidence, as long as you separate confidence from knowledge -- that is if you allow a person to claim that they are sure of something and at the same time claim that they do not know that thing to be true.

Sure it does. You identify as a weak atheist, I identify as a strong atheist. Our views are mostly the same, except with regard to epistemology and it's semantics.

Most agnostics are like Drool4Res-pect, on the fence. What added clarity do you seek to gain by calling Drool4Res-pect an atheist?

This is answered in parts above.

EDIT:changed "certainty" to "confidence"

So are you saying that knowledge is the dividing point and belief strengthens the position of either side? Irregardless that agnostics "think" no one can know, there are those that claim they do know. I am not disregarding those who do not know. I truly understand that they do not know. And would you just say that those who think they know, know a concept and not the real thing?

 

[Souron]

Knowledge is true justified belief. So if you have belief without justification, then you don't have knowledge. Furthermore, the justification must be good enough; a weak reason is not enough. In different contexts, the threshold for "good enough" is, IMO, different.

But yes, though people may feel that they "know" something is true, but if that claim does not stem from sound reasoning it cannot be called knowledge.

 

[Leoreth]

There is no need for something to create God. If that was true God could not be eternal and if that was true he couldnt be God.

What makes you so certain that God doesn't need a creator, but the universe does?

It's contradictory, you can't use both arguments at the same time.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

What makes you so certain that God doesn't need a creator, but the universe does?

It's contradictory, you can't use both arguments at the same time.

I like and use logic but something like omnipresent and omnipotent God cannot be bound by it.
But there is something in ancient hindu sriptures, Vedas, which would sugest that God was "created". It states that from Nonbeing Being came into existence.

 

[Leoreth]

I like and use logic but something like omnipresent and omnipotent God cannot be bound by it.

You can think this, but bringing it up in an argument is self-defeating. Arguments are based on logic. If God is not bound by logic it is impossible to have a discussion about him that's more than the exchange of opinions.

What I mean is: the argument that the universe requires a creator isn't rational if it is based on the irrational assumption that everything needs a creator but the creator.

You could just as well be a pantheist (the universe and only the universe is the eternal being). Or I could say that something as omnipresent as the universe cannot be bound by the need of a creator

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

You can think this, but bringing it up in an argument is self-defeating. Arguments are based on logic. If God is not bound by logic it is impossible to have a discussion about him that's more than the exchange of opinions.

I am not trying to win some competition here. Bringing some new idea into the debate or pointing out new possibility is sufficient, me thinks.
The problem with logic is also that quite often there is danger that it misses the truth by being based on false premises. True, you can get logical conclusions that way but not actual truth. It is illogical that one thing cant be at two different places at the same time yet God being omnipresent is defying this kind of logic.

What I mean is: the argument that the universe requires a creator isn't rational if it is based on the irrational assumption that everything needs a creator but the creator.

If the accepted premise here is that God is eternal and the finite universe is not than it is perfectly rational argument.

You could just as well be a pantheist (the universe and only the universe is the eternal being). Or I could say that something as omnipresent as the universe cannot be bound by the need of a creator

I am pantheist in the sense that I see everything as part of an all-encompassing immanent God. If you are to speak about universe as an omnipresent entity then you are just using another name instead of God...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I oppose the statement that God is in more than one place at the same time (as in I'm raising a nitpick because I've got time to kill). The difference between me and God merely is one of volume. My right hand is elsewhere than my left foot.

And how is God eternal if it doesn't have time be eternal? If there's no time (finite universe) eternity stops having any meaning.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I oppose the statement that God is in more than one place at the same time (as in I'm raising a nitpick because I've got time to kill). The difference between me and God merely is one of volume. My right hand is elsewhere than my left foot.

So you would admit that God could be greater in quantity but not in quality? That sounds rather irrational.

And how is God eternal if it doesn't have time be eternal? If there's no time (finite universe) eternity stops having any meaning.

I wouldnt say that in this case eternity stops having meaning. Its bit like saying that playing football looses its meaning if nobody is there to watch it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So you would admit that God could be greater in quantity but not in quality? That sounds rather irrational.

No. If God as a single entity is everywhere, he as an entire entity is in one place. That place covers all, but it's still one place.

I wouldnt say that in this case eternity stops having meaning. Its bit like saying that playing football looses its meaning if nobody is there to watch it.

No, it's like saying, playing football becomes meaningless without a football, a pitch and players.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

No. If God as a single entity is everywhere, he as an entire entity is in one place. That place covers all, but it's still one place.

Is true that he as an entire entity is in one place? Or that he is in different places in different degree?

No, it's like saying, playing football becomes meaningless without a football, a pitch and players.

Is that so? So the finite and temporary is actually everything and the infinite and eternal are just some sort of appendix to it?

 

[Borachio]

If you don't know, you are an agnostic. You are also technically a weak atheist, since by inference I can conclude that you don't believe that god exists, based on what you just said above.

I propose that such an inference is invalid. (unless you're referring to something other than my statement that I'm agnostic - I can't remember every damn thing I write: such a lot of it is nonsense)

By stating that I do not know I can see no reason to suppose that this tells you anything at all about what I believe.

I have told you about the state of my knowledge. Nothing about the state of my beliefs.

(You might almost say I operate under a don't ask don't tell policy. But, hey, feel free to ask anything. I shall probably just tell you what I think I know. But how can you know when I lie or not? Or something along those lines, anyway.)