What I don't understand..

according to your definitions of this topic I'm an Agnostic Theist. Because I do believe in spiritual things, and "god".

one of the problems throughout the history of religion & philosophy is that the definitions mean different things to different people.

 

<---- for sure a theist agnostic.

 

<- strong atheist for sure.

 

Lazarus

False..

Weak atheists as you call them have a 'lack of belief'
If occam asks a weak athiest
"do you believe in any god?"
No
"why"
I have nothing to base belief on.
"So a god may exist but as you have nothing to base such a belief on.
Then you do not have it?.. [belief]
For no human can know more than a small
part of what exists"
Yes.
" So if a god appeard before you tomorrow...you would call that a basis
for belief?"
Yes.
"So a god may or may not exist?"
Yes..

Agnosticism

Occam


PS
How generous of you to talk of this once more
'spread the word'???
what word...?
That there are only atheists and theists.
Those 'of' a god and those who reject a god.???

But my friend...occam is an agnostic...
He does not accept or regect the existance of a god..

Your logic is no such thing.

Your premise that humans can KNOW of what exists in reality and what does not..is false.

 

It's like science. Look something up in a dictionary and you get one version, simplified. Ask a professor who specialises in that specific field, you get nearly all you could ever want to know. Ask a layman and you get either "what?" or a stubborn belief that their knowledge (usually simpler than the dictionary's) is nothing but the truth. The main problem with the world is that the beliefs of the majority of society are effectively the truth (because all of society acts as if it is, so even if it isn't it might as well be). The crux of this problem is that the majority of society often seeks to learn just enough to function- hearing one definition of a word is generally accepted to be THE definition of a word, even if it came from a crackwhore. Dictionaries often define things in terms of how the majority of society uses a word, so often its better to take a lil time and look at the history of the word to find its true meaning. That's what I think, anyway.

 

Disarm

Thank you...
'The crux of this problem is that the majority of society often seeks to learn just enough to function'

Agree

Occam

 

I'm afraid I don't understand your first objection, Occam. Weak Atheists do not accept or reject the existence of a god - so you're an Agnostic Atheist. Strong-Atheists reject the existence of a god. Theists accept the existence of a god. And Agnostic Theists believe in the existence of God despite the lack of evidence.

In regards to "spreading the word" - I mean to spread the word that agnosticism is not a third position in itself. Agnosticism may be a sub-branch of both atheism (when lacking belief) or theism (believing in spite of lack of any knowledge).

You hold to your Agnostic Atheism because it is your position that humans cannot "know" anything. Other people disagree. Theists think we can know enough about reality to conclude that there is a god that exists. Strong-Atheists think we can know enough about reality to conclude that a god does not exist.

What makes me think you didn't read through my post very thoroughly was this:

When I've already said this:

So you'd be wrong to say that atheism is the rejection of the existence of a god or gods. That's Strong-Atheism, which is a position that builds off of basic atheism.

Here:



I drew this awhile back for people who were having a misunderstanding about how everything works.

An implicit atheist is a person who lacks belief in god because they've never heard about the idea of a god before. An explicit atheist is an atheist who has heard of god, assesses the idea of it, and retains his or her lack of belief.

From there, you should be able to follow well enough.

 

Lazarus

In your lexicon of concepts
Agnosticism is a sub branch of athiesm or theism

In occams ...agnosticism is a belief that a god or gods may be possible.
We just dont know enough yet to say.

You want to BLACK/WHITE human belief ...
When nearly all of it is grey.

LOGICALLY occam is both an athiest and a theist.
The qualifier being existant verification of a god...
There is some existant indicative verification
[none of it from religion]

That position is called being an agnostic
If someone asks occam
"is there a god" reply //dont know//
"is there no god" reply //dont know//

He does not STATE EVER that there IS or is IS NOT a god....
Thus he cannot be an athiest of a theist
He is
The third position.

Occam

 

I too have trouble with the propensity we sometimes have to categorize, label, and define spiritual beliefs. I call myself a believer.
In what?
Spirit.
What is that.
Not a clue. It is below the surface, clear as day to me, totally non existant to others. I like to think both views are valid. If I had not had a veritable bounty of hard to explain experiences throughout my life, I am certain that my rational and critical analysis skills would lead me to doubt in the existence of said Spirit.
I cannot say anyone is wrong in their beliefs, excepting my unacceptance of thoughts, words, and actions that harm others.
It is a very complex subject, and that is why I feel questioning or judging anothers chosen path is beyond my area of knowledge.
I feel that I cannot know anothers reality, so I have no hope of judging what or why they believe.
In the case of criminals, I allow an exception, and would not allow someone to harm another in my presence. Again, this is subject to many contextual circumstances. For instance, if I saw someone about to kill a known serial killer, I admit I likely would not intervene. Someday, I hope that I can say I would. It is not something i am proud of, but just the truth of my feelings now.

 

I guess I could be considered an atheist, since although I am a believer, I am virtually clueless as to the nature, purpose, description, definition, or directive of what I call Spirit. It may not even be a single, separate thing, and I tend to feel that it is not. That we are all a part, and all creation is Spirit.

"What else is nature, except God?" Seneca
I do not even try to comprehend It's nature, since it seems an impractical goal and of little pragmatic usefulness.

 

I think its all well and good to say religion has caused wars, but Its not true in any case. Its people who have caused them , wheather religion be their excuse or not

 

I agree. More likely culprits are lust for power, control, greed, ego, and competitiveness. Religion is a handy tool in shrewd hands.

 

I would suggest that you re-read over my last two posts that you disagreed with. You'll see that, again, you're using the same objection that I keep addressing.

Atheism, properly defined, does not say that it is true that god does not exist. That is Strong Atheism. Atheism merely deals with a LACK OF BELIEF about the existence of God, which is not the same as rejecting its existence. Atheists (i.e. Agnostic atheists, Weak atheists) say: "God might exist, but I have no reason to believe that he does". Strong Atheists say: "God doesn't exist."

So when you say:

You're using the definition of atheism that I've already shown to be incorrect. Atheism does not say that God does not exist. Atheism simply acknowledges a lack of belief in God.

Atheism: a ("without") theism ("belief in god")

Atheism is to be without belief in God. It is not a term strictly meant for the position that people take who reject God's existence all together.

Please try reading through my posts more thoroughly, Occam (or try reading through my posts at all, for that matter, as I keep making this single point over and over and you keep coming back with the same objection that I keep addressing).

And no - you're not both an atheist and a theist, because a theist is a person who believes in God. Do you have an active belief in God? You've explicitly said you don't in other threads. So you are not a theist.

- Laz

 

I think this is a bit of a technicality. Laz, I'm sorry if I get this wrong, but I have a bit of a problem with your chart- Athiesm is a lack of theism, theism being a belief in a g-d (so if I were to jump to conclusions, I would say an athiest has a lack of belief in a g-d), agnosticism is not knowing, essentially, so it sounds a bit like you're lumping people who are unsure in with athiests because they're not theists. To me, lumping agnostics in with thiests is just as valid..

I could say that
Weak Atheists do not accept the existence of a g-d.
Strong athiests do not believe in the existence of a g-d or g-ds.

Weak Theists do not reject the existence of a g-d.
Strong theists believe in the existence of a g-d or g-ds.

Weak athiesm and weak theism being somewhat the same, but when you put it in its strict boundaries like that, to me it even sounds like agnostics should be classed as theists more than athiests!

To say that a weak athiest does not reject the existence of a g-d, to me, does not lie in the concept of athiesm, it's a bit of conjecture.. the definitions of both athiesm and theism being something definite- lack of belief, or belief.. just because someone is unsure about their belief doesn't mean they lack belief any more than they have belief, and if they do, I would class them as agnostic-athiest, or agnostic-theist respectively.

I may have something wrong there but just because the definition of athiesm is 'one without theism', to me, doesn't justify calling agnostics athiests. It's like those fun forms you fill out and they always have like "yes" "no" and "don't know", or like a scale, rather than a black and white solution.

 

I never said agnosticism is only atheism - I said agnosticism can fit into either atheism or theism. There is such a thing as agnostic theism - I know quite a few agnostic theists myself. The difference between an agnostic theist and an agnostic atheist is that the agnostic theist has an active belief in God despite not having any knowledge, while the agnostic atheist has no active belief in god, usually due to the knowledge "problem".

Agnostic atheism and agnostic theism are both expressions of an individual's "personal belief" - while theism and strong-atheism are expressions of an individual's position on what an objective fact is (i.e. the former thinks it's an objective fact that a God exists, the latter thinks it's an objective fact that a God doesn't).

- Laz

 

Well that settles it then, put me down for agnostic theist. I strongly believe there is something, but cannot go so far as to say it is God. I call it Spirit, and it is very chimerical, an elusive mirage like force that refuses to be laboratory certified.

 

Man this really is a question with no definite anwsers, but Ill stick to what I said, you cant blame religion for wars, its what people have taken from religion, you have to remember religion is a man made thing

 

I knew I'd missed a bit, it sounded to me like you were saying if you were agnostic you were an athiest, and that didn't match up. thanks, sorry bout that :sunglasse

 

Lazarus

An agnostic has WHAT to do with 'theism'?..
The stick in the gears.
Time to wield it.

Theism is not Gnosticism...
Thus your theory of dualistic theism DOES NOT APPLY..

Occam