tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766973.post112874632377171237..comments2023-07-23T07:47:42.360-05:00Comments on Life As I Know It...: Atheism, Theism, Agnostism, and the Kitchen Sink!FeedingYourMindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16542158699816108523noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766973.post-1128772679808142592005-10-08T06:57:00.000-05:002005-10-08T06:57:00.000-05:00"However, I also believe there are passive agnosti..."However, I also believe there are passive agnostics, who though this will come off as sounding like they are characterized as just being lazy..."<BR/><BR/>They may also not care. The existence of a god only necessarily matters if you assume a particular definition of this god. Absent any definition, it's not clear that the <A HREF="http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgodexist/a/doesgodmatter.htm" REL="nofollow">existence of gods matters</A> on a practical level.<BR/><BR/>Also, they may believe that knowledge of gods isn't possible, thus any active search won't accomplish anything.<BR/><BR/>"Okay, so if an atheist isn’t someone who says God doesn’t exist, then what DO you call someone that says God doesn’t exist?"<BR/><BR/>They are an atheist, too. Someone who asserts that no gods exists also, by definition, lacks belief in the existence of gods. The labels "weak atheism" and "strong atheism" were created in order to differentiate between those who merely disbelieve and those who actively deny the existence of gods.<BR/><BR/>Just to complicate matters a little more: it's unlikely that you would find someone who *isn't* a strong atheist with respect to at least some gods. Thus, most people whose general position is weak atheism or agnostic atheism are "strong atheists" when it comes to Zeus, Odin, etc. <BR/><BR/>"I don’t see how someone can choose to not belief in a god or God, if they can’t answer the question of whether a god or God exists or not."<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/beliefchoice.htm" REL="nofollow">It's not a question of choice</A>. Given the absence of any good reason to believe in any gods, I can no more believe in a god than I can believe that there is a car in my kitchen, or that my cats don't really exist. <BR/><BR/>Theism and atheism aren't two "chocies," they are two possibilities. Theism is a belief, but atheism is not a belief - it's the absence of a particular belief. <BR/><BR/>"I struggle with the idea of a person being able to belief one way or another (theism vs. atheism) if the person isn’t sure of God’s existence because of their knowledge."<BR/><BR/>Really? I'll bet you don't have any problem with this when it comes to other subjects.<BR/><BR/>Do you believe that I am wearing a red shirt? Of course not. So, do you believe that I am wearing a shirt of some color other than red? Of course not. The chances are higher that I am wearing some color other than read, but you have no solid basis for making such an assertion.<BR/><BR/>You are not a red-shirt-ist. You are an a-red-shirt-ist. Why? Because you lack any knowledge that would allow you to draw either the conclusion that I am wearing a red shirt or that I am wearing some other color. I may be shirtless for all you know.<BR/><BR/>Now, we can repeat this dozens of times with different subjects: do I have a dog? Do I enjoy skiing? The result will, I hope, be consistent: when you are asked which of two positions you hold on something where you have no knowledge whatsoever, you don't have a belief. You lack knowledge and, therefore, lack a belief (belief is defined as the mental acceptance of a claim as true).<BR/><BR/>So, why do you have trouble imagining the same with respect to one more topic: the existence of gods?<BR/><BR/>"How can someone truly choose the belief that there is no god (or God)?"<BR/><BR/>As the above-linked article makes it clear, atheism is not a choice. Beliefs aren't chosen like acts of will. You can't will yourself to have a belief like you will your arm to raise. Beliefs are consequences of our knowledge, assumptions, predispositions, etc. You don't "choose" to be an a-red-shirt-ist, that's simply the only reasonable position for a reasonable person to adopt.<BR/><BR/>"I view choosing the belief that there is no God as finding an individual guilty in a court of law."<BR/><BR/>First, atheism isn't necessarily the assertion that there is no god.<BR/><BR/>Second, the analogy is actually backwards. In a court of law, the burden of proof is on those making the claim - the prosecution. They claim that a crime was committed and that a particular person did it. With respect to this debate, the analogous position is the theistic one: they are claiming that some being exists, has certain desires, and does certain things. The theist is the one who has "convicted," in a sense. The atheist simply refuses to accept this conviction on the basis of lack of evidence and argument.<BR/><BR/>"I feel that unless I can prove beyond reasonable doubt that God does not exist, I can’t accept an atheistic belief."<BR/><BR/>Atheism is not a belief. You don't need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no gods exist in order to not believe in any. You don't need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I don't have a dog in order not to bother believing that I actually do have one.<BR/><BR/>Even if we accept the narrow definition of atheism as denying the existence of gods, proof beyond a reasonable doubt still wouldn't be necessary. Can you prove that the earth doesn't move because it's pushed by invisible fairies? No. I'll bet you don't believe it, though - and the fact that there is absolutely no good reason to accept such a thing is a sufficient basis for not believing it.<BR/><BR/>Beliefs should be proportioned to the evidence. It's rare that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is necessary.<BR/><BR/>"I honestly think many others than myself would define an atheist as one who believes God does not exist..."<BR/><BR/>Yes, they do. Almost 100% of the time, those people are Christians who are creating a straw man so that they can argue against "atheism" without actually tackling what real atheists think and argue. It's a dishonest debating tactic. No, I'm not accusing you of dishonesty - you're simply a victim of others' dishonesty.<BR/><BR/>"I would think atheists need to drop the “atheist” label and stay with the view of agnostism of not picking theism or atheism."<BR/><BR/>Except that agnosticism is not a "third option" outside of theism and atheism. Agnosticism is a separate issue entirely. Most atheists I've encountered are agnostic atheists - few insist that they *know* that no gods can or do exist. A few do, it is true, but not many. It's not that they "pick" atheism - that's simply the term that accurate describes the fact that they lack belief in the existence of gods.<BR/><BR/>"Maybe it would be easier for me if I knew what the ends of the spectrum were that incorporate agnostism"<BR/><BR/>The presence of knowledge and the absence of knowledge. Either you are an a-gnostic or a gnostic (not that anyone typically uses this term, given how it's been applied to a particular religious tradition now).<BR/><BR/>Knowledge and belief are related, but separate issues. You say you are an agnostic. This means that you don't claim to know. Now, what do you believe? Telling me what you know doesn't tell me what you believe. Either the belief in the existence of some sort of god is present in your mind, or it is not. If so, you're an agnostic theist. If not, you're an agnostic atheist.<BR/><BR/>Note, you might not be sure whether you *should* believe or not - but that's a separate issue as well. You might also shift as you work through the issues - one day you may feel that you believe and the next you may not. At any given moment, though, it's still a binary issue: either you actively accept the truth of the proposition "some god exists" or you do not.<BR/><BR/>Your post was long, so if I missed anything it was completely by accident - just draw my attention to it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com