Is there any difference between weak atheism and agnostic atheism?

Not that I can determine.  All the arguments and distinctions I’ve heard just amount to petty hair splitting and nitpicking.

I feel like there is a more specific question in your mind just begging for freedom.

-RC

Dead Monky - 16 October 2010 03:08 PM

All the arguments and distinctions I’ve heard just amount to petty hair splitting and nitpicking.

That’s what I felt too.
.

Ruat Caelum - 16 October 2010 03:25 PM

I feel like there is a more specific question in your mind just begging for freedom.

I’m not sure what you meant.

Seems like a loaded question.

To be more specific: what do you think the difference is?

-RC

murshid - 16 October 2010 03:07 PM

Is there any difference between weak atheism and agnostic atheism?

Atheism and agnosticism are two different things.

An atheist BELIEVES that there is no God.

An agnostic admits that he doesn’t know whether or not there is a God.

Atheists calling agnostics weak atheists are full of crap.  Atheists act like they are in charge and control the definitions that other people think by.  Plenty of atheists see themselves as being at war with the theists and apparently want to draft agnostics into their cause with verbal jujitsu.

psik

The terms seem a bit odd.  I’ll comment on each separately, then you can decide whether or not there’s a difference. 

An atheist believes that no god exists.  1) Some are easy-going and don’t bother arguing with theists.  2) Some are militant and will take any theistic comment as a challenge and will argue, not so much that there’s no god, but that they don’t want to be forced to participate in activities with which they disagree.  3) Some are proselytizing and will try to convert theists whenever the opportunity arises.  4) Some base their disbelief in any god on what they see as fact.  5) Some feel there is no evidence either way, but they have a strong disbelief by faith. 

An agnostic may A) Recognize that there can be no evidence either way so suspends his opinion.  B) Recognizes that s/he doesn’t have evidence even though it may exist so will also suspend belief.

The term Agnostic Atheist seems to me to be an oxymoron, but I suppose one could add a C) Recognize that there can be no evidence either way but doubts the existence of any god.

I’d guess that the term weak atheist may be used to describe 1) or C).

Occam

Actually they are mostly agnostics.  Almost as cute. 

The atheist is the one lying down on the right.

psik

Of course when they get old they become really obnoxious and take themselves too seriously.

And of course they are all White guys. 

psik

Ruat Caelum - 16 October 2010 04:07 PM

Seems like a loaded question.

I wonder why it seems that way to you.
.

Ruat Caelum - 16 October 2010 04:07 PM

To be more specific: what do you think the difference is?

I don’t know what the difference is (or whether there is any difference at all). To me, both of the terms seemed to mean the same thing. That’s why I asked the question here to see what others had to say about it and to see whether there was any misunderstanding on my part about what the terms meant.

murshid - 17 October 2010 01:22 AM

Ruat Caelum - 16 October 2010 04:07 PM

Seems like a loaded question.

I wonder why it seems that way to you.
.

Ruat Caelum - 16 October 2010 04:07 PM

To be more specific: what do you think the difference is?

I don’t know what the difference is (or whether there is any difference at all). To me, both of the terms seemed to mean the same thing. That’s why I asked the question here to see what others had to say about it and to see whether there was any misunderstanding on my part about what the terms meant.

You may want to check out some of Paul Kurtz “A Kinder, Gentler Secularism” views on this, on POI. He presents a nuanced view of the various interpretations and differences between atheism and agnosticism.

murshid - 17 October 2010 01:22 AM

I don’t know what the difference is (or whether there is any difference at all). To me, both of the terms seemed to mean the same thing. That’s why I asked the question here to see what others had to say about it and to see whether there was any misunderstanding on my part about what the terms meant.

I think both terms are the result of SOME atheists causing pseudo-intellectual semantic confusion.

There are active atheists that want to push back against religion and there are passive atheists that just want to go about the business of their lives.  The active atheists want allies in there war.

It would be nice to know when and who came up with that “weak atheist” business.  I presume it was some active “strong” atheist that wanted to get people on his bandwagon. 

The “agnostic atheism” is complete semantic rubbish because it simply joins together two words that really mean completely different things but implies it is a variation on atheism so everyone gets dumped into the atheist bandwagon because the atheists say so.  It really just makes the atheists look stupid and contradicts the image they try to project of being intelligent and rational.

People that try to manipulate mids with word games presume other people are stupid.

Neuro Linguistic Programming crap.

It is really just comes from 80 year old ideas.

General Semantics

In the 1930s a Polish Count, Alfred Korzybski, wrote a book called “Science and Sanity” which has had a tremendous influence on the Self Development movement ever since. It has been said that if Korzybski had had the communication skills of some of the great names of this century, such as Hubbard of Scientology, or Bandler and Grinder of NLP, then he would have been the great guru. Rather sad, in one way, is that few would pick up Science and Sanity to read, but would pick up many copies of his ideas.

http://www.trans4mind.com/personal_development/KenGenSemantics.htm#Projection

Don’t let words tell you what to think because it just means the people that created the words tell you what to think.

psik

psikeyhackr - 17 October 2010 07:14 AM

The “agnostic atheism” is complete semantic rubbish because it simply joins together two words that really mean completely different things but implies it is a variation on atheism so everyone gets dumped into the atheist bandwagon because the atheists say so.

Is “chilled beer” also complete semantic rubbish because it simply joins together two words that really mean completely different things?

murshid - 17 October 2010 07:27 AM

psikeyhackr - 17 October 2010 07:14 AM

The “agnostic atheism” is complete semantic rubbish because it simply joins together two words that really mean completely different things but implies it is a variation on atheism so everyone gets dumped into the atheist bandwagon because the atheists say so.

Is “chilled beer” also complete semantic rubbish because it simply joins together two words that really mean completely different things?

OK so maybe I should have said “contradictory things” instead of “different things”.

I explained agnostic and atheist in post #5.

I do not consider word game debates to be productive or intelligent.

Chilled is a modifier of beer and is a common state of the substance though I never drink the junk.

To say “agnostic atheist” is to say someone admits that they don’t have information enough to justify a suspicion but they believe a negative anyway. 

psik

psikeyhackr - 17 October 2010 07:55 AM

OK so maybe I should have said “contradictory things” instead of “different things”.

The words “agnostic” and “atheist” are not contradictory. They just mean different things. The word “agnostic” is about knowledge; it says nothing about belief or non-belief. I hope you don’t expect everyone who lacks belief in god to claim that they also have knowledge that god doesn’t exist.
.

psikeyhackr - 17 October 2010 07:55 AM

I do not consider word game debates to be productive or intelligent.

I agree. So I am stopping my part of the unproductive unintelligent debate right here right now. 

The title of the thread is not an honest question based on innocent curiosity and a desire to learn, but instead it is cocked, loaded, and ready to fire!  Because it contains the word “weak”, a word that is neither quantifiable nor from any legitimate philosophical source, it is an attack.  This is typical of extremists when they want to attack the moderate middle, whether it is phrased “you’re either with us, or against us”, “its either us or them”, or a myriad of other bifurcated attacks, or loaded wordings like the title, these are not actually questions, and so there is no polite obligation to respond to them.  So I won’t.

Agnostics basically are the moderates, they are the doubters, they restrain belief about religions and gods and restrain assertions about them.  It was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley, and is based on the Greek word gnosis, which refers to knowledge.  In practice they can live as an atheist, meaning live without attending church, nor praying, joining the CFI, etc. 

Atheist is a small word with vague meaning, and so it is easy to flex it to include many attitudes.  Its basic construction is “not” “theist”, that leaves a whole lot of possibilities open, but doesn’t assert any one of them.  There are moderate and extreme atheists, both are here on this forum.  The extreme ones want to fight and end religion. 

I’m on the agnostic side, when the religious make an assertion about this or that god without evidence, then I don’t know what to think about the god.  When the atheists make an assertion about this or that god without evidence, then I don’t know what to think about the god.  I hear that to know something about the god of Abraham, first you have to die.  So instead of pursuing knowledge about gods, I’ll just pursue some evidenced knowledge instead and won’t worry too much about the holy assertions. 

This being the CFI, Humanism deserves to be mentioned too.  Humanism is a rich and diverse set of ideas that promote monism, naturalism, skepticism, education, empiricism, and yes there is even a belief in there, speculative belief that to achieve a good future we can look to and depend on humanity to create it, without the assistance of any gods.  I recommend Corliss Lamont’s work, if one really wants to understand Humanism.