psikeyhackr - 18 October 2010 08:07 AM

Atheists do not “lack belief” they have belief IN A NEGATIVE.

`
Again, the problem there is that the above ignores other, slightly nuanced variations of the definition psik; the other perfectly valid/recognized definitions of the term ~ ‘disbelief’, one of the words you’ll find most often in dictionary definitions, does NOT necessarily imply ‘active belief in the opposite position’.

`

Axegrrl - 18 October 2010 11:20 AM

psikeyhackr - 18 October 2010 08:07 AM

Atheists do not “lack belief” they have belief IN A NEGATIVE.

`
Again, the problem there is that the above ignores other, slightly nuanced variations of the definition psik; the other perfectly valid/recognized definitions of the term ~ ‘disbelief’, one of the words you’ll find most often in dictionary definitions, does NOT necessarily imply ‘active belief in the opposite position’.
`

So you are refusing to distinguish between and agnostic and an atheist and claiming that an agnostic is a kind of atheist.

I don’t have a problem with rejecting idiotic definitions in dictionaries.

I have seen a dictionary that said believe means to accept something as true without absolute proof.

What is the difference between a proof and an ABSOLUTE proof?

Believe means to accept something as true (or false) without sufficient evidence.  Therefore belief is stupid by definition.

psik

Someone said that atheism is akin to believing in a NEGATIVE.  But is that mathematically correct?

Using a mathematical comparison: (where Universe=U)
Gnosticism and theism are positive statement of the existence of a deity.    (in mathematics: U+1)
Atheism is a positive statement of the non existence of a deity.                    (in mathematics: U+0) (not: U-1)
Agnosticism is a neutral statement of the possible existence of something.  (in mathematics: U+x)

Write4U - 18 October 2010 01:15 PM

Someone said that atheism is akin to believing in a NEGATIVE.  That is not correct.

Using a mathematical comparison:
Gnosticism and theism are positive statement of the existence of a deity.    (in mathematics: U(niverse)+1)
Atheism is a positive statement of the non existence of a deity.                    ( in mathematics: U(niverse)+0) (NOT-1)
Agnosticism is a neutral statement of the possible existence of something.  (in mathematics: U(niverse)+x)

Dammig write4u! You beat me to the punch! Since when is 0 a negatiive number? It sounds like someones been listening to their ministers logic for too long.

ExMachina - 18 October 2010 01:22 PM

Write4U - 18 October 2010 01:15 PM

Someone said that atheism is akin to believing in a NEGATIVE.  That is not correct.

Using a mathematical comparison:
Gnosticism and theism are positive statement of the existence of a deity.    (in mathematics: U(niverse)+1)
Atheism is a positive statement of the non existence of a deity.                    ( in mathematics: U(niverse)+0) (NOT-1)
Agnosticism is a neutral statement of the possible existence of something.  (in mathematics: U(niverse)+x)

Dammig write4u! You beat me to the punch! Since when is 0 a negatiive number? It sounds like someones been listening to their ministers logic for too long.

Actually Axegrll touched on that some posts ago…

You know, I was going to write a nice, sarcastic post making fun of everyone for pointlessly arguing in circles about a petty non-issue that doesn’t matter and no one really cares about.  But then I though, “Screw it.  Why bother?”  I’ll just amuse myself with the inanity of it all.  Carry on people.  Carry on.

Dead Monky - 18 October 2010 01:29 PM

You know, I was going to write a nice, sarcastic post making fun of everyone for pointlessly arguing in circles about a petty non-issue that doesn’t matter and no one really cares about.  But then I though, “Screw it.  Why bother?”  I’ll just amuse myself with the inanity of it all.  Carry on people.  Carry on.

Yes, it is a heavy burden to bear.    If you were a Humanist, you’d lend a helping hand. 

psikeyhackr - 18 October 2010 11:35 AM

so you are refusing to distinguish between and agnostic and an atheist and claiming that an agnostic is a kind of atheist.

`
Where did I say that ‘an agnostic’ is a kind of atheist?

I was merely pointing out the fact that your limited/narrow definition of atheism is at odds with how a huge number of people use the word ‘atheist’.  I don’t know how much you participate in other forums/online discussions, but I can tell you that from my experience over the past couple of years, the vast majority of people I’ve encountered who describe themselves as ‘atheist’ would have the same ‘issue’ with your restrictive definition that I do…...

Plus, the majority of atheists i’ve come across in discussions lately specifically label themselves ‘agnostic atheists’ based on the fact that the two terms refer to different ‘issues’ (the former with knowledge and the latter with belief).

I certainly understand the problem people have with the fact that many people use these terms slightly differently, but that’s the current reality ~ which is why I suggested that people simply explain their position if/when there’s any confusion :)

`

Dead Monky - 18 October 2010 01:29 PM

You know, I was going to write a nice, sarcastic post making fun of everyone for pointlessly arguing in circles about a petty non-issue that doesn’t matter and no one really cares about.

`
Guess what?  That’s the conclusion that practically everyone arrives at after a few pages of this kind of back and forth :)  In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever read/participated in one of these discussions where it didn’t end with “why have we spent the last ____ hours arguing about this again?”  It’s just what seems to happen every time this topic comes up :)

`

murshid - 16 October 2010 03:07 PM

Is there any difference between weak atheism and agnostic atheism?

To me it goes like this:

Weak atheists don’t believe in God.

Strong atheists believe there is no God.

Atheist refers to belief, agnostic to knowledge so agnostic atheists can be either really.

For example I am an agnostic strong atheist. I believe there is no God - as a provisional position until I see sufficient strong evidence to the contrary. It gives me a hypothesis to work from.

Bruce Gorton - 18 October 2010 11:30 PM

murshid - 16 October 2010 03:07 PM

Is there any difference between weak atheism and agnostic atheism?

To me it goes like this:

Weak atheists don’t believe in God.

Strong atheists believe there is no God.

Atheist refers to belief, agnostic to knowledge so agnostic atheists can be either really.

For example I am an agnostic strong atheist. I believe there is no God - as a provisional position until I see sufficient strong evidence to the contrary. It gives me a hypothesis to work from.

Yeah, agnostics are so STUPID they need atheists to label them and tell them what to think. 

You think words are supposed to define people’s states of mind.  I specify the states of mind then use the words as LABELS for those states.  I don’t let labels tell me what to think and call myself.

Atheist == believes there is no God

Agnostic == does no know and has not encountered sufficient evidence about the existence of God or lack thereof.

Strong Agnostic == kills atheists that call agnostics “weak atheists”   That is nothing but political propaganda word game bullshit.

Theist = someone that believes in some kind of God.

I never heard this atheist means “not a theist” crap until I started using the internet.  This New Atheism has just gone into a mind game propaganda phase and expect agnostics to be stupid.  Like letting atheists tell us what to think is better than letting theists tell us what to think.

psik

psikeyhackr - 19 October 2010 05:57 AM

Bruce Gorton - 18 October 2010 11:30 PM

murshid - 16 October 2010 03:07 PM

Is there any difference between weak atheism and agnostic atheism?

To me it goes like this:

Weak atheists don’t believe in God.

Strong atheists believe there is no God.

Atheist refers to belief, agnostic to knowledge so agnostic atheists can be either really.

For example I am an agnostic strong atheist. I believe there is no God - as a provisional position until I see sufficient strong evidence to the contrary. It gives me a hypothesis to work from.

Yeah, agnostics are so STUPID they need atheists to label them and tell them what to think. 

You think words are supposed to define people’s states of mind. I specify the states of mind then use the words as LABELS for those states.  I don’t let labels tell me what to think and call myself.

Atheist == believes there is no God

Agnostic == does no know and has not encountered sufficient evidence about the existence of God or lack thereof.

Strong Agnostic == kills atheists that call agnostics “weak atheists”   That is nothing but political propaganda word game bullshit.

Theist = someone that believes in some kind of God.

I never heard this atheist means “not a theist” crap until I started using the internet.  This New Atheism has just gone into a mind game propaganda phase and expect agnostics to be stupid.  Like letting atheists tell us what to think is better than letting theists tell us what to think.

psik

Yeah, nothing more I can really say about that blatant example of projection. I speak only for myself, and I thank you for your use of telepathy. I think you should maybe contact James Randi - he owes you $1m.

As to agnostics being stupid, I don’t think that. I doubt many people think agnostics are particularly thick. But I suspect you have gotten the impression that people do - because your experience is from their interactions with you.

Axe, I guess we’ll just have to see how long this one continues then, eh?

This video seems apt:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=video&cd=1&ved=0CDIQtwIwAA&url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk&rct=j&q=qualias&ei=Od29TO6CC5CisQOlmLCsDA&usg=AFQjCNHdlg-YIX-BAYFQfAEKZnxRqikvDQ&sig2=xQUcDPry1U3xImc7LfN0KA&cad=rja

I like its explanations of things.

Agnostic - believes God is unknowable. (Note: if you nonetheless have faith that God exists, you would be an agnostic theist). [Definition #2: is undecided whether or not God exists.]

Strong atheist - believes God doesn’t exist.

Weak atheist - doesn’t believe God exists.

Agnostic atheist - doesn’t believe God exists and doesn’t believe it’s possible to know whether or not He exists.

(I don’t think it’s possible to be an agnostic strong atheist. How can you believe God doesn’t exist yet simultaneously believe it’s impossible to know whether or not God exists? That’s some cognitive dissonance!)

psik fits the definition of weak atheist, rather than his self-professed agnostic.

I am a weak atheist. And I like these nuances because I think they are useful, or at least fun. I like philosophy, what can I say.

domokato - 19 October 2010 11:21 AM

psik fits the definition of weak atheist, rather than his self-professed agnostic..

Now I will have to locate your house to program one of my cruise missiles.

psik