- In the literature, there are usually two varieties of Atheism that are distinguished from each other: weak (negative) atheism and strong (positive) atheism. Weak atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of God: weak atheists feel that those who believe in God carry the burden of evidence. Strong atheism is the belief that God does not exist: strong atheists feel that the evidence points to God not existing. (Note that a lack of belief in X does not necessarily entail a belief in Not X.)
- One cannot both believe that God exists and not believe that God exists. They can, however, believe neither.
- Now, an agnostic is, according to Merriam Webster, "one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god". Agnostics do not believe that God exists, nor do they believe that God does not exist.
- Therefore, by 2 and the definition of agnosticism, agnostics do not believe that God exists.
- Therefore, by 4 and the definition of weak atheism, agnostics are weak atheists.
So in summary: one can either believe that God exists, or not believe that God exists (although the latter does not entail believing that God does NOT exist). Because agnostics do not hold any particular attitude about God's existence, they do not believe that God exists. Therefore they are weak atheists.
Note on "belief" and "knowledge": "agnosticism" strictly means "not knowing". So strictly speaking, religious people and atheists could be agnostic, even though they have beliefs on the matter, if they do not feel that they know whether god exists. However, the term has come to mean not believing anything one way or the other (as can be seen in the definition). With this meaning, my argument holds.
Posts
5 comments:
So, is this logical? I believe I do not believe God exists, and I believe I believe a god may exist if it can be proven a god does exist. In other words, I’m an agnostic who is sure God does not exist, but, I am not sure a god may exist somewhere if it is found and proven to be wherever. My proof is, if one would study religion logically, they would come to the conclusion that God is but a figment that began tens of thousands of years ago, evolved and continues to evolve, to ease man’s fears and to create a hereafter where he can continue in eternal bliss. Heavens-to-Betsy, that sounds like a real horror. Can one conceive an eternity of bliss?
OK, so, I'll admit I'm having trouble following your reasoning. Don't know if you want to try to explain: I'd certainly be interested though.
I definitely agree with the last part though. I've always thought eternal bliss sounded terribly boring.
This argument makes no sense at all.
All it demonstrates is that there is an overlap between the the categories of 'weak atheist' & 'agnostic'.
So what? It's the English language - plenty of categories overlap.
That isn't demonstrating that one of the categories doesn't exist! We use 'Frustration' & 'Annoyance' as words in English that have close meanings - you could also logically that "'Frustration' does not exist" !
Just like 'Frustration' & 'Annoyance' are similar (but not identical) 'agnostism' & 'weak atheism' are also subtly different.
The difference is touched on in your argument.
An 'agnostic' is one who doesn't have an opinion on the subject.
A 'weak atheist' believes that burden of proof lies with the theists.
If someone doesn't believe that the burden of proof lies with the theists yet is still is neither theist nor atheist .. then which category would you use?
Clearly they cannot be a weak atheist.
Yes, there is still going to be some level of overlap between the categories. That's the English language for you.
Why don't you tell them that you have logically proven that they can't be feeling 'frustration' at your argument ?
I don't agree with using "weak" and "strong" atheist identifiers. You either believe in gods and the supernatural or you don't. Evidence can come whenever it likes but there is no reason to believe until then. Atheists are not responsible for an infinite number of possibilities. I have yet to find a true agnostic in my search. A few are atheists that are afraid of coming out and the rest are almost always Deists in disguise.
knowing is only trusting in something that fits into our present ability to understand....so trust enters the picture....if we trust in what we know...then we limit our ability to learn to ourselves...if we trust in what we may be able to know(ie faith) then we can learn and know anything...thus God or nothing...are possible
Post a Comment