Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism

[BobJoeJim]

[ QUOTE ]
theism: the belief in a god or gods.
atheism: the absence of a belief in a god or gods.

They are contradicting viewpoints. You HAVE to be one or the other. The reasons why you are an atheist (or theist) is not relevant to whether you can call yourself an atheist (or theist).

[/ QUOTE ]
NO.

Theism: The belief in a god or gods
Atheism: The belief in an absence of a god or gods.

You got the Atheism word order wrong. Your definition of Atheism, "The absence of a belief..." is one of the definitions of Agnosticism, the other definition being "The belief that it is impossible to know whether god or gods exist." The OP is just a way of attempting to argue that of these three, mutually exclusive views, only agnosticism is logically valid.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
NO.

Theism: The belief in a god or gods
Atheism: The belief in an absence of a god or gods.

You got the Atheism word order wrong. Your definition of Atheism, "The absence of a belief..." is one of the definitions of Agnosticism, the other definition being "The belief that it is impossible to know whether god or gods exist." The OP is just a way of attempting to argue that of these three, mutually exclusive views, only agnosticism is logically valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. Atheists don't believe in God(s). Just because one could conceive that there could be a God is not reason to say its illogical to not believe there is one.

I can conceive that there could be an invisible half-monkey/half-Tammy-Fay-Bakker that follows me around while farting odorless farts everywhere I go. I conceive that the reason my handwriting is so bad is that whenever I write by hand she influences my hands.

I don't believe this. By the logic you have posted, wouldn't this be illogical of me?

[madnak]

Weak atheism: I don't believe in God, but am not certain he doesn't exist.
Weak agnosticism: I don't know for sure whether God exists.
Strong atheism: God doesn't exist.
Strong agnosticism: Nobody can know whether God exists.

You'll notice that "weak" atheism is perfectly consistent with both kinds of agnosticism. "Strong" atheism is presumably what the OP refers to.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the standard or (pun-intended) canonical definition of God is: omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent. Mix those together, look at the world, and I think the contradiction case is fairly strong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really, is that the standard definition of God as applied by the majority of people?

I thought that most people who used the words omniscient and omnipotent did not understand what they meant, and were thinking something different when they used these two contradictory words. Further an even greater number do not have omniscient and omnipotent in their working vocabulary.

Although I sometime I find it difficult to emphasise with people with a religious belief so perhaps I don’t understand.

[Jonny5]

Although that was from my head.. dictionary shows.
Theism:
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

Atheism:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


My point being that atheism is your stance. Do you believe, or don't you. Not why or how.

Agnostic is the belieft that some things are unknowable. In the case of God, that it is not possible, or beyond our limits to know for certain whether there is a god.

For the record, you can be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
My real claim behind this is that being an atheist takes as much faith as being a theist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your real claim behind this, then, is based on a misunderstanding of the term. I would venture that the vast majority of atheists would agree with what you've said here. But there is often a certain connotation to using the term 'agnostic' that some atheists dislike, and so they use the term atheist. I guess it would require faith to be an 'atheist' as you seem to think some people are...but these people don't really exist. Atheists are really just agnostics who don't want to be confused with 'theists who don't like church,' which is the message often conveyed by the term agnostic.

[Lestat]

I actually agree with this (although I think points 2 and 3 are the same).

The reason I consider myself an atheist and not an agnostic is because I think the odds are so low for a god that I am perfectly comfortable living my life and assuming there isn't one. Just as I feel comfortable getting in a car or plane and assuming it's not going to crash (and I am actually MUCH more comfortable that there are no such thing as gods).

But people who say they are "certain" are wrong. Unless you know how the universe came to be, you must allow some chance for any possibility. This includes a god or some higher dimensional being sneezing. You just can't know with 100% certainty.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I actually agree with this (although I think points 2 and 3 are the same).

The reason I consider myself an atheist and not an agnostic is because I think the odds are so low for a god that I am perfectly comfortable living my life and assuming there isn't one. Just as I feel comfortable getting in a car or plane and assuming it's not going to crash (and I am actually MUCH more comfortable that there are no such thing as gods).

But people who say they are "certain" are wrong. Unless you know how the universe came to be, you must allow some chance for any possibility. This includes a god or some higher dimensional being sneezing. You just can't know with 100% certainty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. I honestly can't imagine that anyone who spends any time thinking about this can say they are entirely certain that there are no gods, of any type or of any characteristics, no matter how weak. I think its possible to be an atheist, as the OP means it, with regards to, say, the Christian God, or some other types of God. Perhaps we would need a more rigorous and specific definition of a god, but I don't know that 'god' implies logical contradictions.

But as I said before, people use the term atheist to more clearly convey where they stand. If I tell a bunch of Christians that I am an agnostic, they will say "Oh, well, you should come hear my preacher, maybe you just haven't found the right church for you." They dont really think that I find the chances of there being a God to be ridiculously low and the chance of it being their specific god nearly impossible. But if I tell them I am an atheist, they get the picture much more clearly.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
My real claim behind this is that being an atheist takes as much faith as being a theist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was with you until here. The above is just a silly statement. You can look at evidence and logically form an educated opinion. It does not require *as much* faith to be an atheist as a theist. I can forgive someone if they feel 100% certain they were not re-incarnated. Even though they are wrong to be 100% certain. Believing you have been re-incarnated clearly takes more faith.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My real claim behind this is that being an atheist takes as much faith as being a theist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was with you until here. The above is just a silly statement. You can look at evidence and logically form an educated opinion. It does not require *as much* faith to be an atheist as a theist. I can forgive someone if they feel 100% certain they were not re-incarnated. Even though they are wrong to be 100% certain. Believing you have been re-incarnated clearly takes more faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the only way this can be argued is if we say they both take an 'infinite' amount of faith or that faith is faith, there is no such thing as more or less faith. In which case, this is a useless point. But yes, I do get it, we must lash out at the atheists. So, strawmen and equivocation seem like great ways to go about it.