Is there an argument For atheism

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Pair,

So most agnostic people would fit under your weak atheist definition, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't read those posts I refered you to did you?

PairTheBoard

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's the difference between that, and the vernacular definition I provided?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I believe there is no god.

2) I do not have a belief that God exists.

ZeeJ: So I ask again... what's the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

Scenario 1:
Hypothesis -- There is a god
Evidence -- Does not support
Conclusion -- I do not believe there is a god

Scenario 2:
Hypothesis -- There is no god
Evidence -- Supports
Conclusion -- I believe there is no god

These two scenarios are indeed very distinct from a scientific, mathematical, or philosophical construct. This is the SMP forum. Because average-Joe-on-the-street can't distinguish between the two does not mean we should not distinguish when discussing on this forum.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]

Most of the theists on SMP know far better than to use this tactic, and so our discussions and arguments can get past it and deal with more complicated issues. But the majority of theists I talk to think that this is absolutely a slam dunk in the face of atheists...this and Pascal's Wager. What can we do about this? How can we get the message out that "You can't disprove it" is the dumbest argument FOR something, possibly of all time. This is why I love, and I mean love, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because he absolutely demolishes this argument. However, most people think the FSM is too silly to respond seriously to, while all the while ignoring the whole point of the FSM in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the "FSM is silly" argument is not without merit. Clearly, adopting Pascal's Wager does not point you toward what particular form of god to believe in. With the bounds of the wager, a person would have to judge somehow which form of god is mostly likely. He may look to the fact that so many people have adopted religions with certain core beliefs as a signal of a fundamental truth that has been endowed within human nature. In his search for fundamental truth, the fact that the Spaghetti Monster seems "silly", in that no one has sincerely adopted it as their religion, can be very meaningful.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Agnosticism is a conscious uncertainty or admission of ignorance as to whether God exists or not. It basically admits that God might exist and might not exist. Atheism dodges the question of certainty and merely states the conclusion, which is "I definitely do not believe in a God."

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's agnosticism as well. Not only that, but there's nothing about those two that are different.

[ QUOTE ]
Now if someone said "I definitely believe there is no God," that would be strong atheism

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just plain atheism. This whole "strong atheism" and "weak atheism" crap is a bunch of nonsense created by people who mistakenly identified themselves as atheists and would rather try to change the definition of the word than admit that they were wrong and are really agnostic.

[ZeeJustin]

Kaj, for the millionth time, you are comparing the wrong 2 definitions. There is obviously a difference between the ones you quoted.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Those are most Certainly different. Yours is a belief that there is no God. The position in mine is a lack of the belief that there is a God. It does not imply a belief that there is no God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agnostic then...

Edit: Well really your definition includes both atheists and agnostics.

Basically, as long as you don't actively believe in god but you acknowledge the question, you fall under that definition.

[ZeeJustin]

Again, you guys are making this so much more complicated than it needs to be. My initial post in this thread is all you need to read really.

Atheism is obviously disbelief. This can either be active (my vernacular definition) or default (my technical/obsolete definition).

There are no other relevant/useful/intelligent ways to define atheism.

If Atheism is disbelief, then agnosticism is uncertainty.

This can either be "normal" uncertainty (vernacular) or "philosophical" uncertainty (technical).

Note that both of these are active, because passive agnosticism does not exist (or maybe I should say it falls under the technical/obsolete definition of atheism.)

[SammyKid11]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, you guys are making this so much more complicated than it needs to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Justin...I don't know what, if any, background you have in philosophy or theology...but it isn't "us" that's making this more complicated than it needs to be. Fields like this often get very specific in terming different factions of belief. Christianity "need" not be as specific as it is with different sects for what amount, at times, to VERY small philosophical differences either.....yet, despite that, it is.

The nature of atheist and agnostic beliefs IS varied quite specifically...and there are widely used terms within the fields of scholarship that represent those variations. I'm not vouching for everyone in this thread's interpretations of those terms, because there have been some misnomers. However, please see my first post in this thread for a pretty concise version. It's not that your definitions are wrong, they're just not consistent with most of the scholarship in their terminology...and they're slightly simplistic.

The actual used terms are not so needlessly specific that they can't be understood in an intellectual forum...given that, it seems useless to reinvent the wheel with other terms, specifically when what we're discussing has to have some universality of terminology in order for the discussion to be meaningful.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, you guys are making this so much more complicated than it needs to be. My initial post in this thread is all you need to read really.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before this thread came up I would have more or less agreed with you. But after being puzzled by some of the talk here I read this Wikipedea Entry for Atheism . I suggest you take a look at it. Pay special attention to the "Positive" and "Negative" definitions. After reading up on the subject I've had to change my thinking. I now realize it's not as simple a subject as I thought it was. I've given my thoughts based on this new perspective.

PairTheBoard