Skepticism

[SSH]

That' s because someone brought the words "Agnostic" and "Atheist" to the discussion, which I don' t really understant or differenciate... A Skeptic does question everything.

So are you saying that you do not believe that there is no god?

[Misj']

That' s because someone brought the words "Agnostic" and "Atheist" to the discussion, which I don' t really understant or differenciate... A Skeptic does question everything.

Wiki:
Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism.

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism.

So in short (and a little simplified): Atheists say there is no God, agnosts say they don't know.
(agnosts can also be agnotisc on subjects not related to religion though, you can be an atheist regarding the existence of God, and agnostic concerning the existence of aliens).

(Not knowing (agnostiscism) makes questioning everything easier...)

[Snarky]

That's a pretty big simplification, Misj'. Not all atheists claim that there is no God, and many agnostics go much further than saying they are unsure about the existence of God. It is possible (indeed common) to be both atheist and agnostic at the same time.

[Khris]

Could we keep this on track please? It's completely useless to start discussing whether Dawkins/me/anyone else is a strong/weak atheist/agnostic/whatever. I think the positons are reasonably clear.

My position is that I assume that there's no supernatural stuff. "Then" religious people started to claim there is, and until they can prove that (which is impossible), I keep assuming that there's no supernatural stuff. Call me whatever label this position earns me, but lets not cling to words like that, please.

[Snarky]

This discussion was ever on some kind of track and not completely useless?

[loominous]

It's a shame that the terminology is really muddy, as the subject matter is tricky enough as is.

Agnosticism in particular is very misunderstood, and is often thought of as a safe middleground between believers and atheists. I'm afraid Misj's explanation, well intentioned as it was, supported this misconception.

Agnosticism and atheism actually deal with seperate areas, so as Snarky pointed out, you can for instance be an agnostic who believes in god - an agnostic theist - which may sound surprising.

Agnosticism

Agnosticism deals with gnosis, knowledge, and is about whether we can have knowledge about godlike things, and not about whether god actually exists or not.

- All agnostics believe that they personally don't have any knowledge about whether god exists or not. This stance is known as 'weak agnosticism'.

- Some agnostics go one step further and claim that noone can know whether god exists. This stance is known as 'strong agnosticism'.

I would suspect most people in this thread, believers or not, would agree with the first stance, and can label themselves 'weak agnostics'.

Atheism

- All atheists agree that they don't believe there is a god. This stance is known as 'weak atheism'.

- Some go one step further and claim that there is no god. This stance is known as 'strong atheism'.

---

Yeah, but Dawkins has an active belief that God doesn't exist, so he's a strong atheist. A weak atheist is someone who has no faith, but who has not actively concluded that God does not, or probably does not, exist. So that would include people who have never really thought about the question, as well as people who have never been exposed to the idea, and many agnostics (as that term is commonly understood).

By the above definition, which is used at least in swedish academia, and which I suspect mirrors the usage in most other countries, Dawkins, a self labeled 'weak atheist', is indeed a 'weak atheist', as he merely claims that god is very unlikely.

[Khris]

This discussion was ever on some kind of track and not completely useless?

Why participate in a completely useless discussion then?

[Snarky]

Loominous, I think you make the important distinction here: agnosticism is a philosophical theory of knowledge, while atheism is a description of a person's beliefs or lack of beliefs. People do use the words differently, however, probably partly because they have different assumptions about what belief is, what knowledge is, and what people's "default position" (as if there was such a thing) is.

Unless they assert that the concept of God is inherently inconsistent (a contradiction in terms) or incoherent (meaningless), and therefore as a certainty impossible, almost all atheists are going to admit that there is some chance that they are wrong and that God exists. So by Dawkin's terminology (which seems subtly different from your definition of strong atheism), they would not be "strong atheists".

There's a Wikipedia article on Weak and Strong Atheism that explains the more general usage of the two terms, and cites Dawkins as an exception.

[Nacho]

SSH: I think there is no God. To be precise: "None of the evidences I received so far tell me that God exists". So I don't  believe in it.

If you feel tempted to say something like "But you have never seen a whale and you believe they exist!" control your desire... I said "NO EVIDENCES SO FAR", I said nothing of "Seeing". I had enough evidences to think that whales exist (I'v e seen videos, I' ve seen bones...) or that there was a revolution in France in 1789.

And as I knew that the definition of Gnostic and "Atheist" can enter into a muddy terrain, I define myself as a skeptic, which is, and in danger to make a mistake (I am not going to wiki) a person who asks evidences to believe in something, and believes on them at the point where those evidences are enough for him.

[SSH]

SSH: I think there is no God.
...
I define myself as a skeptic, which is, and in danger to make a mistake (I am not going to wiki) a person who asks evidences to believe in something, and believes on them at the point where those evidences are enough for him.

So you believe there is no God. Which must mean you have enough evidence that there is no God. This is different from not seeing enough evidence that there is a God.

For example, take a cat  in a box with a poison released on a random event. I might say that I believe the cat is still alive (analogous to "There is a God"). You might say you believe the cat is dead (analgous to "There is no God"). The "I don't believe in God" (which is NOT what you said) would be saying that you don't know if the cat is dead or alive. Do you see the difference? You maybe said that you take both stances in your last post, and I want to be clear where you're coming from. KhrisMUC: I don't care what your stance is but Nacho's is relevant to my part in this discussion so please don't ask me not to discuss this! I'm not trying to label but to understand.

[loominous]

People do use the words differently, however, probably partly because they have different assumptions about what belief is, what knowledge is, and what people's "default position" (as if there was such a thing) is.

Yea, I'm not happy about the way I presented the definitions, as my intention was to present them as "simplified, generally accepted definitions used at least in swedish academia" and not as universally accepted definitions set in stone.

My intention with the definitions above was to let people distinguish themselves, as, at least to me, it's a huge difference between being a "fundamentalist" type who claims: "There is no god. This I know", to someone just saying: "I don't believe there is a god. But I don't know".

Being lumped together with more extreme views due to lack of nuance in the terminology is just needlessly frustrating and confusing.

From my limited insight into his mind, Nacho would be a weak atheist - as he doesn't believe in god, but doesn't claim there is no god (which would make him a strong atheist), and rejects 'strong agnosticism', since he believes there can be evidence for god's existence (which would make knowledge about god's existence possible).

Edit: Fixed a corrupt sentence

[Snarky]

SSH, you're assuming that the two positions are symmetrical, that believing there is not a God should require the same amount of evidence as believing there is a God.

But usually, people do not assume the existence of things there is no evidence for, even if there is no evidence against either. If we had to come up with reasons to dismiss any unproven claim that people could think of, our worldview would become pretty crowded. (This is essentially the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument: unless there's some reason to think it exists, we assume it doesn't.)

Loominous, I'm not sure I see a very clear distinction between believing there is no god and claiming there is no god. I see a distinction between believing/claiming there is no god, but admitting lack of certainty, and claiming that there definitely is no god. (I think we agree on the point, we just articulate it a bit differently.) I'm OK with calling the former "weak atheism" and the latter "strong atheism". We should keep in mind, however, that the terms are also used in a different sense, as synonymous with "negative atheism" and "positive atheism", respectively; where negative atheism means not having beliefs in god(s), and positive atheism means actively believing that there is no god.

[Khris]

So you believe there is no God. Which must mean you have enough evidence that there is no God. This is different from not seeing enough evidence that there is a God.

It's not 50:50.
Snarky put it well; as long as there's no evidence for something, the skeptic sort of "doesn't care about it". So there's absolutely no need to have enough evidence that there's no god; it's perfectly fine for a skeptic to dismiss god's existence based on the fact there's no evidence for his existence.

Proving god's existence is something believers'd have to do, in no way is a non-believer obliged to prove his non-existence.

[loominous]

SSH, you're assuming that the two positions are symmetrical, that believing there is not a God should require the same amount of evidence as believing there is a God.

But usually, people do not assume the existence of things there is no evidence for, even if there is no evidence against either.

I've always thought the flying spaghetti analogy was rather unfair. God, as it's generally understood, is after all intended to answer legit questions, such as, how did the world begin.

Granted, you quickly get into the whole who created god regression, but you can argue along the lines of d'Souza that god operates outside our universe, in a place without causality, so while everything needs a cause in our world, god might not need one. Or something.

My point is just that god is actually presented as an answer to a real question, while the flying spaghetti monster, as far as I know, isn't. So while I don't claim there's symmetry, it's at least not completely assymetrical.

We should keep in mind, however, that the terms are also used in a different sense, as synonymous with "negative atheism" and "positive atheism", respectively; where negative atheism means not having beliefs in god(s), and positive atheism means actively believing that there is no god.

Oh, and then there's 'explicit' and 'implicit' atheism. It's just a swamp.

[Misj']

It's a shame that the terminology is really muddy, as the subject matter is tricky enough as is.

Agnosticism in particular is very misunderstood, and is often thought of as a safe middleground between believers and atheists. I'm afraid Misj's explanation, well intentioned as it was, supported this misconception.

A-theist: form the Greek No - Deity
A-gnost: from the Greek Not - Knowing.

While there is discussion whether the term refers to not-knowing (what Loominous referred to as soft agnosticism) or not-knowable (what Loominous refers to as hard agnosticism), an agnost does not make any claims about the existence of the subject he or she is agnostic towards. As an example: an agnost can say 'I don't know whether aliens exist, but I don't believe in them', but they can't say: 'since I have no evidence that aliens exist, I'm convinced they don't exist'. So to look at agnosticism concerning a deity (which - as I pointed out - is not the only thing you can be agnostic about), you can say: I see no evidence about the existence of god, but I don't believe in such a supernatural being', but you can't say: 'there is no god'. So while you can be an atheist and an agnost (and I never claimed otherwise), or theist and agnost, several of the atheists here are not agnostic, because they claim that 'there is no god' rather than 'I don't believe there is a god'.

...in no way is a non-believer obliged to prove his non-existence.

However...as soon as one claims that his pre-assumption is more valid than another pre-assumption, then this person as to provide evidence for that claim. In your example: while a non-believer does not have to proof god's non-existence, he does have to proof that the pre-assumption that there is no god is more valid that the pre-assumption that there is a god. Otherwise, both pre-assumptions are equally valid, and neither pre-assumptions may be dismissed (as irrational, illogical, idiotic, or whatever).

Ps. Loominous, while I hinted at the fact that agnosticism does not (only) apply to the existence of a deity, I did not go into that, since this is a discussion concerning a religious question, and I did not see any reason to give the broader (more correct) definition of agnosticism. This might have been a mistake on my part, but I guessed people would understand. The definitions that I copy/pasted came directly from wiki and were not my definitions.

Pps. Hay Loominous...

[Snarky]

Misj', the term "agnostic" (BTW, there's no such word as "agnost") is originally about God and associated theories. It was coined by Thomas Huxley to discuss his beliefs about God. All other uses come from taking this meaning and applying it to other topics.

Loominous, I think the point about how the world began is a good one, but I would reorder the argument a little bit, saying that:

1. Absent any evidence, we should assume the non-existence of God.
2. Thomas Aquinas presents the existence of the world as evidence for God.
3. Debate about whether this is valid evidence that overrules the initial skeptical stance.

Misj', I think the existence of aliens is a good case study. If we start out saying there is no evidence, we should probably ignore the possibility and assume they don't exist. But actually there is evidence: we have evidence that indicates that life on earth emerged by natural processes under certain conditions, and we have evidence that those processes and conditions are likely to exist on other planets in the universe. Therefore, we can believe very confidently that the potential for life's emergence exists out there.

We can't really say how probable it is (the Drake Equation is pretty much just ? * ? = ??), because we don't know how much of a longshot it was for life to appear here. However, more empirical evidence (like visiting other planets with potential to check, or greater understanding of the processes that led to life) can shed light on the question.

So once we've reached that point (and I think we should be able to do so by widespread consensus), the two hypotheses are fairly symmetrical: we know it can happen, and we know that it's not guaranteed to have happened, so it's really just heads or tails. It's up to anyone who doesn't just go "I don't know", anyone who asserts a belief in one direction or the other, to present reasons for that belief.

[m0ds]

Thomas Aquinus, ahh, there's a name I haven't heard since A Level religious education. I remember seeing End of Days in the cinema and they used Thomas Aquinas as a character, oh, that made me laugh. Mainly because he dies

Sorry, very off-topic. I've been dipping in and out, reading this, but I seriously can't be arsed to debate religion & God, again!! 

I had enough evidences to think that whales exist (I'v e seen videos, I' ve seen bones...)

And I've shown you plenty of alien space-craft but you still don't believe their existence

[LimpingFish]

That' s because someone brought the words "Agnostic" and "Atheist" to the discussion, which I don' t really understand or differentiate...

As an agnostic, I can tell you that I consider the stance of both theists and atheists to be flawed.

To be more specific, I consider myself to be a  Strong Agnostic. Though I was raised in a Catholic environment, where the ultimate question of God was secondary to the authority of the Church, religion never played a big part in family life; being more of a duty than a spiritual experience, it became less and less prominent as time went on.

Regardless, I think both extremes regularly make fairly dubious claims, regarding the proof of God's existence, as both sides inherently lack the necessary information to draw a final conclusion. At it's core, it's Faith vs Skepticism. Neither points of view seem to need any sort educated or factual basis to argue.

Which is why this thread will ultimately go nowhere.

[Khris]

...in no way is a non-believer obliged to prove his non-existence.

However...as soon as one claims that his pre-assumption is more valid than another pre-assumption, then this person as to provide evidence for that claim. In your example: while a non-believer does not have to proof god's non-existence, he does have to proof that the pre-assumption that there is no god is more valid that the pre-assumption that there is a god. Otherwise, both pre-assumptions are equally valid, and neither pre-assumptions may be dismissed (as irrational, illogical, idiotic, or whatever).

That's exactly NOT THE CASE here.

I don't have to prove that my "pre-assumption" that there is no god is more valid because I had never assumed that in the first place until after I've learned that there's people who assume there is a god. Believers are making an extraordinary claim, they erect a hypothesis, and thus it's them who have the burden of evidence.

(And from not being able to prove that one's own pre-assumption is more valid than the contradicting one does NOT necessarily follow that both are equally valid. Would you say assuming Santa Claus is real is equally valid as assuming he isn't?)

Since you've mentioned the word irrational, hows that for irrationality:
In every other field, ordinary religious people want to see hard evidence before they believe something (think of flying people, talking animals, mind-reading, etc.) yet when it comes to religion, they completely rely on hearsay and an obsolete book. That's irrationality at its finest, isn't it?

And now that I've (again) mentioned Santa Claus:
Think of humanity as little kids who try to explain how the presents got in front of the chimney. One kid suddenly has a revelation: "I know, I know, somebody came down the chimney and left them there for us!" Another kid: "Yeah, I can see it now: he's probably wearing a coat and a hat, because it really cold outside!"
"But how come the presents are completely clean?" "Well, he has some magic of way of cleaning them after he went down through the grimy chimney, no, wait, he's carrying them in a big magic sack which can hold all the presents although they don't really fit in there."
"Hmm, nah, I don't think so, there's probably a completely natural explanation."
The last kid doesn't know yet that it's the parents who put them there. But he's on the right track. And he obviously doesn't have to prove that there's no Santa Claus.

[Misj']

Misj', the term "agnostic" (BTW, there's no such word as "agnost") is originally about God and associated theories. It was coined by Thomas Huxley to discuss his beliefs about God. All other uses come from taking this meaning and applying it to other topics.

I know (with the exception of 'agnost', since I reasoned that someone who accepts the agnostic philosophy is an agnost (and since wiki redirected me from agnost, I assumed it existed)...plus, in Dutch the term agnost exists and is used in such a way)

Misj', I think the existence of aliens is a good case study. If we start out saying there is no evidence, we should probably ignore the possibility and assume they don't exist. But actually there is evidence: we have evidence that indicates that life on earth emerged by natural processes under certain conditions, and we have evidence that those processes and conditions are likely to exist on other planets in the universe. Therefore, we can believe very confidently that the potential for life's emergence exists out there

The problem is of course, that there is no scientific evidence (that is by means of objective observation and controlled experiments) that have - until now - shown that life can emerge by means of natural processes. It is shown that certain steps in a possible cascade that might lead to life can occur by natural means, however, this possible cascade is still rather philosophical, and by no means complete. There is no observation of cells emerging from anything other than another cell (any other means is actually impossible according to the 1st law/theory of biology), and there is no life outside of the cell, since the cell is the fundamental building block of life (according to the same law/theory of biology). So that means that there is no evidence to show that life emerged on earth in such a way, and such a claim is even in direct disagreement with the most fundamental law of biology. So that means that there is no scientific reason to assume that aliens might exist...however...

Since life does exists it must originate from somewhere...and that brings us to the 2nd question you raised (the one citing Thomas Aquinas). Is life itself evidence of the existence of God, or is it evidence of a natural process.

That's exactly NOT THE CASE here.

yes it is...

I don't have to prove that my "pre-assumption" that there is no god is more valid because I had never assumed that in the first place until after I've learned that there's people who assume there is a god. Believers are making an extraordinary claim, they erect a hypothesis, and thus it's them who have the burden of evidence.

Wrong. You are mixing up the concept of pre-assumptions and the research-hypothesis. For a pre-assumption it must must be shown that it is more valid/likely than an opposing pre-assumption. The research-hypothesis is then investigated (based on these pre-assumptions), and validated by evidence. If both pre-assumptions are valid (since for neither it can be shown than it is more likely than the other), any 'evidence' obtained for the research-hypothesis becomes unreliable.

Would you say assuming Santa Claus is real is equally valid as assuming he isn't?

Santa Claus is the English derivation of the Dutch word Sinterklaas, which itself is a simplification of Sint Nicolaas (or Saint Nicholas). Sinterklaas is a Dutch festivity (on the 5th of December, the Belgians celebrate it on the 6th), that calibrates this patron saint of children, unmarried women, merchants, and seamen. His is known in history as Nicholas of Myra (where he was a bishop), who lived from around 280 to 352. To help poor people, Nicholas gave them anonymous gifts (there are some legends attached to this, that actually include chimnies), and after he dies, people continuted giving the poor anonymous gifts, which they kept attributing to (or doing in honour of) St. Nicholas. This means that indeed Santa Claus is a real person, namely: Saint Nicholas of Myra...it also means that you should all celebrate Sinterklaas on the 5th of December rather than this stupid corrupted story...but that's not the point here. So based on the evidence I would have to say that one is more valid than the other: Nicholas of Myra was real, so Saint Nicholas is real (although not alive any more), so Santa Claus is real (though not alive any more).

And from not being able to prove that one's own pre-assumption is more valid than the contradicting one does NOT necessarily follow that both are equally valid.

Yes it does...for otherwise you would have been able to prove that one pre-assumption is more valid than the contradicting one. (Also, it indicates that you are not questioning your own pre-assumptions, which then implies that you are not an 'ideal' atheist by your own definition, and are at the same time a fat road block on the road towards towards the model describing our universe best... )