Religions

[RedQueen.exe]

I'm thoroughly agnostic, but kind of leaning in the atheist direction. But I don't claim to know whether there's a God or not I'm also a religion major. Count on me joining in this discussion later - I'm studying for a test. (Well, I'm supposed to be.)

An atheist need not claim he knows whether there's a God or not.

Thank you for that.

Atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive.

[Diego]

You can have:

Strong atheists who are irreligious: Holding the positive belief "Gods do not exist", is not religious.

Strong atheists who are religious: Holding the positive belief "Gods do not exist", is religious (godless religions, such as many forms of Buddhism, are compatible with atheism).

Weak atheists who are irreligious. Lacking the positive belief "Gods exist", is not religious.

Weak atheists who are religious: Lacking the positive belief "Gods exist", is not religious.

Agnostics, on the other hand, can have faith in the existence of a God or gods, or not buy into any deities--theistic and atheistic agnosticism. Agnosticism means you hold a positive belief that "It is not possible for man to possess knowledge regarding the existence of God or gods, whether to prove or disprove the concept." Agnostics, in that sense, are skeptic of mankind's ability to reach knowledge about supreme beings--independently of whether or not they personally believe those supreme beings exist.

[Polt86]

I know this is really late, I must have missed this topic for a while, but I'll add my two cents to this bit of it for now.

I didn't find much in the Old Testament about this, but I found an interesting scripture in the New Testament relating to people being able to accept the Gospel after their death, and I'd kind of like to argue about this (I may need another Christian to argue with):
1 Peter 4:6:
"For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."
Along with 1 Cor. 15:29 and 1 Peter 3:18-19.

1 Peter 4:6:

"For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead...

The difference in verb tenses is important, as the correct reading of it implies the gospel was preached to them in the past, and not when they were dead, but when they were still alive.

1 Cor. 15:29 only refers to the practice of being baptized for the dead and gives no other explanation, endorsement, or otherwise, really. I don't know how this can relate at all to people accepting the gospel after their death with no explanation for the purpose of the practice.

1 Peter 3:18-19 only states Jesus' proclamation to the "imprisoned spirits", but says nothing about them accepting it.

Now there can be differences in translations that can have a factor in some of this. I use the NIV translation myself, which I noticed differs slightly (but only in wording) in the case of 1 Peter 4:6.

[RedQueen.exe]

You can have:

Strong atheists who are irreligious: Holding the positive belief "Gods do not exist", is not religious.

Strong atheists who are religious: Holding the positive belief "Gods do not exist", is religious (godless religions, such as many forms of Buddhism, are compatible with atheism).

Weak atheists who are irreligious. Lacking the positive belief "Gods exist", is not religious.

Weak atheists who are religious: Lacking the positive belief "Gods exist", is not religious.

Agnostics, on the other hand, can have faith in the existence of a God or gods, or not buy into any deities--theistic and atheistic agnosticism. Agnosticism means you hold a positive belief that "It is not possible for man to possess knowledge regarding the existence of God or gods, whether to prove or disprove the concept." Agnostics, in that sense, are skeptic of mankind's ability to reach knowledge about supreme beings--independently of whether or not they personally believe those supreme beings exist.

I think we're in agreement then, yes? These are the same definitions that were expressed to me, and it seems clear there the only conflict would be between agnosticism and "hard" atheism.

[Diego]

Oh, yes, indeed. It's just a reminder I like to spread around, because far too many are confused on the precise boundaries of these terms.

[Piscator]

I don't really see a conflict in believing in the non-existance of gods and accepting the possibility that they just may be hiding very well.

[Joshuamonkey]

The difference in verb tenses is important, as the correct reading of it implies the gospel was preached to them in the past, and not when they were dead, but when they were still alive.

Yeah, it could be taken that way.

1 Cor. 15:29 only refers to the practice of being baptized for the dead and gives no other explanation, endorsement, or otherwise, really. I don't know how this can relate at all to people accepting the gospel after their death with no explanation for the purpose of the practice.

I think the reason it's mentioned there is as evidence of the fact that all who die are resurrected. As for the purpose of baptism for the dead and people accepting the gospel after they die, don't we already know the reason? How else could those who don't hear about the gospel get the chance to accept it? What would stop people who die from being able to learn or make choices?

1 Peter 3:18-19 only states Jesus' proclamation to the "imprisoned spirits", but says nothing about them accepting it.

So there's no purpose for him doing this?

[Diego]

I don't really see a conflict in believing in the non-existance of gods and accepting the possibility that they just may be hiding very well.

Hard atheists do not make a statement of faith, but a statement of knowledge--hard atheism is the sincere claim that you have knowledge of the non-existence of gods. Incompatible with the agnostic stance of deity-related knowledge being impossible.

[RedQueen.exe]

Hard atheists do not make a statement of faith, but a statement of knowledge--hard atheism is the sincere claim that you have knowledge of the non-existence of gods. Incompatible with the agnostic stance of deity-related knowledge being impossible.

It always sets me a bit on edge when certain agnostics start pounding that angle a little too heavily. There are an infinite number of things that we can't have knowledge about, yet have opinions anyway. It goes right back to Russell's teapot, really.

[Piscator]

How would an hard atheist get knowledge about the non-existance of gods? I really wonder how anyone could make such a claim.

[RedQueen.exe]

It baffles me as well, though it's an incredibly careful distinction in my opinion. The "weak atheists" that I know, admit that we can't know for certain, but then state that it's either unlikely or that any god defined to be so unknowable would be basically irrelevant anyway. They essentially toss the god idea aside as either unlikely or useless. I think this winds up looking to some people like hard atheism.

I suspect that hard atheists aren't in the majority of atheists, and those that are haven't actually thought that much about it or aren't very familiar with the modern skepticism movement. I'd also guess that they were mostly atheists from a very young age, and that faith wasn't something they wrestled a great deal with.

[Diego]

Weak atheists vastly hold the position that it is the default position for any knowledge--no certainty of its impossibility, but no assumption of its existence until there is sufficient evidence for said knowledge to pass Ockham's Razor.

Strong atheists I've debated with usually hold the position that the difference between weak and strong atheism is semantical, that weak atheism is therefore ontologically shy in its proposition, and this is mostly followed with formal logical proof equating belief with a claim to knowledge, from a subject's perspective.

[RedQueen.exe]

This sounds very familiar. I think this is the second time I've heard that. I guess I was wrong in my assumptions, but I still haven't come across any like this, so I would suspect the one's that would argue it this way are in the minority.

I would have to disagree with them though. While the distinction is subtle, I think it is important. We're always dealing with various degrees of uncertainty. I guess what I really don't understand is what do you gain by going that extra step to declare certainty in the lack of a god. Why is it not enough to say there is no reason to think that there is one?

But, I guess what you mean by their statement that it is a semantic one means that they're not expressing 100% certainty, they're expressing the same degree of certainty they would when they say "geocentrism is false". For some reason, I find that more appropriate to use when you're talking about very specific falsifiable accounts of gods. When you're talking about the fuzzy nebulous "god" in the general sense of deists or that people often retreat to when trying to defend a more specific god, I think it's even worse than wrong. It's so poorly defined and so obviously intended to evade any attempt at falsification that it's not even worth serious consideration.

Unfortunately, I know just enough where I think I have a decent understanding of the arguments, but not enough to speak too intelligently.

I probably am going to regret posting this, but I've gotten tired of figuring out what I'm trying to say here.

[Andu]

I guess what I really don't understand is what do you gain by going that extra step to declare certainty in the lack of a god. Why is it not enough to say there is no reason to think that there is one?

But, I guess what you mean by their statement that it is a semantic one means that they're not expressing 100% certainty, they're expressing the same degree of certainty they would when they say "geocentrism is false". For some reason, I find that more appropriate to use when you're talking about very specific falsifiable accounts of gods.

I think it have to do with the dissmissial of the, as you described it, very specific falsifiable accounts of gods, ask the followers of these concepts often think they are right by default, if they discuss this with a person who accepts the possibility of gods in it's most vague sense. Or they think it's outright stupid, and stop thinking about it.

I also have to say that it's almost hilarious how this thread have pararell discussions, which completly ignoring eachother. But I guess it have to do with people not having much to add to eachother's highflying discussion, not understanding what they talk about or are afraid of thinking outside (their) box.

I hope I don't have to add I'm trying to imply it goes both ways.And yes, everyone will be subjective and biased, no mather what.

[gejyspa]

Threads often have parallel discussions that have nothing to do with one another. Why is that a problem?

But questions have been addressed to two different groups of people who occupy disjoint sets, so I don't see it as a problem.

P.S. My religion is better than yours or your agnositicism/atheism, so nanny-nanny boo-boo!

(I hope that's enough emtoicons to convey "don't put me to the sword, it's a joke!"