Atheist Q and A

Last point:

What other viewpoint is being put forward then?

Scientists think that before our big bang and universe there were previous big bangs and if we go very, very far back they identify what they have termed a 'singularity'. As i've vaguely outlined before.

There WAS a root cause. It's ridiculous to suggest there wasn't. The singularity must have come about due to something. Be that a chemical process (out of what though?) or by a 'being'...

That singualrity is described as a stable and seemingly infinite state. Ok cool but how did it change into a less stable entity? Logic would dictate something caused it to change....

So i am not saying there is a higher power. However, 'physics' imo does not explain what caused us.

It does not solve the problem of infinite regress.

There is an answer to the problem of infinite regress but none of us know what that is.
So i don't think atheists nor theists can claim to be superior over the other as a result.

If the theist uses the bible etc and rejects evolution, the big bang etc then that is different.

Theism is the belief that god(s) exists, despite the lack of verifiable evidence for one.

Atheism is the belief that no god(s) exists, as there is no verifiable evidence for one.

Agnosticism is the rejection of a belief in either; the middle ground, if you will.

Will reply to this tomorrow when i have time.

Agree with a fair bit of what you say

To answer your question:
No.
Only the thought that there could be a higher power and perhaps a karma type system upon death.

I view this as unlikely and far fetched but science does not solve things either (yet anyway).

I would say agnosticism is a lack of knowledge about the existence of a god/gods. I think it's a different issue from belief.
I don't think one can reject to believe either. You either believe a god exists or you lack belief in one. Whether or not you state that you lack sufficient knowledge to know for certain of what you believe is true is a different case.
Just my opinion anyway.

For example, I am atheist and I do not claim a god definitely doesn't exist as I have no proof and I lack the knowledge to make such a claim. Though I choose not to believe one exists (for a variety of reasons)

That would make me agnostic atheist. But seeing as this stance should be the default for most reasonable atheists I don't need to add the label agnostic as well because it goes without saying.

In this subject matter, there are no proven facts or truths relating to whether god exists, only evidence—of dubious plausibility.

"Knowledge" is the accumulation of proven facts; since none exist, everyone lacks knowledge about the existence of god(s), not just agnostics. Acknowledging evidence, which there is, is not the same as accumulating knowledge.

A belief is a belief because it's unknown whether it is true or false. You can be convinced it is either one or the other, but never certain. Certainty arrives through confirmation of its truth or falseness, which requires sufficient verifiable evidence—which currently doesn't exist.

These are facts. The above is not a matter of opinion.

I'm not disputing this actually. In fact I agree

I was just trying to point out I don't see agnosticism as a 'third option' to theism or atheism.

In this subject matter, there are no proven facts or truths relating to whether god exists, only evidence—of dubious plausibility.

"Knowledge" is the accumulation of proven facts; since none exist, everyone lacks knowledge about the existence of god(s), not just agnostics. Acknowledging evidence, which there is, is not the same as accumulating knowledge.

A belief is a belief because it's unknown whether it is true or false. You can be convinced it is either one or the other, but never certain. Certainty arrives through confirmation of its truth or falseness, which requires sufficient verifiable evidence—which currently doesn't exist.



This is exactly what atheism is.



This is an oxymoron; you cannot simultaneously reject belief and accept belief. Combining two terms that are in direct contradiction of one another for the sake of distinguishing atheists who accept that they aren't certain that god doesn't exist (which nobody can be anyway) from atheists who claim to be certain (which they cannot be) is needless.

These are facts. The above is not a matter of opinion.

I say it's my opinion because there are many varying opinions on this issue and varying definitions of the word 'agnosticism'.

...

Perhaps my dog is an atheist. He most probably lacks a belief in one. Does that make inanimate objects atheist? A door doesn't have beliefs and neither does a table.

Posted from TSR Mobile

There are no varying opinions on this issue in the literature. If you're going to engage in another discussion on agnosticism, at least read and address the points raised in the following post a few pages back.

Yes there are. Many. I cited 5 different prominent atheists that agree with me plus websites that hold the same opinion.
I did address his 'points' but unfortunately we were going around in circles and he failed to convince me otherwise.

It was explained why those prominent atheists are wrong, and why very few, if any contemporary philosopher of religion uses terms like agnostic, atheist, etc in the way you're using them. Moreover, random atheists bloggers and writers are not experts; this is a classic case of a fallacious appeal to authority. The arguments presented by those atheists have been dealt in the literature, and the Reddit post quoted earlier does an excellent job of summarising the problems with such arguments. But if you're going to use blogs and random websites to counter the definitions used in the relevant literature, then we might as well stop here.

That depends on how you define agnosticism. Clearly you define it as a 'rejection of belief'. I see it as what its literal meaning implies and that is 'without knowledge'. I also see it as something that is different to stating ones beliefs which is why I don't think it can be a third option. People who label themselves 'agnostics' are pretty much fence sitters that are looking for a label to quantify it because everyone else (that's logical anyway) is agnostic as well.

Well, in my post I said one shouldn't even have to state 'I am agnostic atheist' because it goes without saying. Any logical person can't be 100% certain in their beliefs hence why they are beliefs in the first place.

I say it's my opinion because there are many varying opinions on this issue and varying definitions of the word 'agnosticism'.

Hmm... I must say I have never asked myself this question before.

A tree that lacks fruit is described as acarpous. A mammal also lacks fruit, but it would be rather odd to refer to a mammal as being acarpous. It only makes sense to talk of something as being acarpous, if it exists in contradiction to a similar thing which does bare fruit. Certain trees do bare fruit, and so those trees that don't bare fruit are contrasted by their lack of fruit.

If there were theistic dogs and doors, then I think it would be a useful term, but until then, an atheistic dog is no more logical/illogical than an acarpous dog.

You know, as I was writing it I thought 'you could simply say that an atheist is defined as _someone_ who lacks a belief in God'.

So it only makes sense when applied to a conscious person who has beliefs.

Do you take atheism to be the simple contradiction of theism - that God does not exist - or characterise it is a lack of belief.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I don't believe atheism is a simple contradiction. I have a lack of belief in the paranormal, but I don't use a word to describe myself as one who lacks belief in the paranormal. I think there is a political aspect behind the usage of the term atheist. So whilst yes it is merely a word to describe the state of lacking belief in God, I believe is also carries a lot more meaning beyond that.

What would convince one that they simply lack a belief that the paranormal exists rather than believing that the paranormal does not exist on the lack of strength of evidence for it, and strong evidence against?

Both positions accept that there is no certainty. Both accept that there is not sufficient reason to believe the paranormal to be true. The latter rejects the paranormal, arguing it is probably false. Does the former reject it for the same reason?

If so how do we differentiate.

Posted from TSR Mobile

What is your position in regards to other Gods, that is, all Gods but the God of Christianity? Would you say you lack belief in those Gods, or that you believe those Gods don't exist?