Weak Atheist vs. Agnostic

Sure, and surely you've met atheists who say things like "Oh, I used to be a theist, but have since outgrown this primitive propensity" or something like that.

I consider the notion of belief problematic altogether, including the notion of "belief in the existence of."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Agreed I should have just said unknowable.
Although I would not say that includes ignoring a situation that may produce a result, although they may choose to do so I would consider agnostics to have a positive position that it's unknowable, and ignoring potential evidence doesn't fit that.
If they don't care, they are more apathetic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

IOW - They would be an apatheist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How does one lack a belief about X other than by not believing X. From an infant's perspective how does an infant have no belief of X when it has no knowledge of X. Knowledge of X does not necessarily assert the existence of X.

 

When you say "not believing X" do you mean "to not hold the belief of X", or do you mean "to hold the belief of not-X"?
They are different things, and I can not answer your question until you clarify, please?

Surely, as you say, the infant has no knowledge of X... so how can it have belief of X? If it does not have belief of X then... er... it has no belief of X, nor will it have belief of not-X.

Knowledge must be true (else it is not knowledge).
Therefore if X is known, X must be true / exist.
The issue is not in this but in adequately defining what one is referring to as X.
Knowledge of God can not be had if God does not exist.
But knowledge of the concept of God can be known... and does exist (as a concept).

So while I dispute that knowledge of X does not necessarily assert the existence of X, my point was that the knowledge of the concept of X does not mean that X exists as anything other than as a concept, and there is no assertion of existence of X itself.

 

How can an infant have a belief in X if it has never even heard of X? :shrug:

 

I meant "to believe not X" but as you say an infant does "not believe X or not X" in that case the infant is neither a theist nor an atheist but perhaps a non-theist. To "not believe X" and to "believe not X" seems interchangeable to me however you worded it as "to not hold the belief X" which implies a lack of knowledge to me instead of a lack of belief.

How does a concept 'exist' perhaps as information in the brain?

 

Atheist and non-theist is the same thing. Either you believe gods existence or you don't.

 

Who coined the terms "weak/strong atheism"? A theist or an atheist?

So can the various views be summarized as follows?

Strong atheism - There is no god.
Weak atheism - There probably is no god.
Agnostic - I don't know if there is a god.
Theism - There is a god.

If that's a fair summary, than I don't understand the difference between Weak atheism and agnosticism.

 

@Socratic --

Well to be technically correct, agnosticism is the stance that we can't know, not that we don't.

 

You seem to think all atheists hold the belief that there is no God.
They don't, although some do.
The "weak atheist" believes neither in the existence nor in the non-existence of God.
They are atheist by dint of not having the belief in God that theists do.

The difference between "believe not-X" and "not believe X" is the former is making a claim ("I believe X does not exist") whereas the latter might merely not be making a claim either way.

The same way that software exists on a DVD... through interpretation of a pattern of activity.

 

Theism: I believe there is a God.
Strong atheism: I believe there is no God.
Weak atheism: I do not hold a belief in either option.

Theism and Strong atheism are positive claims/beliefs.
Weak atheism is the lack of both those positive claims.

Agnosticism (strong): The issue of God is unknowable.
Agnosticism (weak): I personally do not have knowledge of God, and it may or may not be knowable.


From these you should be able to see that it is entirely possible to be an agnostic yet still hold a belief in God (through faith alone).
If, as you might think, there is no difference, then all agnostics are atheist... and this just is not so.

 

This could be relevant.

If the distinctions are made solely from the theistic perspective, then this speaks of a bias toward theism altogether.

 

I'd take a stab at a theist. I don't see why an atheist would need, want, or care enough to specify "weak" or "strong" versions. Especially given that theism seems to be lacking the same terms.
A theist of course believes they have something to gain by defining something they oppose as "weak" and suggesting a lack of conviction.

Not accurately.

The difference being there is no such thing as weak atheism at all. It is a one or the other proposition. A person holds the assertion god exists, or they do not hold such an assertion. :shrug:
Agnosticism is a statement on knowledge, the mistake people make is believing it falls on the same linear line and is some kind of "fence sitting" position. Again this is mostly theists trying to assert a lack of conviction in a statement and implying an easier conversion. It does not fall on the same line however. There is no fence.
An agnostic is also either a theist, or atheist. They cannot be both or neither. Even those without a concept of god are atheistic.

 

It might be useful to point out (as has been done in similar threads by myself and others) that while a person may identify as atheistic with regard to certain propositions about exactly who and what God is, they may position themselves differently with regard to others. For example, if we're talking about the Abrahamic God, I am decidedly atheistic. But if we're talking about a more pantheistic conception of God, then I have a lot more articulating to do in order to accurately convey exactly where it is that I stand in regard to such.

 

And further, one's particular stances on things may fluctuate during the day and in the course of weeks and months.

Realistically, one could be very agnostic about something on Monday, and not so agnostic about it on Wednesday.

One might be a decided there-is-no-God atheist on sunny days, but curse God on rainy days.

 

Good point. In my case for instance, I accept the extreme possibility God is evil (I.E the Abraham God), with a very very small chance of actually existing. I am the hardest core Agnostic you'll meet.

 

Are you accepting this extreme possibility 24/7?

 

I would agree - but then how would you separate those that believe God does not exist from those that do not?

Hmmm - not in everyone's understanding of atheism - given that some consider it to be a considered opinion. Some consider babies atheist, others don't.
I don't think there is a universally accepted definition, and even the prominent atheists don't agree. Dawkins, for example, puts agnosticism and theism/atheism on the same line and you determine where you are based on your strength of conviction.

Then there are those who are "practical atheists" - apatheists - who live as though they don't believe in God - whether through considered decision/opinion, or through ignorance of the concept of God (e.g. babies), or through apathy etc.


While I concur that anyone not a theist could be considered atheist, I am open to there being distinctions between types of atheism... and weak/strong atheism is just one such distinction.
We certainly shouldn't stop people using the term if they think it accurately describes their viewpoint.

However, we should also not argue against one specific division of atheism and think it holds true for all of them.

 

I'm not sure why we would need to be so distinct; We don't have words for every possible thing that you can "believe in the non-existance of" because there would be an infinite number of objects for that statement to apply to. We merely posit a word for the opposite of a proclaimed belief that has become widespread. Let's keep it simple, at the end of it all they are both atheists and that is the important fact.
If there are those who insist they would like to create their own belief (or in this case non-belief) system, such as the various branches of theism, then I think that should be up to them. That is for that branch of atheists to decide on however, not the theists, and it should not involve splitting an already defined term.
Personally I don't know any atheists that feel the need to define themselves as such, they tend to be happy just with atheist. :shrug:

90% of the time however this is an argument from theists - those trying to claim "weak" atheism as a means of conversion, as a means to suggest a lack of conviction, or that it is an equal belief based system on the same footing as their own - rather than simply lacking theirs.
Granted some conversion happy atheists will run with this theme, but most atheists are busy getting on with life!

The dictionary definition and most common usage disagrees with Dawkins, and he is known for falling into the above proselytizing atheist category. Of course this is normal, the atheist who simply disagrees and shrugs their shoulders gets far less media time.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Perhaps he can have a subbranch of atheism called "godlessism" for the "strong atheists" if he really feels it necessary.

Wouldn't all atheists fall under this?

The only atheists I know who use those terms do so with a reluctant sigh and nod to the overwhelming theistic insistance on such positions existing.

Well it's the same as there is not just one set of theistic beliefs, but they still all fall under the overall category of "theism". We don't have "weak theism" after all.
The main problem is there is no belief system under the atheistic branch. Perhaps the best thing is to do away with both words all together?