romansh

I suppose it depends on what one means by only .... (I actually missed the "only" .... sorry)

the weak atheist definition may include a strong atheist or the person who does not know whether god exists but excludes the strong theist. agree?

similarly
the weak theist definition may include a strong theist or a person who does not know whether god does not exist, but excludes a strong atheist. agree???

it is the two 'don't knows' that overlap from a boolean logic point of view.

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

Gettin' In Tune

Your every idea and conception of this god is not based on empirical evidence. There is no evidence to warrant a possibility of a god.

God has to be proven, not disproved.

__________________
"But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact."--C.Sagan

Vinterland

No, there is the distonction between weak and strong you are missing. Also, the "I don't know" does not apply here.

romansh

V ....... I think you are missing what I am trying to say

If I do not know that god exists, I fit the weak atheist definition.
I do not actively believe god exists.

Similarly a strong atheist who believes god does not exist ...... also does not believe god exists.

it's that the definitions overlap

This is simply boolean logic.

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

marmalade

I haven't watched this thread too closely, but this post caught my attention. I'm not sure that I know what your argument is here. I do understand how belief and knowledge aren't completely separate categories.

romansh

Hi Marmalade, Vinterland and I (amongst others) have been debating this for awhile. V believes many agnostics are actually atheists or theists with an appropriate precursor. I don't feel particularly atheistic or theistic. And my position can be surmarized below. But from a literal point of view points 2 and 3 are true for me.
as an agnostic I don't have the appropriate evidence/knowledge and consequently I don't either believe or disbelieve. So what would you call somebody that identifies with points 2 and 3?

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

marmalade

A combo of 2 and 3... hmm... It comes close to what I think of as a weak agnostic, but none of your points are specifically about knowledge. However, you never simply know or not know something. You either believe you know something or you believe you don't know something.



Part of me wants to believe in something greater than me, and sometimes my tendency towards belief can be very strong even when the object of that belief is extremely vague. I can meaningfully consider many perspectives sometimes simultaneously.

Belief and disbelief are such strong absolute terms. I suspect, feel, and intuit many possibilities. I often experience a 'knowingness', but this isn't the same thing as rational knowledge. There are many kinds of knowledge. And, so, I also experience much doubt, confusion, and wariness in what I commit myself to.

Its not just a matter of lack of evidence/knowledge, but a questioning about what might constitute such evidence/knowledge. If I didn't have such a strong sense of faith, I'd be a nihilist. I usually argue that faith isn't the same as belief, but this distinction isn't all that important. If my faith is belief, then its belief without it being a belief in anything specific. Or its overly general... I believe in everything... I believe in reality.

romansh

Thanks Marmalde ... so what would (your) regular and strong agnostics look like?
I suspect definitions 2 and 3 would also be true for them aswell?

I sometimes also exhibit a "knowingness", but I give my head a good shake and it seems to go away.

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

marmalade

To me an agnostic has nothing to do with belief or disbelief. Agnosticism, in principle, is about knowledge and only about knowledge. But, as I pointed out, knowledge and belief are actually intertwined. Even my dictionary agrees with me. A strict agnostic limits their beliefs to knowledge about God and not about God directly.

So, an agnostic could believe or disbelieve in a God as long as they didn't believe that their claim was based on knowledge.

My dictionary says that an agnostic doesn't believe knowledge is possible of anything beyond the physical. So, the agnostic simply says nothing about what is beyond or only speaks of it speculatively.

On second look, my dictionary does also say agnostics don't have faith nor disbelief in God.

So, there are at least two definitions of agnosticism.

Here are my tentative definitions(which alters my original statement):

General Agnosticism:
Confesses doubt and uncertainty about knowledge which could be specific or general.
Doesn't necessarily dismiss any possibilities, but might.
Skeptic. Freethinker.

Strong Agnosticism(conflates belief and knowledge):
Disbelieves knowledge in God is possible.
Or believes God is a term without meaning and so useful thought about it is impossible.

Weak Agnosticism(separates belief and knowledge):
Doesn't know if God exists, and doesn't know if further knowledge is possible or not.
May be open to the possibility of knowing God.
(Isn't inherently contradictory to some forms Theism including Gnosticism)

Strong Atheism:
Disbelieves in God.
Has nothing directly to do with knowledge.

Weak Atheism:
Doesn't actively believe nor disbelieve in God
Maybe doesn't even see God as a matter of belief.

Strong Theism:
Believes in God.
This may depednent on knowledge or faith.
Whether faith is a form of knowledge would be a point of disagreement between some Theists.
But most Theists(and Atheists) conflate these terms.

Weak Theism:
Doesn't actively believe nor disbelieve in God.
But has an intuitive(but vague and uncertain) sense that a higher power exists(or probably exists).
Maybe combined with a strong desire for this to be the case.
Doubt and belief balance eachother.

Maybe nobody agrees with my definitions, and that is fine.

I could take 2X4 to your head make that 'knowingness' go away permanently.

romansh

Lets say I said to you "zinc is made by electrolysing aqueous solutions containing zinc sulphate". Assuming you don't know the answer; until you get access to some information/evidence/knowledge, you can't say that you believe or disbelieve that statement. So I think there are logical consequences to being without knowledge ..... primarily ... not having beliefs and disbeliefs. I don't think we disagree?
Too late ...

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams