marmalade

There are three options towards something:
(1)believe it.
(2)disbelieve it.
(3)don't believe or disbelieve it(meaning believe in something else entirely).

But how may 'active' and 'pasive' play into this?

Let us take option (2):
- If you actively disbelieve it, then that would imply that you believe in its opposite. This would equate to strong atheism.
- If you passively lack belief in it, then you don't necessarily believe its opposite. Rather, you simply see no particular reason to believe it. This would equate weak atheism.

I'm not sure what I'm getting at exactly. I was just thinking that it isn't simply a matter of whether you believe or disbelieve in God. Its also important in how you relate to those beliefs and disbeliefs.

As for your example, it seems a situation of passively lacking reason to believe or disbelieve. If knowledge was available and you still lacked belief and disbelief, then this would be a more active choice.

Does that make any sense?

romansh

I agree.... I think .....The point I was trying to make the knowledge based agnostic will end up not believing or not disbelieving (until sufficient evidence is provided/found)

As you said before belief and knowledge are closely entwined

__________________
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

Vinterland

I may be misunderstanding, sorry, but all I see is continuous contradictions. You are saying that an atheist can be both strong and weak atheist at the same time. The label weak atheist does not describe a strong atheists belief is and vice versa so I do not see ho you can be right.

I agree belief and knowledge are "closely entwined" as well, however its obvious that not everyone acts on the knowledge they attain such as an agnostic theist.

romansh

Hi V .... hope Santa was good to you

What I'm trying to say is: a strong atheist can say
"I do not believe god exists" and be true.

Whereas for an agnostic for whom the weak atheist definition is true, cannot say, "I believe god does not exist"

For an atheist the weak and strong definitions, from a practical point of view, are synonymous. For an agnostic they are not.

For a strong and a 'true' weak atheist this will not be true,
"I do not disbelieve god exists".
But for an agnostic it is.

The knowledge based agnostic does not have evidence and consequently knowledge; therefore does not believe nor disbelieve. The knowledge based agnostic does not have beliefs and disbeliefs.

I'm not sure how to say this any clearer? .....

__________________
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

viz

Sometimes we forget common sense in these arguements. It is unlikely that elephants live on the moon because they would of needed earth like conditions to survive (atmosphere, ozone etc..). It is impossible for there to be a flying teapot because it is a man-made creation.

God on the other hand, we don't know what god looks like, according to Christian thinking God is everywhere and invisible (How convinient). I personally think that it is beyond any means to ever discover if god truely does exist. Where as it would be possible to discover elephants on the moon.

Some people talk about the 'probability' of god as being '50/50' or whatever like Dawkins, this is one of the reasons why I stopped reading his book in frustration after the first few chapters. It is impossible to put a probability on God existing because you don't even know how to work out the odds.

Some people think you can work out if God exists like science. We will never be able to work out if God exists, how do you even start? We don't even know what God is.

Jacob

I am not an atheist because I am ever hopeful that a caring entity, like a God, is guiding humanity. I am also not an atheist because I cannot wholly comprehend existence itself. Therefore, I cannot say for sure that there is no God.

I sometimes wonder about the 21 grams or so that humans lose at the point of their death. This weight loss was discovered by Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill, Ma in 1907. The phenomenom does not occur when animals die leading some to suspect that 21 grams is the approximate weight of a spirit leaving the body when humans die. There might be a scientific explanation for all this, but what is it?


Jacob

__________________


Religions, movements and even nations
are constructs invented by humans.

They only take on meaning
if humanity chooses to accept them.

WoundedEgo

The word translated "spirit" in the Bible is correctly translated in every case as "breath." The word "spirit" was coined from the Latin word "spiritus" which just meant "breath." The idea of a "spirit" is post-telescope idea that was introduced to explain why you could not see God and the angels in your telescope.

In Genesis, God is a manlike deity who lives in the sky. He shapes mud into a statue of himself and breathes into its nostrils "the breath of life" and man "became a living person." Notions of "spirit" and "soul" are post-biblical.

The 21 grams, if the account is factual, are the air that leaves the lungs upon death.

I'm agnostic about an intelligence, but not about the Bible or Quran, which are patently false.

http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com
http://billrosspolitics.blogsgpot.com

Jacob

The approximate 21 gram weight loss that humans experience at the point of death isn't air leaving the lungs. Scientists have accounted for that when weighing corpses.

Jacob

__________________


Religions, movements and even nations
are constructs invented by humans.

They only take on meaning
if humanity chooses to accept them.

WoundedEgo

This 21 grams thing is based on a single shoddy investigation that has now become an urban legend. Please read this:

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Jacob

You could be right. I just wonder about it. I was hoping others would know more about this than I do. Thanx for the web addresses.

Jacob

__________________


Religions, movements and even nations
are constructs invented by humans.

They only take on meaning
if humanity chooses to accept them.