Agnosticism is the logical from Atheism?

I'm an Apatheist. I don't care whether god exists or not.

I'm an antitheist.

Well seeing as I'm late to this party. (I'm late to all parties nowadays:()

OP,

Let's assess your original post.

cursai wrote: »

Discuss class!
How can a person be an Atheist? If if a religious person is acting on blind faith in their belief of a God, how can an Atheist not be acting on blind faith to conclude that there IS NO GOD! There is no scientific fact or proof that GOD DOES NOT EXIST!
Before anyone asks i am Agnostic!




Heading is wrong i know!!!!

First of all you have made the assertion that atheism requires faith. Atheism in its strictest definition does not require faith. The only condition necessary to make someone (or something!) an atheist is that they lack belief in a deity(ies). In the same way that being healthy is not a disease, atheism in its strictest sense, is a not a faith or religion. As this is a point, that many people tend to get wrong so often I'll elaborate a little further. Every organism alive today that doesn't have the brain capacity necessary to believe in deities is an atheist because it lacks belief in one. This includes the media device that you are using to read this text, the banana I ate for lunch, the shoes you wore this morning and the photons of light currently interacting in your eyes. It also includes every dead human body as these bodies no longer have functioning capacities for believing they are atheist.

In fact, the whole world around you is atheist barring just a few living gill less, organic, RNA/DNA protein based, metabolic/metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive/trypoblast, opisthokont, deuterostome, coelemate, with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebal cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and creatures with highly social lifestyles (usually!)*. Which just goes to show how much of a pointless term atheism really is. Yes, you could possibly make the argument that atheism is something that can only be used to describe humans, but just like the soul problem for evolution, where exactly along our evolutionary line can you say that one of ancestors doesn’t have the possibility of being an atheist? In my opinion, you can’t and so then I don’t really see how it’s possible to discern between anything alive or dead as not having the possibility of being classed as an atheist. An entity either has belief or doesn’t; theist or atheist. The very position of “not knowing” is also atheist because the entity is lacking belief. Put it this way, if you’re not sure that a person is guilty of a committing crime you are actually rejecting the positive notion that he is guilty and therefore you are an “aguiltiest” . Likewise, you are also rejecting the notion that he is innocent and the term “ainnocent” doesn’t mean you belief he is guilty. In terms of the atheism concept the terms “aguiltiest” and “ainnoncent” are the equivalent of “atheism” (The Big Religions today believe all humans are guilty of a crime) and “a-atheism” (most atheists also reject the notion that that is no God). The latter term is not existent so the term atheism can be used to describe people that both lack belief in God and positively disbelieve that there is no God.

So, if you are an atheist by lacking belief in a deity does not necessarily mean that you believe that the deity doesn’t exist, you just don’t know and remain unconvinced by the evidence and reasoning presented for his existence. Yep, so regardless of how they like to self proclaim themselves all agnostics are essentially agnostic atheists , unless they happen to be agnostic theists, which is something that deserves another thread all of its own. Basically in a nutshell, these are the people who don’t admit they cannot know if God exists or not but choose to believe in him anyways. In my experience most moderate theists fall into this category, but again, that’s just my experience. Agnostic atheists are the opposite. They admit they cannot know if God exists or not, but they merely choose not to believe in him. Most of the posters on this forum are agnostic atheists. I’ve only ever met one atheist who actually believed with 100% certainty that there was no God. In my opinion his position is just as irrational as that of the theist and agnostic theist. But, sadly, most people have this notion in their heads that all atheists are essentially like him. Right, that the first part addressed now, time for the second bit.

There is such a thing as faith based atheism, but, let's be clear here, atheism in its strictest sense, DOES NOT require faith. Buddhists are the conveniently over used example here as many of them have something akin to religious faith.. That’s one form of faith based atheism. Obviously, “faith” in this sense is the equivalent of the faith concept that religious people have. This kind of faith is about committing yourself to the doctrines of your religion and most people who have this kind of faith actually have personal experiences of God or the supernatural. There is, however, another kind of faith that should most definitely not be confused with religious faith.

Many atheists who lack belief in a deity will arrive at their decision because – and here is when the fun begins- they believe that beliefs require evidence. However, this stance of beliefs requiring evidence has itself no evidence and is a position based on faith (Though, obviously not the same kind of faith as religious faith.) . It quite simply is an assumption and I’m sure most atheists will openly admit that. Unlike religious folks, they won’t merely assert that it is true. They’ll just argue its validity because of how pragmatic that assumption has turned out to be. Empiricism itself is heavily laden on this assumption and its thanks to empiricism that a significant amount of humans enjoy the comfy lives and long life expectancies they have today. (I could also argue it from a non pragmatic viewpoint but unless Rah! show’s up I have no intention of writing another page to this already huge post. So basically in a nutshell, the best method of inquiry into the truth is rational scepticism in my view and the methodology that best fits scepticism is empiricism.)

There is also a third kind of faith that both the religious and non religious alike share. This faith is really just trust. For example, when reading about science I have faith that the over whelming majority of humans are being honest in what they are claiming. Likewise, I have faith that my close friends will always do their best to help me should a crisis ever arise. Time and again in religious debates, theists love to conflate this third kind of faith with their own religious faith in front of lay audiences. And, it quite frankly, is in my view not even wrong**.

All those above kinds of faith not withdstanding, atheism in its strictest sense doesn’t require any of them. That doesn’t mean you will find atheists who have those types of faiths in their philosophical outlooks on life. And, this turned out much longer than I originally intended it to be, so if you read it all, thanks.

Oh and finally, science doesn't prove anything but I'm sure by now this eight page old thread has plenty of responses about this.

* Many thanks must go to Goduznt Xzst, a Eudaimonic Consequentialist Utilitarian determinist, moral nihilist, positivist, naturalist cynic & skeptic, an Atheist, strong Explicit regarding Theism but Weak Explicit regarding Deism with an Enneatype of Five.

** A term used to describe something that is so wrong it doesn’t even deserve to be classed under the category of wrong.

Galvasean wrote: »

Excellent post Malty T

Thanks, Malty will suffice.

alas I think the OP has
done a runner.

Some thoughts are best kept to yourself.:(

Take heart Malty, it's not about changing the minds of the trolls stubborn tireless rebutters, but those in the middle who are undecided. They will look at his points,then yours, and if they have a modicum of sense they will decide that you were right.

Have you read ANY of the arguments that span the 8 pages of this thread... I would suggest you take a closer look because the answers are in there.

cursai wrote: »

I did. Its all over emphasised, overconfident arguments. I dont think im getting the definitions wrong. Atheism is the absence of belief of other 'higher' being. But THATS ILLOGICAL! NOBODY knows that there is nothing out there higher than us. This cant be proved or disproved! BASED on so many variables, physically, physiologically, psychologically naturally etc which are WAY outside the grasp of our human minds ... THE.... NEXT..... LOGICAL..... STEP..... IS...... TO...... CONCEDE..... THAT...... ONE...... DOESNT...... KNOW.... FOR... SURE..... SO.... ONE.... LOGICAL..... HAS..... TO..... MOVE..... TO.... AGNOSTICISM!!!!!!
Atheism is as illogical as any other faith! And it IS a faith system! Like all the others based on unprovable BELIEFS! Nothing said here has explained these arguments. Anyhow i feel im in a forum full of people who are questioning their own logic but aren't open to arguments but just want to push their own arguments!

Thanks very much for not even reading my post. Oh and if you say you read it, why not try reading your post own by using my post and other posts like it as devil's advocate, to at the very least understand our argument.