Agnostic forum

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Where do deists fit in?

Deists are theists. They both believe in god. Although deists make no claim as to what their god is like. They only claim that he "is."

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Where do deists fit in?

Deism is a movement based on Enlightment thought in 18th Century which is closely related to Natural Law theory. Basically, a Deist based his religious beliefs on human reason and common morality and do not believe in a God that ever actively intervened in human affairs. In general, they believed in a Creator God that formed the universe and set up the physical and natural laws which govern it, but then doesn't do anything further. There are different shades, of course. Tom Paine's Age of Reason is a well known deist tract which tears up Christianity and its reliance on the supernatural and miracles most effectively.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Basically, a Deist based his religious beliefs on human reason and common morality and do not believe in a God that ever actively intervened in human affairs.

Deists believe that God minds his own business?

Why are they so sure that God exists? Tradition? "There must have been a Creator"? Just curious.

Originally posted by rwingett
Your definition of atheism is completely and utterly incorrect. Atheism is not a belief at all,

I have to disagree. I think strong atheism is a belief, because if god does not exist you can never proof his non-existence.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Deists believe that God minds his own business?

Why are they so sure that God exists? Tradition? "There must have been a Creator"? Just curious.

Here's a Deist website with a FAQ: http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm

I'm not a Deist, but I'd answer your questions based on my understanding of Deism as follows:

It would be more correct to say that they're not sure what God's "business" is.

They believe God exists because they reason it is likely there was a Creator. They were big on the idea of the Watchmaker - the universe is intricate, intricate things are designed, etc. etc. More recent scientific findings that the universe's forces are within narrow limits that allow life would be consistent with this viewpoint (though there are alternate explanations like "many universes" and "MetaLaws"😉.

EDIT: Here's a rather beautiful quote from Tom Paine that is on the cited website:

"I consider myself in the hands of my Creator, and that he will dispose of me after this life consistently with His justice and goodness. I leave all these matters to Him, as my Creator and friend, and I hold it to be presumption in man to make an article of faith as to what the Creator will do with us hereafter."

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's bad Greek. Atheist comes from the Greek atheos. Since theos is God, atheos means "without God" or "Godless", not "without theism". Thus, atheism if you want to get down to LITERAL meanings is a positive disbelief in God.

Agnostic, on the other hand, is taken from the Greek agnostos or "unknown" or literally "without knowledge" a ...[text shortened]... all on either theist or atheist; it simply says with what I have in front of me, I don't know.

Your attempts to muddle the matter are irrelevant. "Without god" or "godless" does not differ in any way from being "without theism." One who simply lacks belief in god is both "without god" and "godless." At no time does it necessarily translate into being a positive disbelief in god.

I am familiar as well with the definition of agnostic. But it too is completely irrelevant. If one lacks enough knowledge to believe in a proposition, then they are without belief in that proposition, i.e. they do not believe it to be true. To not "know" something is to not believe it.
A person who has never heard of the concept of god would be an atheist (albeit an implicit atheist). All newborns are atheists as they lack belief in god. Everyone who does not actively believe that god is literally true is an atheist, whether they prefer to call themselves an "agnostic" in polite company or not.

I will use the example of Alger Hiss' supposed guilt to further clarify the matter. Suppose someone comes to me and makes the claim that Alger Hiss is guilty. I would ask him to demonstrate why he thinks this is so. If he cannot provide any evidence for Hiss' guilt, then I will not believe that Hiss is guilty. This does NOT mean that I therefore think the opposite (that Hiss is innocent). It merely means that I see nothing to indicate the man's guilt and his innocence will be presumed. The entire burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

With the matter of theism, there is only ONE claim in play. Specifically, the theists claim that god exists. Atheists are not making a counter claim that god does not exist (as many suppose), but they simply see nothing to validate the theists' claim. Therefore they are without belief in that claim, which means they are atheists. It doesn't matter what your reasons are for not being a theist. But if you're not a theist (with god, or with a belief in god) then you are without those things, which makes you an atheist.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
I have to disagree. I think strong atheism is a belief, because if god does not exist you can never proof his non-existence.

There are no strong atheists (well, almost none). Strong atheism is a strawman put forward by theists in an attempt to shift some of the burden of proof off of their shoulders.

Almost every knowledgable atheist is a weak (or soft) atheist.

But just for the sake of argument, you are correct, strong atheism would be tantamount to a belief.

Originally posted by rwingett
Your attempts to muddle the matter are irrelevant. "Without god" or "godless" does not differ in any way from being "without theism." One who simply lacks belief in god is both "without god" and "godless." At no time does it necessarily translate into being a positive disbelief in god.

I am familiar as well with the definition of agnostic. But ...[text shortened]... ith god, or with a belief in god) then you are without those things, which makes you an atheist.

Your answer perfectly illustrates the difference between atheism and agnosticism. To use the Hiss analogy, a lack of what you regard as evidence leads you to "presume" Hiss is innocent. But an agnostic doesn't "presume" anything; the lack of evidence for Hiss' guilt does not lead to any "presumption" that Hiss is innocent, it leads only to the realization that we don't know whether Hiss is guilty or innocent based on the available evidence. This presumption of atheism is non-rational.

Originally posted by rwingett
Your attempts to muddle the matter are irrelevant. "Without god" or "godless" does not differ in any way from being "without theism." One who simply lacks belief in god is both "without god" and "godless." At no time does it necessarily translate into being a positive disbelief in god.

I am familiar as well with the definition of agnostic. But ...[text shortened]... ith god, or with a belief in god) then you are without those things, which makes you an atheist.

Atheism can be divided into strong and weak atheism. The weak atheist says that he does not belief in god, and the strong atheist says god does not exist.
You can be an agnostic and a weak atheist, but you can't be an agnostic and a strong atheist.

Agnosticism is a much broader subject and can be aplied to more then just the existence of god.

Here's a very good definition:
Agnostic * A word first used by Professor Huxley, to indicate one who believes nothing which cannot be demonstrated by the senses.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your answer perfectly illustrates the difference between atheism and agnosticism. To use the Hiss analogy, a lack of what you regard as evidence leads you to "presume" Hiss is innocent. But an agnostic doesn't "presume" anything; the lack of evidence for Hiss' guilt does not lead to any "presumption" that Hiss is innocent, it leads only to the re ...[text shortened]... guilty or innocent based on the available evidence. This presumption of atheism is non-rational.

That is all well and fine. Almost.

In regard to law, a man must be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

In regard to gods, they should be presumed false unless demonstrated to be true.

Any extraordinary claim (as opposed to a trivial claim) should be presumed false unless it can somehow be demonstrated to have some basis in truth. If I made the extraordinary claim of being able to cause volcanic eruptions by clapping my hands, the claim should not be believed. You can't "prove" my claim is false. Do we therefore have to suspend belief about the validity of my claim and say we just don't know? Absolutely not. It is entirely rational to withhold belief from my claim and presume it to be false. The claim that god is true is a far more extraordinary one which likewise has absolutely no evidence to back it up. A far more rational starting point is to presume the claim to be false unless some evidence for it can be brought to light.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
Atheism can be divided into strong and weak atheism. The weak atheist says that he does not belief in god, and the strong atheist says god does not exist.
You can be an agnostic and a weak atheist, but you can't be an agnostic and a strong atheist.

Agnosticism is a much broader subject and can be aplied to more then just the existence of god ...[text shortened]... ofessor Huxley, to indicate one who believes nothing which cannot be demonstrated by the senses.

Yes, yes, I know all of this already. My contention (for the purposes of this thread) is that the term "agnosticism" is superfluous, that everyone can be rightfully classified as either a theist or an atheist, and that Huxley only invented the term to avoid being painted with the dreaded, but mischaracterized brush of atheism.

Originally posted by rwingett
That is all well and fine. Almost.

In regard to law, a man must be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

In regard to gods, they should be presumed false unless demonstrated to be true.

Any extraordinary claim (as opposed to a trivial claim) should be presumed false unless it can somehow be demonstrated to have some basis in truth. If I made th ...[text shortened]... g point is to presume the claim to be false unless some evidence for it can be brought to light.

Except the presumption that the claim is false colors your preception of the evidence. To say there is "NO" evidence of a God is simply wrong. You may say that the evidence presented is weak, but that is a far different claim from saying (like you have been) that there is no evidence at all.

Originally posted by rwingett

In regard to gods, they should be presumed false unless demonstrated to be true.

And this is a belief of atheism.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Except the presumption that the claim is false colors your preception of the evidence. To say there is "NO" evidence of a God is simply wrong. You may say that the evidence presented is weak, but that is a far different claim from saying (like you have been) that there is no evidence at all.

Granted. There is no good evidence. There is no verifiable or testable evidence for the claim, while there is much that casts doubt upon it. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there are other explanations for what we see around us that have an abundance of evidence and which are far more believable than "god."

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
And this is a belief of atheism.

Didn't we have this same converstion before? I guess it's all the same conversation after a while.

But no, it's not a belief of atheism. What would it be? Logical Positivism, or something like that?