To All Philosophy People: The Question of Belief.

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
To call something "strong" just based on it's ambition seems a little weird to me. "I believe all of science and history don't exist, and reality can be summed up in one word: cheese. Wow, that's really ambitious, what a strong position." I had always thought the strength of a position was based on how easily defensible and how well supported it is, but you're welcome to have your own definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, i think he meant the opposite. That is, the less ambitious a philosophical position, the harder it is to attack it. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Bodhi]

I didn't say that. I said, having a belief that you don't have a particular belief.

I agree that believing you have no beliefs is patently absurd.

[Joe826]

Yeah I was using the terms "strong" and "weak" in relation to the potentency of an argument's claims.

My point is this: If you're an atheist for no reason other then you're not a theist, you're basically an agnostic. By just calling atheists non-theists, you saying agnostics are atheists as well, which is a distinction many would disagree with. After all, if we're going to say that agnostics are just atheists, why even distinguish between the two?

There has to be something more to being an atheist then just being a non-theist, otherwise, we should just call them all agnostics or vice-versa.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree that believing you have no beliefs is patently absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the whole point of my question. I want to take it a step further to the subject level.

Do you believe it is possible to have no beliefs about a subject that you have thought about.

-Gryph

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
Ummm, i think he meant the opposite. That is, the less ambitious a philosophical position, the harder it is to attack it. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he could mean that. After all, he was calling explicit atheism (the kind that actively says that theism is wrong) stronger than simple atheism (simply saying that they don't subscribe to theism). Saying that something is absolutely wrong is a bit more ambitious than saying that you're not sure if it's right. Then again, you could be right, as I really had no idea what he was saying. I could argue semantics all night though.

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
Then again, you could be right, as I really had no idea what he was saying. I could argue semantics all night though.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to argue about philosophy, then get into the habit of interpreting your interlocuter with great ammounts of charity.

[Bodhi]

Again, yes.

One is a claim of global doubt. The other is a claim of particular doubt (about a subject). The first, No. The second, yes.

There is no such thing as a human adult who has no beliefs at all. There are many human adults who have no particular beliefs about politics, the greatness of the red sox, or the existence of a deity.

[Phoenix1010]

I continue, because I can't stop myself.

[ QUOTE ]
My point is this: If you're an atheist for no reason other then you're not a theist, you're basically an agnostic.

By just calling atheists non-theists, you saying agnostics are atheists as well, which is a distinction many would disagree with. After all, if we're going to say that agnostics are just atheists, why even distinguish between the two?

There has to be something more to being an atheist then just being a non-theist, otherwise, we should just call them all agnostics or vice-versa.

[/ QUOTE ]


Atheist means non-theist. Without theism. That's it.

Agnostic, coined by Sir Thomas Huxley in 1869, describes an assumption that questions of 'gnosis,' knowledge of God, are fundamentally beyond human understanding.

Therefore, as you say, atheism and agnosticism are not mutally exclusive. In fact, all agnostics of the original definition are atheists. However, a person can be an atheist because he believes he knows that theism is wrong. He thinks that he has the answer, so he is not an agnostic, but he is not a theist, so he is still an atheist. Therefore, while traditional agnosticism can be called a subset of atheism (misinterpretation of the word might make people disagree with the statement, but it is what it is), they are not the same thing. All squares are rectangles, but all rectangles are not squares.

Furthermore, there is a new form of agnosticism called agnostic theism whereby one believes that God exists, but we cannot know his nature. This subset of agnosticism exists far outside the realm of atheism.

So there you have it. They are two different terms with two different meanings. Whether you think it's useful to keep them separate is another issue, but since they have two different meanings, I don't see how you can arge that.

"Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in a god; agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god or supernatural being."

[Scotch78]

It is certainly possible to lack a specific belief (otherwise we would all believe exactly the same things). As to whether it is possible to exist without any and all beliefs . . . you can probably find some Buddhists and Daoists who believe it's possible and idealize it as a spiritual goal.

Scott

[David Steele]

N/M