Four Kinds of Atheists.

[BluffTHIS!]

Those in in the 1st case don't seem likely to admit such, and will likely assert one of the other rationales. But I think you are giving too short a shrift to #3, simply because the existence of God or not, cannot be proven with 100% certainty either way, thus making the application of reason/logic suitable, even if it itself cannot be conclusive or even extremely convincing as to non-existence. Plus it is obvious that so many scientific theories were "reasoned" out decades before any technology existed to prove/disprove them empirically.

[Lestat]

Very good point. I seriously think that this is both plausible and likely.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'd have thought there'd be a million different reasons why people arrive at an atheistic position, or any position. And I suspect that if you had to come up with the most basic 'type' it'd be something like 'atheist is the default position, you have to prove god not disprove god'. I'm agnostic myself

[/ QUOTE ]

An Agnostic is an Atheist without conviction. Historically it was an oratorical change, Atheists were thought of as asserting that there is no god, rather than simply not affirming one, so "Agnostic" was coined to assert a lack of knowing that there is a god.

As an aside, Atheists are perhaps the group of people most persecuted for holding an idea in history. Which is ironic since all they do is not hold its converse.

[/ QUOTE ]


Certainly agree with the second point - not convinced atheism is 100% the neutral starting point, but it's much closer than theism is.

On the issue of atheism vs agnosticism. The semantics are becoming blurrier these days with all the 'apathetic' atheists, where historically atheism was a very involved and pro-active statement. Nevertheless, I'm not sure an agnostic is exactly an atheist without conviction, though I'm aware many agnostics would be covered by that description. In my own case, I'm probably closer to being a theist without conviction - you certainly can't be an atheist swinging in either direction. You're right that agnosticism is a fence sitting position, but for many it's the result of some kind of process, as oppose to a generalized ambivalence or flakiness.

Also significant is that there are two very different types of agnostics: those who say they don't know, and those who assert it's impossible to know.

I personally can't see how any intellectually honest person can make a public argument that God does or does not exist with any kind of reasonable substance. If someone intuitively or emotionally believes in God then fine, I don't question their intelligence or challenge their beliefs. But to try and prove any of this through logic and method is futile, we just don't have access to the info.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't explain the success of early godless cultures.

[/ QUOTE ]

"early" was partly as a refutation of DS's #4

[ QUOTE ]
Those who look at the things that science has only recently explained.

[/ QUOTE ]

The ability to discard the Gap reason for believing in a xtrian type Alpha god was available much earlier ( I simply said earlier, not ancient, but that may well apply too), but essentially not going to happen in a Zeus or Thor based culture.
Whether atheist Buddhism or even Jainism type religions where there isn't a Alpha creator qod that runs around causing things. Some variations of these are older than xtrianity.

Being able to break from 'god does it' thinking is more culture based than technology based. Always has been.

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally can't see how any intellectually honest person can make a public argument that God does or does not exist with any kind of reasonable substance. If someone intuitively or emotionally believes in God then fine, I don't question their intelligence or challenge their beliefs. But to try and prove any of this through logic and method is futile, we just don't have access to the info.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right on, but then again, most people aren't intellectually honest.

As far as the semantics of Atheist Vs. Agnostic. Linguistically it is A- (alpha privitive, in greek, meaning not) theos- (god) hence one who does not believe in god... it is historically the general case of simply the non-god-beliver.. but in the Bible, in St. Anselm's Ontological proof of god, in Descaretes' equally rediculous proof, in the writings of Fracis Bacon, and almost anyone (at least in the few dozen books I've read on the subject) who has endevored to talk about Atheists before the late late eighteen hundreds has invariably refured to these non-believers as fools or heretics. As an Atheist, before I realized that almost everything people have to say as evidence or reason for or against god is just crapping out the mouth, and also before I learned that trying to clarify what I meant was usually better than debating a person, I used get pushed into positions where I found myself defending some position I neither agreed with nor particularly cared about... My guess is a lot of street-walking Atheists a few hundred years ago suffered from the same fate.

The term 'Agnostic' was only coined in the late eighteen hundreds... once Darwin made it cool not to believe (which is really amazing for two reasons, one, that while he himself was a nonbeliever, he beleived "the masses" ought to remain ignorant of his new found knowledge (or, new found lack of it) and also that he was the one who had the big impact, since the only real change in evolution theory that he made was 'natural selection.' Before that the buzz was that a creature's environment actually affected the compostition of a creature directly... as in the giraffe's neck is so long because generations of giraffes kept on reaching and reaching and this act of reaching itself made the neck longer (google Lamarck)). Agnostic (A-alpha privitive, gnosis-to know) so one who (claims) not to know. Which is another way of saying "I don't believe," since a great many theists, if they were honest with themselves would be agnostic as well, but, still a lot claim to have "knowledge of god" (that's all the mormon's ever say... I know, I know, I know). Either they mean something enirely different by "knowledge" then I do, or they just aren't honest with themselves.... But then again... I've never seen Europe... so, maybe I don't really know it exists... as Plato would term it "correct opinion".

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't explain the success of early godless cultures.

[/ QUOTE ]
There haven't been any that I have found. Every few months I search again, but it seems every group of humans we currently have knowledge of invented a religion.

[theBruiser500]

wow David again another revolutionary post. how do you keep coming up with this stuff? you were absolutely correct when you said you could have won the nobel prize if you wanted to.

'Agnostic' does not mean 'does not believe'. This is a mistake that many not so bright people also make with the term skeptic. Both refer to a suspending of judgment. That means an agnostic would not say that there is no God but instead that there is no proof either way. They 'suspend judgment'.

pragmatist

David:

What do you mean by 'science'? You talk as if there is unquestioned doctrine called 'science'. If you are using science in a way that claims science has "recently explained" things you are closer to the bible lover than you might expect. Be careful or science will become your religion.

pragmatist

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
'Agnostic' does not mean 'does not believe'. This is a mistake that many not so bright people also make with the term skeptic. Both refer to a suspending of judgment. That means an agnostic would not say that there is no God but instead that there is no proof either way. They 'suspend judgment'.

pragmatist

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately many not so bright people also don't get that not believing in something and reseving judgement as to whether or not a thing exist are equivalent. As well as the fact that the question of proof for or against god is a fools errand to begin with.

Not believing something is not an affirmative act, it is the lack of affirming it's opposite.
Saying I do not believe there is a god is denying a belief.
Saying I believe that there is no god is asserting a blief.

Put sylogistically they both mean:

I am a non god-believing person.

Howerver the latter also means

I am a person believing there is no god

which is a particular case of the former.
ex. All persons believing there is no god are
persons who do not belive in god.

Howerver All persons who do not believe in god are not
persons believing there is no god

An agnotsic is still a person who does not believe in god precisely because he witholds judgement. Because of the tautology that All people who do not believe in god are non god believing people.

If someone reserves judgement he does not believe.

Hence, what I said earlier, an Agnostic is an Atheist without conviction, ie he does not ASSERT anything


And also a skeptic most certainly denies that what we know of in the world is knowledge.