Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OP, you're confused on what atheism is. Weak atheism isn't agnosticism. Agnosticism is the position that the existence/nonexistence of god is unknowable. Weak atheism is the position where someone doesn't believe in god but accepts the possibility that one exists. You're making the typical misconception that atheism means someone is certain there is no god.
What I don't understand is what "god" is supposed to be. Dawkins' scale doesn't appear to take into consideration what the very word - god - means to the people. Do they mean the christian god, asian god, etcetera. Or, what if god just means "creative force having no direct contact with humans?'' Isn't there a giant leap from having a "personal relationship" with said god, to not ruling out a god but admitting we could Know almost nothing about it, except in observing the universe?
What I don't understand is what "god" is supposed to be. Dawkins' scale doesn't appear to take into consideration what the very word - god - means to the people. Do they mean the christian god, asian god, etcetera. Or, what if god just means "creative force having no direct contact with humans?'' Isn't there a giant leap from having a "personal relationship" with said god, to not ruling out a god but admitting we could Know almost nothing about it, except in observing the universe?
I agree. I think Dawkins has a bit of thinking to do. He's contributing his own efforts but they are hardly the whole answer. 'god' of course, covers a lot of ground and the sheer range of the concept can lead to a lot of confusion and some very muddy conceptual waters in which the apologists can dabble and produce a very persuasive catch by semantic tinkering. The important thing is get one's own mind clear as to what 'god' means to one and take it from there.
In fact,the 'leap' from a 'god' we know almost nothing about but which one considers likely to a 'something' about which we cannot reasonably have any firm beliefs isn't much of a logical leap, after all.
I'm feeling a little dumb, at the moment. Can you re-word this for me. (I am not being cynical, or anything).
In fact,the 'leap' from a 'god' we know almost nothing about but which one considers likely to a 'something' about which we cannot reasonably have any firm beliefs isn't much of a logical leap, after all - AREQUIPA
I'm feeling a little dumb, at the moment. Can you re-word this for me. (I am not being cynical, or anything).
In fact,the 'leap' from a 'god' we know almost nothing about but which one considers likely to a 'something' about which we cannot reasonably have any firm beliefs isn't much of a logical leap, after all - AREQUIPA
Sorry. A wicked witch cursed me at birth with the endless sentence spell.
It is not a very great logical distance between the idea of a god which we know nothing about (agnosticism) and something we don't believe in because we don't know anything about it. (atheism)
AREQUIPA,
thanks for LCD-ing it for me. It makes perfect sense to me now.
My recent thought is that:
One has to have the evidence against something to make a scientific declaration that something doesn't exist. One could never have this evidence. This is why I am inching away from atheism to agnosticism. I feel like even the most ardent dis-believer could never be an atheist. I don't embrace religion anymore, but I also can't disprove a god. I could speculate at all the things god isn't, which are many. Am I beating a dead horse?
OP, you're confused on what atheism is. Weak atheism isn't agnosticism. Agnosticism is the position that the existence/nonexistence of god is unknowable. Weak atheism is the position where someone doesn't believe in god but accepts the possibility that one exists. You're making the typical misconception that atheism means someone is certain there is no god.
Weak atheism and agnosticism aren't the same thing, if that's what you think I'm implying. But weak atheism is certainly a form of agnosticism. Why would you accept the possiblity that God exists if you knew that he didn't exist? You would never become a weak atheist unless you acknowledged that you don't know of his non-existence. And that's agnosticism.
Weak atheism and agnosticism aren't the same thing, if that's what you think I'm implying. But weak atheism is certainly a form of agnosticism. Why would you accept the possiblity that God exists if you knew that he didn't exist? You would never become a weak atheist unless you acknowledged that you don't know of his non-existence. And that's agnosticism.
Nobody regardless of how the label themselves (strong or weak atheist) can know that god doesn't exist, any more than anyone can know that he does.
Sanspeur,
but, doesn't having no way of knowing anything for sure obsolete the atheistic position? Wouldn't everyone have to admit that there simply is no way to disprove the existence? The other issue would be what one considers "god." Is the universe, or nature, "god?" To me, it is. What is the definition of god and how can one disprove it, if it can mean so many things? If one can't prove or disprove god - if that equation cancels out god, do we need new definitions?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry. A wicked witch cursed me at birth with the endless sentence spell.
