S
Slevin
Guest
I see generally a lot of false definitions regarding atheism and I thought it would be a good idea to begin a thread which properly defines atheism and the various stances regarding this idea.
The first major issue that I see with any philosophical stance is the question of knowledge. Knowledge is defined as a justified true belief. What I mean is:
1) I believe x is true.
2) X is true.
3) I am justified in believing that x is true.
Since at this time no one can currently demonstrate that the claim God exists (x) is true or that the opposing claim (~x) is true, the issue of agnosticism really does not come into play.
Of course, one can obviously state that they "know" God exists or doesn't exist, but it doesn't apply philosophically or rationally. So, from this point onward, we are dealing with atheism and theism as it pertains to philosophy and my specific definition of knowledge.
Now that we have established the basic foundations of the supporting ideas regarding atheism, we can move on to specific definitions:
Theism: The belief that a God or gods exist.
Atheism: The disbelief that a God or gods exist.
As you may or may not have noticed, the issue of knowledge really doesn't come into play, since both are beliefs. Whether or not we "know" is a separate issue and since neither side can currently know, it is irrelevant to state as such that one is agnostic.
Please note that this does not mean that neither theists nor atheists are unjustified in having their belief.
Now we come to the issue of conviction.
Strong and weak are basically specific details into the conviction that one has in their own belief. I myself have a strong conviction regarding my belief in the non-existence of God. Christians or other Theists may have a strong conviction regarding their belief in the existence of God.
In conclusion:
1) Agnostic is irrelevant as it pertains to belief in God since nobody can know at this time that God exists.
2) Strong and weak are the levels of conviction one has for any belief.
Any questions or comments would be appreciated.
The first major issue that I see with any philosophical stance is the question of knowledge. Knowledge is defined as a justified true belief. What I mean is:
1) I believe x is true.
2) X is true.
3) I am justified in believing that x is true.
Since at this time no one can currently demonstrate that the claim God exists (x) is true or that the opposing claim (~x) is true, the issue of agnosticism really does not come into play.
Of course, one can obviously state that they "know" God exists or doesn't exist, but it doesn't apply philosophically or rationally. So, from this point onward, we are dealing with atheism and theism as it pertains to philosophy and my specific definition of knowledge.
Now that we have established the basic foundations of the supporting ideas regarding atheism, we can move on to specific definitions:
Theism: The belief that a God or gods exist.
Atheism: The disbelief that a God or gods exist.
As you may or may not have noticed, the issue of knowledge really doesn't come into play, since both are beliefs. Whether or not we "know" is a separate issue and since neither side can currently know, it is irrelevant to state as such that one is agnostic.
Please note that this does not mean that neither theists nor atheists are unjustified in having their belief.
Now we come to the issue of conviction.
Strong and weak are basically specific details into the conviction that one has in their own belief. I myself have a strong conviction regarding my belief in the non-existence of God. Christians or other Theists may have a strong conviction regarding their belief in the existence of God.
In conclusion:
1) Agnostic is irrelevant as it pertains to belief in God since nobody can know at this time that God exists.
2) Strong and weak are the levels of conviction one has for any belief.
Any questions or comments would be appreciated.
).