"weak atheism" vs. Agnosticism

Checkmite

Skepticifimisticalationist
Checkmite
Joined
Jun 7, 2002
Messages
29,007
Location
Gulf Coast
I'm sorry, I'm a little fuzzy on this thing. What is the difference between "Agnosticism" and "weak Atheism"?

As I understand it, Agnosticism is the failure to declare a position regarding the existence of God due to lack of any sort of evidence. As I've heard it defined, "weak Atheism" means the exact same thing, except that the person "leans more toward Atheism".

Excuse my frankness, but what the hell does it matter which direction someone "leans"? It's like debating a bill in Congress - you vote "Yea", "No", or you Abstain (no vote). If you Abstain, does it make a difference whether you sorta agreed or disagreed? Doesn't creating a new "region" simply complicate the issue? What has a "weak Atheist" really voted - "No", or "Abstain"?
 
The difference

Weak atheism basically means you don't believe in God, for whatever reason.

Agnosticism though seems to think you believe theism/atheism are equally plausible or the evidence for both sides as equal. That's how I see it anyways, this is hardly a definitions et in stone. As there really there is no "true" definition for agnosticism.
 
I think agnostic athiest is the best term I have heard to describe me. I don't believe in the existence of god, but I know I could be wrong. If there is a god he would be such a complex and powerful being that I probably couldn't comprehend it all. Just like a worm couldn't comprehend a human. I'm damn sure that if there was a god he would have made perfectly clear how he wanted us to act and not let anything as messed up as the bible represent his word.
 
Agnostic basically means skeptical of God, but not willing to say you dont believe in him for whatever reason.

Athiests do not believe in god.

The weak/strong destinction is based around the concept that you cant prove god doesnt exist. Strong Athiests are few and far between and simply dont understand the logic around the subject well, so they say that no God could possibly exist.

Almost all atheists are weak atheists.
 
GrapeJ713 said:
I think agnostic athiest is the best term I have heard to describe me. I don't believe in the existence of god, but I know I could be wrong. If there is a god he would be such a complex and powerful being that I probably couldn't comprehend it all. Just like a worm couldn't comprehend a human. I'm damn sure that if there was a god he would have made perfectly clear how he wanted us to act and not let anything as messed up as the bible represent his word.
Click to expand...

What makes you believe such nonsense? Couldn't it be that some god made the earth by accident and he's a complete fool? Why does this god have to be so complex as well? I think you are placing qualities on this god of yours so that you can simply make the statement that no person can know what it is. In effect, you are making unfalsifiable claims about your particular god-concept.
 
K-W said:
Strong Athiests are few and far between and simply dont understand the logic around the subject well, so they say that no God could possibly exist.
Click to expand...

I consider myself a "strong atheist". Yes, it's possible that a god could exist, but it's also possible that monkeys could fly out of my ass as well. The concepts are so absurd that I feel perfectly confortable saying there is no god.
 
thaiboxerken said:

What makes you believe such nonsense? Couldn't it be that some god made the earth by accident and he's a complete fool? Why does this god have to be so complex as well? I think you are placing qualities on this god of yours so that you can simply make the statement that no person can know what it is. In effect, you are making unfalsifiable claims about your particular god-concept.
Click to expand...

I said IF, I don't think he exists, it's just my concept of a supreme being powerful enough to create a huge complex world.
 
GrapeJ713 said:


I said IF, I don't think he exists, it's just my concept of a supreme being powerful enough to create a huge complex world.
Click to expand...

You've basically just made your "god" undefineable. By doing this, you make yourself perfectly confortable with your agnostic position.
 
thaiboxerken said:


I consider myself a "strong atheist". Yes, it's possible that a god could exist, but it's also possible that monkeys could fly out of my ass as well. The concepts are so absurd that I feel perfectly confortable saying there is no god.
Click to expand...

Then you arent a strong athiest.
 
thaiboxerken said:


There is no god. I'm a strong atheist. I can bench-press over 350 lbs.
Click to expand...

Then explain to me how a weak athiest differs from you?
 
K-W said:

Then explain to me how a weak athiest differs from you?
Click to expand...

A weak atheist can't bench-press over 350 lbs. They won't say "there is no god" as well.
 
A weak atheist (or agnostic, they really are the same thing) says, "I lack belief in god."

A strong atheist (or just atheist as opposed to agnostic) says, "I lack belief in god, and so should you, assuming you want to continue being reasonable."

I used to argue that agnostics were really athiests (because of course they are) and that the term agnostic shouldn't be used. But it isn't used to describe your belief: it is used to describe your attitude towards others.

An agnostic doesn't believe, but he isn't strong enough in his views to assert that you should also not believe. An athiest doesn't believe, for rational reasons, and therefore expects you to either agree with his conclusion or point out where he is wrong.

This makes agnosticism periously close to the new-age idea that all truth is relative, which probably explains why I dislike it so much.
 
This makes agnosticism periously close to the new-age idea that all truth is relative, which probably explains why I dislike it so much.

I find agnostics people that are just unwilling to state what they really believe. They are useless in a conversation/ debate about gods and religion.
 
thaiboxerken said:
There is no god. I'm a strong atheist. I can bench-press over 350 lbs.
Click to expand...
Wow, you're like muscleman, only you're an atheist! And you have a brain! :)

As I define it, the "hardness" of an atheist refers more to how sure they are in the evidence (or lack thereof) of god's existence. I'm still not fully convinced, but lean that way, so I'm a softie. :) Others on the forum can say with a better degree of certainty "look at the lack of evidence, you dummy."

Agnostic, well, that just kinda fits in there somewhere. I'm willing to believe god can exist, and that sets me apart from the harder atheists. I'm also content to believe he doesn't, and I've got my problems with organized religions, which sets me apart from hard theists. Somewhere in between, that's an agnostic.

Clear as mud?
 
I did not know there was such a documented position as weak atheism,but there are various variations of agnosticism.
 
I must say, the missionary destinction is one ive not encountered before. Its always been described to me and where ive read it as relating to a belief in no god, vs lack of belief in god.

In which case I still think there is no difference. Its just how you phrase it. Even reading on this thread, people who say there is no god qualfiy it by explainging they just mean that lack of evidence makes it seem very imporoble, which is exactly the weak atheists idea when they say they dont believe. It seems to be more about expressing things in a certain way, and some peoples not wanting to express things in vague terms, than any fundemental difference in views.

If Strong/Weak is based on whether you think others should also be atheist, i dont think thats a particularly useful destinction. I dont really see this as two camps. I think the opinions relating to this would fill the whole spectrum.
 
Joshua Korosi said:
Excuse my frankness, but what the hell does it matter which direction someone "leans"? It's like debating a bill in Congress - you vote "Yea", "No", or you Abstain (no vote). If you Abstain, does it make a difference whether you sorta agreed or disagreed? Doesn't creating a new "region" simply complicate the issue? What has a "weak Atheist" really voted - "No", or "Abstain"?
Click to expand...

I personally doubt the existence of God (see no reason to believe) in the absence of evidence. Therefore I do not believe- i.e. the vote is "no". I suppose this makes me a "weak" or "soft" atheist.

I reckon an agnostic would simply say "I don't know" - i.e. "abstain" and a "hardcore atheist" would state without any reservation that "there is no God". IMO both "soft" and "hard" atheist would vote "no", but for different reasons.
 
If Strong/Weak is based on whether you think others should also be atheist, i dont think thats a particularly useful destinction.
Click to expand...
It's a useful distinction to other people, who want to know how you are likely to behave.

I agree it's not so usefull for categorizing you own beliefs - if you don't believe in god, you are an atheist, regardless of why you don't believe - but labels are really for other people, and people want to know if you are going stand there quietly or argue with them when they decide to spout off about their stupid believes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom