Positive vs Negative Atheism

While the debate I had with Kalalification and Matt was an utter flop it did raise the issue of Positive vs Negative Atheism, as well as what is meant by 'Agnostic'.

Commonly people split the three positions that can be taken into 3 choices:

1. Atheism: Believes that no God(s) exist.
2. Agnosticism: Is unsure whether their God(s) exist.
3. Theism: Believes God(s) exists.

This view however, poses a problem for the first category because it is not a reasonable position to hold. As we saw with the start of my debate with Kali that he was unwilling to define God in any meaningful way; in the Western World we are often presented with the idea of the 'God of Classical Theism' - a being whom is benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient etc. but this view is inconstant with the Gods of the Romans for example, as well as Deism, Pantheism and others. The relevant point is that what exactly is it you have a belief about the non-existence of? This view atheist has the positive belief that no God exists but without a solid definition of God it is impossible to really pin down a global argument which can be evidence for the non-existence of a deity; indeed God could be defined in such a way that even I as an atheist would have to believe in a God although this definition would be entirely unsatisfactory to well... everyone.

But if we take Deism for example we can say that God created the universe, the base rules and processes and then fucked off. As an atheist while I can doubt that hypothesis, I can point out that God doesn't solve the problem of where the universe came from because he himself needs an explanation and we can then argue over whether the Kantian objection to the ontological argument is successful or not, or whether deism or my beliefs are more parsimonious ultimately as an Atheist and probably an empiricist I'm left with little evidence to really hold the positive belief that this being does not exist, instead I would ask what your evidence is, and of course you can't provide any because God 'transcends science'. The alternative view would be to deny Empiricism on some level which is just well... silly (as an Atheist).

Now with specific religious beliefs we can consistently hold the Strong Atheist position against their deity because they make refutable claims about their God, but against this deistic position it really only warrants a lack of belief. The traditional view would be to then lump them in with the agnostics but this seems rather strange, there is a clear difference between lacking a belief in any God and being unsure of their existence.
So a much better more modern view is that Atheism & Agnosticism as well as Theism & Agnosticism are not mutually incompatible but indeed concern themselves with different questions. Agnosticism is a question of 'certainty' the Atheist, Theist distinction is a question of belief.

So we still have the traditional view except in terms of certainty:

1. Atheism (strong): Believes that no God(s) exist.
2. Agnosticism: Is unsure whether their God(s) exist.
3. Theism: Believes God(s) exists.

as well as the more realistic question of belief.

1. Atheism(weak): Lacks a belief in God(s).
2. Theism: Believes in God(s).

In regards to certain Gods you can be a Strong Atheist but generally be a Weak Atheist. Weak Atheism entails agnosticism of course, and therefore the position is often called 'Agnostic Atheism'.

Now of course the believer in an argument might deny the weak position is the correct definition of Atheism (despite the etymology clearly supporting the weak definition) what they can't deny is the belief itself, the weak position (regardless of what word you choose to stand in for it) is popular, fundamentally different from the traditional triotomy but more importantly is more Philosophically solid; such arguments as "Atheism is a faith position etc. do not apply.

I'm not sure whether the definition of agnosticism really is being unsure whether a deity/deities exist, or just the position of acknowledging the fact that it's impossible to tell for sure if a deity/deities exist. I mean, it isn't hard to disprove the Bible, anyone can disprove it or point out inconsistencies, sometimes by even quoting it. However, people seem to think that immediately disproves God, but again, if you really think about it, that isn't true.

Also, was there a mention of antitheism in the discussion as well? As in, getting rid of all religion.

Everyone is actually agnostic... Simply because no one knows...

Both positions are incredibly similar. Really the distinction you are making is between Agnosticism as in 'can't know' and agnosticism as in 'don't know'. I would say just in general that the agnostic would likely subscribe to both. Can't know entails don't know but not visa versa. I don't think it would be can't know because that would remove it from certainty, also because while it is rather odd to say you can know that God does not exist, there's no reason that people wouldn't hold the view that they can know that God exists. Depending on your definition of "know" or what is counted as "justified"

Your absolutely right! As I expressed above showing the bible to be false only discredits the bible. What is does disprove is a Biblical God, so you could consistently be a strong Atheist there. All Gods anywhere however, is a naive step in my opinion.

I don't believe I brought up Anti-Theism, in any detail at least. Certainly there is harmful religious belief, and not harmful religious belief, the anti-theist would either say all religious belief is harmful (which I would say flies in the face of evidence) more likely they would argue that religious belief leaves a lot of room for the harmful side of it whilst the positive attribute can be achieved by secular means Ultimately it is a question of whether the world is better off with or without religion, the religious say with, the anti-theists say without. It doesn't really concern itself with the truth of the matter (although perhaps they could argue that false beliefs are inherently bad).

remember we're concerned with personal, and not philosophical certainty. So someone who believes they can know that God exists (ontological argument, rationalism more generally). So a person who believes in the ontological argument isn't an agnostic, even if the ontological argument fails (because they believe they know God exists).

I am going to use the Richard Dawkins scale. 1 is that you are absolutely sure there is a God and 7 that you are absolutely sure that there isn't a God, Richard Dawkins, is only a 6.9 this is because you can not discount every option like he says there could be a "Flying Spaghetti Monster". I concur with this it is foolish to be absolutely sure without all the opotions.

The level of certainty doesn't have any bearing on the ultimate belief held. One either believes that God (or gods, or whatever) exists or that He/She/It/They don't. Failing those two conclusions, you are an agnostic, because you believe that the answer is beyond us, that the question doesn't matter, or are too apathetic to even concern yourself with the issue. The idea of strong and weak atheism is nothing more than an identity debate, because it's the ultimate belief that you hold which matters, not how certain you are in it.

Agnostic atheist or agnostic theist?

So, you're in the middle of the middle?

5 on the Dawkins scale?

On the defining God(s) thing. We can't really compare God to anything earthly or universally because He/She/It created Earth and the Universe. The only thing we can describe God as is that He/She/It is a metaphysical being.

We have pretty solid evidence God(s) didn't directly create Earth, and know quite well how it was made.

I know how earth was made. I was being religious neutral in my post. Some people believe God directly created Earth.

That's just silly. We have no evidence whatsoever about whether or not God exists, so it's equally unsubstantiated to claim that God did or didn't do something.

Not really, there's no evidence to say for sure whether Jesus truly existed or was just a metaphor or something, although it's quite obvious he never really walked on water, or that Moses really split the seas, or that God cursed the Egyptians. Speaking of which, I saw this show once where they explained how these curses could have happened without any divine intervention. Divine intervention, in Ancient times, was used to explain things that were mysteries to man, like weather phenomenon and volcanoes, for example. When we found out how they actually work, there was no need to say any deities did so. The same goes for the creation of planets (not even just Earth), or any divine intervention at all.

Correct, therefore agnosticism is a position of certainty and not of belief in of itself.

That's the exact point I'm making.

You either believe in God or you don't. But to not believe in God doesn't make a you a positive Atheist, and yes it can make you an agnostic, it only entails a lack of belief. As I have already said the positive belief is philosophically blurgh.

It's not a question of identity, well it partially is, but it's a question of what should these words stand for, what do people believe. Philosophically negative atheism is not only popular, it isn't riddled with holes, is empirical in nature and it is distinct from agnosticism. It is a more useful scale of definition, but words stand in for concepts, yes they have an etymology (which again I point out support the negative definition) so really it doesn't matter what label you give it, my post holds.

Of course yes you could use the Richard Dawkins Scale, which is a scale of certainty, which is basically what I was talking about.

Actually you can provide evidence that God didn't directly do something, if we can show why an earthquake happened (with tectonic plates & physics) then we have evidence that God didn't cause the earthquake because we've explained what did, of course you can say God still directly caused it, which isn't really supported or parsimonious, or you can say God caused the thing that made the earthquake right back to the start of the universe (assuming there is one).[/quote]

Agnosticism is certainly a belief in and of itself. It's not simply apatheism, it's a distinct position that holds a separate truth from both the atheistic and theistic positions. "God is irrelevant and/or unknowable" is different from: "I'm not sure that God exists/doesn't exist so I'll not say either way."

Well that statement was made as a response to this silly idea of 'scaled' theism/atheism. Agnostics aren't just lazy atheists/theists, they're people who reject both positions in favor of their own. I suppose it would have been better of me to say that you either believe that God exists, doesn't exist, or cannot be known to exist/isn't important.

Agnostics don't believe in the absence of a god, they believe that it's beyond us to bother knowing or that it's not important that we know. That's different from your so-called 'weak atheism' because if you reduce a weak atheist to their fundamental belief you will discover them to actually be agnostic who's just smug or actually be an atheist.

In other words, you want it to be about identity. There are three possible (four I suppose, if we separate the more apatheistic agnostic position from the more direct one) beliefs you can hold about the existence of God. You cannot combine them, nor can you be 'in the middle.' Claiming that you can or that you are is just claiming a worthless marker of identity.

Barring the first part, exactly. Agnosticism isn't synonymous with 'weak atheism,' a term of identity, because it has a completely independent theological view. Agnostics could be weak atheists, but weak atheists are not necessarily agnostics. That's why I detest this idea of strong and weak atheism. Negative and positive atheism are okay, because they're actually making a theological statement, but no one ever uses them.

The scale is just a worthless marker of identity. You cannot blend theism and agnosticism or atheism and agnosticism because they all hold separate and contradictory views.

If we bind God to the traits that we're familiar with, yes. But there are infinite interpretations of God/gods, many of which claim that earthquakes/typhoons/tornadoes/etc. are actually gods themselves. Or even by conventional Judeo-Christian reckoning, that God is responsible for all of the conditions that created the event or that His creation of the event incidentally caused all of the supposed 'preconditions.'

Then, for all we care, invisible unicorns are the cause of everything? Claim what you want, it's an empty one if it has no solid evidence to back it. This is, of course, not referring to the creation of the universe and the laws of physics, but things we already understand, like evolution, the age of Earth, and heck, I'm pretty sure we're close to fully understanding how life began. There's no need to attribute those things to any kind of God(s), and especially not things that people STILL credit God(s) for, like the curing of diseases, or morality.