Atheism is simply a rejection of the claim that there is a god or gods.
Not quite.
Unsurprisingly, there are more than one kind of atheist.
I call myself an ‘agnostic atheist’ by that I mean I do not believe in god(s), the devil, heaven, angels, demons ,an afterlife, the paranormal, dragons, trolls or fairies at the bottom of my garden. This due to a lack of proof. BUT, I do not claim to know.
In my experience, a minority of atheists claim “there is no god” or"I believe there is no god". The distinction probably only matters in formal argument, not in day-to-day life. I live my life as if there are no god(s)
Atheism is simply a rejection of the claim that there is a god or gods.
Not quite.
Unsurprisingly, there are more than one kind of atheist.
——
Lois: actually there is only one kind of atheist. A person with no belief in any god, though some have applied it to anyone who has no belief in THEIR god.
A= without
Theism=belief in god
As is usual people have twisted the word to mean many things the original word had nothing to do with. You can be an agnostic atheist or a militant atheist, it doesn’t change the meaning of “atheist”. Better to say “I am an atheist who is also agnostic” or “I am an atheist who is militant about atheism.”
"Lois: actually there is only one kind of atheist. A person with no belief in any god, though some have applied it to anyone who has no belief in THEIR god.
In my opinion, there is subtle difference between the ‘hard atheist’ who who claims there is no god and one who simply disbelieves. The one making a claim attracts the burden of proof, just as much as any theist. The soft atheist, such as myself, an ‘agnostic atheist’ ,makes no claims so does not attract the burden of proof.
As far as I’m aware the existence of god is unfalsifiable, as metaphysical propositions tend to be. A person may not reasonably make a claim about the existence of god(s) . There is an inferred certainty in the claim “there is no god” . I reject that certainty.
Please excuse me for resorting to argument by consensus. I think it’s acceptable here : Over a decade,I’ve been on some large Atheist forums. The consensus and convention is to make a distinction between hard and soft atheism. It may well be “a distinction without a difference”, but is used an understood by many atheists. That doesn’t make the distinction right, I understand. However, I’m comfy with the difference, and and will continue to use it, although perhaps not in discussions with you…
I think we may need to agree to differ on atheism.
“In my opinion, there is subtle difference between the ‘hard atheist’ who who claims there is no god and one who simply disbelieves. The one making a claim attracts the burden of proof, just as much as any theist. The soft atheist, such as myself, an ‘agnostic atheist’ ,makes no claims so does not attract the burden of proof.”
No. I do not believe in god(s), any gods. Due to lack of proof. But, I make no claims because I don’t know.
I am an agnostic atheist. From the Greek; A= without gnosis= knowledge A=without . Theos= God------Without god and without knowledge.
My position is described by [Bertrand] Russell’s teapot:
"Russell’s teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.
Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion.[1] He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.
Russell’s teapot is still invoked in discussions concerning the existence of God, and has had influence in various fields and media."
Are you an agnostic atheist (without knowledge) when it comes to the ancient Greek Gods??
No one can validly claim to know anything about any god that has ever been claimed to exist. When it comes to existence, all gods are exactly alike: unknown, unknowable, unproven. All god claims are useless claims. Anyone who claims to know anything about any god is delusional.
“LoisL suggesting it is possible that thor the God of Thunder is the cause of our lightning”
How on earth did you get to there from this? " When it comes to existence, all gods are exactly alike: unknown, unknowable, unproven. All god claims are useless claims. Anyone who claims to know anything about any god is delusional."
To answer your question: Possible? Yes. Likely? No. As the phrase ‘agnostic atheist’ infers (NOT implies) . I do not believe in any gods whatsoever, but do not claim to know.
I will gladly change my position, the moment anybody produces proof of he existence of any god, including Thor. I hold the same position towards ghosts, mediums and psychics generally, fortunetelling, the paranormal, UFO’s, and other general woo.
“Sorry, Patrick, I still don’t get the connection to Thor and lightening.”
I think Thor is the god of thunder AND lightning. Hence the German exclamation “Donner UND blitzen!” (thunder and lightning) Donner= thunder. Blitzen = (literally) ‘flash’. Used together to mean thunder and lightning
“------Thor is associated with thunder, lightning, oak trees and strength, Thor is the strongest of all the Gods and the protector of mankind in Midgard. While Thor is the strongest of the Gods, he is not the smartest or the wisest of the Gods, and many giants tease or fool him as much as they can.”
“so you and LoisL believe that it is possible that Thor is the cause of thunder and lightning”
so you think it’s impossible? Why?
There is a huge difference between ’ possible’ and ‘likely’ or probable’.
So, I repeat, possible? Of course. It’s also possible that a sentient race of green beings live on Mars, in caverns. Do I believe or think that even likely? No. Yet, so far, nobody has proved that is not the case, although it is broadly accepted to be unlikely…
Science avoids absolute claims, positive or negative. All claims are made on the basis of current evidence, which changes constantly.
As far as I’m aware, the only things which may be reasonably claimed to be impossible are logical contradictions, such as say a square circle.
Claiming a thing to be impossible because I lack the intelligence, the knowledge or the imagination is a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. It is especially beloved beloved by Ufologists and the ‘God was an alien’ brigade. It is essentially an argument from absence. IE a thing is false if it has not been proved to be true.
Claiming a thing to be impossible because I lack the intelligence, the knowledge or the imagination is a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. It is especially beloved beloved by Ufologists and the ‘God was an alien’ brigade. It is essentially an argument from absence. IE a thing is false if it has not been proved to be true.
Lois: Did I claim anything to be impossible? You might have misunderstood me. I usually say only that a claim has no evidence supporting it, not that it’s impossible. But if s claim defies what we know about logic, I might have said something is impossible using the rules of logic. Can you quote what I said that makes you think I said that all gods are impossible under all circumstances? I’d be more likely to say they’re unlikely or improbable, but either I could have misspoken or you could have misread my intention.