Completely agree. Authentic and non-hypocritical practice of faith and values I feel is respectable in most cases.

I feel what people outside of certain Faiths need to realise, is that even within those faiths, consensus isn’t something they have internally. Plenty of internal critics and apologists in every religion.

Take for example; The current Popes attempts to reframe Catholicism into something a bit more neo, tolerant and accepting. Mostly due to an enhancement in the interpretation of Forgiveness by the Pope.

Yes, where internal religion (spirituality) meets religion qua institution.

Institutions invariably seem to drift tragically away from the criteria of their own foundations, don't they?

Indeed, although whether or not this is always tragic is up for debate.

:up:

If anything agnosticism is far more sensible than atheism. If something doesn't exist why bother taking a philosophical stance on it? — Pantagruel

??? Positive atheism is simply the belief that something--namely a god--doesn't exist. So it's no different than you saying "If something doesn't exist" there.

Agnosticism isn’t listed as an option because that’s an answer to a different question. Agnosticism is orthogonal to theism/atheism. Whether or not you think you do or don’t or can or can’t know whether God exists, either you do think he exists, or not. Atheism most broadly defined is just that “or not”: lack of thinking that God exists. Positively thinking that he doesn’t exist is only a subset of that.

On each of these two orthogonal axes there are three positions.

One axis is:
“I believe (God exists)”, theism
“not-(I believe (God exists))”, weak or broad or negative atheism
“I believe not-(God exists)”, strong or narrow or positive atheism

On an orthogonal axis, regardless to those answers:
“I do know”, gnosticism
“I don’t know”, weak agnosticism
“It can’t be known”, strong agnosticism

For this poll, your position on the second axis isn’t important; I’m only interested in whether or not you occupy the first position on the first axis.

Yes but the claim of atheism is analogous to saying "a round square doesn't exist". Everything that doesn't exist because it is 'counter-logical' fits into that category, a very large category indeed. It is begging one very specific question. It exists for one reason and one reason only and that is to contradict theism. Which is simply a poor motive in my estimation. If theism is indeed empty then it is its own best disclaimer.

Yes but the claim of atheism is analogous to saying "a round square doesn't exist". Everything that doesn't exist because it is 'counter-logical' fits into that category, a very large category indeed. It is begging one very specific question. It exists for one reason and one reason only and that is to contradict theism. Which is simply a poor motive in my estimation. If theism is indeed empty then it is its own best disclaimer. — Pantagruel

Well, there would be no need of it without theism, sure. But when someone says, "Blah blah blah is the case" and you're aware of that, and you think that it's a stupid claim, then you don't respond by saying, "Well, I don't know" or "it can't be known whether blah blah blah is the case."

As I tried to say, if someone says, "I like digging holes because the view is so great from down there," then the statement reveals its absurdity. But maybe the person is speaking metaphorically. Maybe he or she really does get a better view, introspectively speaking , from the bottom of a hole. This would be my take on what I would consider to be "credible" theistic claims. Pragmatically speaking, I could accept theism insofar as it endorses moral guidelines that are enacted in actual behaviours. Such a theism would be credible and, if the guidelines were followed, genuine. Pragmatically speaking, any unverifiable 'metaphysical' elements simply don't matter. Pragmatically speaking.

Atheism is about one thing and one thing only, though: whether a god exists.

So when someone claims that one does, and you think it doesn't--and especially if you think the very idea of it is absurd, incoherent, etc., why would you respond with, "Well, I don't know . . ."?

It's nothing about ethics or any other things surrounding the notion of a god.

Actually, I would argue we are talking about what constitutes evidence for the existence of God. Which is what I described.

we are talking about what constitutes evidence for the existence of God. — Pantagruel

We are?

I was addressing your comment that "agnosticism is far more sensible than atheism. If something doesn't exist why bother taking a philosophical stance on it?"

Yes and atheism assumes there is no evidence for God. Which is what seems to be at issue now.

Yes and atheism assumes there is no evidence for God. — Pantagruel

Actually, it does not. Again, atheism is ONLY the lack of a belief in any god, either passively ("weak" or "negative" atheism, where one might simply lack the belief due to having never even had an idea about it) or actively ("strong" or "positive" atheism, where one has a belief a la "There are no gods").

Atheism isn't anything about whether there's evidence for gods.

Of course, positive atheists are likely to think that there isn't anything that they'd consider evidence of gods, but that's not required for them to be atheists, and it's not implied by the term.

Again, do you have a lack of belief in unicorns? Or Santa Claus? The position of weak atheism makes even less sense than strong atheism. At least strong atheism is a self-consistent prejudice.

Unless by weak atheism you mean agnosticism....

Again, do you have a lack of belief in unicorns? Or Santa Claus? — Pantagruel

Yes, of course.

You do not?

Again, do you have a lack of belief in unicorns? Or Santa Claus? — Pantagruel

Yes, of course.

More than that, I not only don't believe that unicorns or Santa Claus exist, I believe that they don't exist.

(Where "believe X" simply means "think X is true", nothing about justification or lack thereof or anything like that).

Of course there would be no reason to assert such disbelief if there weren't anybody asserting belief. I also don't believe that snarfboggles exist (and believe that snarfboggles don't exist), where a snarfboggle is a small, flying, ugly, hairy creature, like a troll crossed with a fairy, most notable for their incessantly running noses, which I just made up right now to use an an example here. I'll probably never have reason to mention my disbelief in snafboggles outside of this thread, but I have it nevertheless. Belief in unicorns, Santa Claus, or especially God is different though, because those are things that other people actually believe in, that I might have reason to state my disagreement with.

Of course, I just don't have a name for the many, many things that I don't believe in. Or espouse my non-belief in them as a significant position.

As I said to Mr. Terrapin, anyone claiming to see snafboggles pretty clearly doesn't require refutation, he refutes himself quite effectively with the claim. People who do good deeds in the name of the belief in a god, well that really isn't obviously contradictory in any way. In fact, it makes some sense.

Depending on how you choose to parse it, agnosticism can be seen as a kind of atheism.

By that I mean, if you phrase it as "not believing in the existence of god" versus "believing in the non-existence of god."

Strictly speaking, if you're unsure, or choosing not to think you know either way or most other permutations of agnosticism, the former definition of atheism applies to you.

I suppose it would be different if you were calling yourself an agnostic because you sometimes believe and sometimes not, but I'm not sure that really counts. That might be more of a theist who has occasional doubts.

Of course, I just don't have a name for the many, many things that I don't believe in. — Pantagruel

Okay, but what does that matter? Picking agnosticism rather than atheism is like saying, "I don't know if I believe in Santa or not" or "It can't be known whether there is a Santa."

It's just that "lack of belief in a God" has another conventional name, too, whereas "lack of belief in Santa Claus" does not.

whereas "lack of belief in Santa Claus" does not. — Terrapin Station

"Adult"

As I said to Mr. Terrapin, anyone claiming to see snafboggles pretty clearly doesn't require refutation, he refutes himself quite effectively with the claim. — Pantagruel

Nevertheless, it's still the case that you don't believe in them, and it's not the case that you don't know if you believe in them.

People who do good deeds in the name of the belief in a god, well that really isn't obviously contradictory in any way. In fact, it makes some sense. — Pantagruel

Sure. It just doesn't have anything to do with atheism versus agnosticism, etc.

Sure. It just doesn't have anything to do with atheism versus agnosticism, etc. — Terrapin Station

No, it has to do with what constitutes evidence for the existence of God, which is the more fundamental question, certainly to the position of atheism (a la Dan Dennett's argument, for example).

I've elaborated the same argument 3 times now, that's all I can muster for this thread....cheers! :)

No, it has to do with what constitutes evidence for the existence of God, which is the more fundamental question, certainly to the position of atheism (a la Dan Dennett's argument, for example). — Pantagruel

I don't know what Dennett argument we'd be talking about, but again, atheism just doesn't have anything to do with claims about evidence. If Dennett said otherwise, he's off base in that.

Re your argument, too, I hadn't read most of the thread, so I'd have to search for what you might be referring to.

don't know what Dennett argument we'd be talking about, but again, atheism just doesn't have anything to do with claims about evidence. If Dennett said otherwise, he's off base in that. — Terrapin Station

How about you actually read Dennett instead of assuming you know what the argument is or what any of the nuance, logic, premises and evidence might be given by Dennett.

https://www.learnreligions.com/atheist-vs-agnostic-whats-the-difference-248040

There Is No Agnostic Vs. Atheist
By now, the difference between being an atheist and an agnostic should be pretty clear and easy to remember. Atheism is about belief or, specifically, what you don't believe. Agnosticism is about knowledge or, specifically, about what you don't know.

An atheist doesn't believe in any gods. An agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not. These can be the exact same person, but need not be.

In the end, the fact of the matter is that a person is not faced with the necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic. Not only can a person be both, but it is, in fact, common for people to be both agnostics and atheists or agnostics and theists.

This is basically your argument correct?
While it states that it is common for people to be agnostic in knowledge but atheist or theist in regards to belief. However, I’d argue that this comes from a complicated misunderstanding of the word “Self” to only interpret a belief in a single self as opposed to a belief in the dialogical self.

I can tell you honestly that a part of me believes in a god, another part of me doesn’t and there is a part in the middle that doesn’t know what to believe.

Depending on who I am talking to I can hypothesise and theorise from either of the two views but my belief is for lack of a better term; in a quantum superposition between the two. Both and neither until the god box is opened and the life box is closed. When the life box closes, I don’t know if I’ll be able to have knowledge of the answer.

I wrote: "I don't know what Dennett argument we'd be talking about"

and you responded with

How about you actually read Dennett instead of assuming you know what the argument is — Mark Dennis

don’t deflect.

Consider your argument voided by the belief in superposition argument. Really can’t be bothered debating you anymore.

This is basically your argument correct? — Mark Dennis

I wasn't really arguing anything. Rather, I keep pointing out that the word "atheist" conventionally refers to one simple thing and ONLY that one simple thing.