• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheism, Agnosticism and Theism

Which is more "intelligent"? Atheism, Agnosticism or Theism?


  • Total voters
    25
Then I'm misunderstanding Mistress and Redress, who seem to be saying, "I don't know and I don't care."

Scroll up to post #42, which I think gives a decent explanation of the differences.

What is the pertinent difference in "lack of belief" and "disbelief?"

People who lack belief are generally apathetic and simply don't know or care about the exist of a deity or deities. People who disbelieve will assert that no god exists.
 
That I find fascinating. Truly.

I don't find it all that fascinating, many people are perfectly content going about their own lives without having to worry about a question that can't positively be answered.

Why do you find it fascinating, Dan?
 
And I come at it from a slightly different direction than Redress. It's not that I'm not interested (though nor does it light my fire), it's that I think it's an inherently flawed question with how humanity uses it, and in addition I see absolutely no evidence, and therefore no reason to entertain any known ideas of god.
 
From my earlier linked source:

* "Strong Atheist," or "Positive Atheist," or "Hard Atheist" to refer to a person who asserts that no deity exists.

* "Weak Atheist," "Negative Atheist," "Soft Atheist," "Skeptical Atheist" to refer to a person who simply has no belief in a deity because there are no rational grounds that support his/her/their existence.

* Peter Berger suggested that the term "methodological atheism" be used to describe theologians and historians who study religion as a human creation without declaring whether individual religious beliefs are actually true.

* The terms "Noncoherent Atheist" or "Noncoherentism" have been suggested to cover the belief that one cannot have any meaningful discussions about deities, because there exist no coherent definitions of "god."

* "Apathetic Atheism," or "Apatheism" have been suggested to cover the individual who doesn't really care whether Gods or Goddesses exist. They probably live with the assumption that no deity exists.
Sectarian atheism! GOD I love intellectuals!
 
Sectarian atheism! GOD I love intellectuals!

These are useful distinctions, Dan. Not all atheists are the same or believe the same things, just as not all Christian denominations adhere to the same doctrines. Atheism is simply an umbrella term that has been used to group people of various and disparate beliefs and lump all of them together.
 
So, am I an atheist, agnostic, theist, deist or what? This is important, people... what the hell am I?
 
Then I'm misunderstanding Mistress and Redress, who seem to be saying, "I don't know and I don't care."

The quote again, with Redress's bold print:



What is the pertinent difference in "lack of belief" and "disbelief?"

Not exactly, no. Lack of caring is a byproduct of my atheism, not a part of it. Nor is it that I do not know, it is that I do not have the faith in a god that is a part of being a theist.
 
I don't find it all that fascinating, many people are perfectly content going about their own lives without having to worry about a question that can't positively be answered.

Why do you find it fascinating, Dan?

No curiosity about a spiritual, metaphysical, plane whatsoever. Everything must be concrete and tangible.
 
Sectarian atheism! GOD I love intellectuals!

Everything has multiple layers. If you are trying to compare atheism to religion, please keep in mind there are endless divisions within any philosophical, scientific, etc, concepts as well. This is not unique to religion in any way.

So, am I an atheist, agnostic, theist, deist or what? This is important, people... what the hell am I?

Perhaps a highly stylized version of humanism? I don't know. Up to you.
 
Sectarian atheism! GOD I love intellectuals!

Not really that either. It's not like protestant and catholics. It's the need of people to categorize things that leads to all the extra labels.
 
None of the above. People are intelligent, or stupid. Their religious beliefs don't affect intelligence.
 
These are useful distinctions, Dan. Not all atheists are the same or believe the same things, just as not all Christian denominations adhere to the same doctrines. Atheism is simply an umbrella term that has been used to group people of various and disparate beliefs and lump all of them together.

It's a term they have chosen and are apparently arguing over. You believe or you don't. They're in the dont camp.
 
None of the above. People are intelligent, or stupid. Their religious beliefs don't affect intelligence.

Dammit, now I am not the only one with the right answer...
 
It's a term they have chosen and are apparently arguing over. You believe or you don't. They're in the dont camp.

Very few argue over it.
 
It's a term they have chosen and are apparently arguing over. You believe or you don't. They're in the dont camp.

Sure. There's also different, distinct degrees of "don't believe." That's why they have different names.
 
Everything has multiple layers. If you are trying to compare atheism to religion, please keep in mind there are endless divisions within any philosophical, scientific, etc, concepts as well. This is not unique to religion in any way.



Perhaps a highly stylized version of humanism? I don't know. Up to you.

How can there be layers to disbelief/non-belief? (No, I don't buy the disctinctions. Those seem to be for you guys to kick around with each other.)

I think I prefer O'Hare and Hitchens. They're pretty damn sure and make no bones about it.
 
Which is the most "intelligent" philosophy?

Intelligent means "based in a reasonable application of one's knowledge and understanding of reality".

I ask this because I've been in and seen conversations with atheists and theists who treat their opposites as completely stupid. I genuinely want to know which one of the three people think is more intelligent and why. Other arguments are encouraged as well.

I personally think they're all equally intelligent.

I don't see how one is inherently any more "intelligent" than the other.
 
How can there be layers to disbelief/non-belief? (No, I don't buy the disctinctions. Those seem to be for you guys to kick around with each other.)

I think I prefer O'Hare and Hitchens. They're pretty damn sure and make no bones about it.

So apparently what people think doesn't exist... because you say so?

You've also failed to read (or possibly comprehend) most of the responses made to you, which make it clear dealing with the concept of deities and a particular deity are quite different.

You simply don't want to have a clearer understanding of it - which is your problem, not ours.
 
So apparently what people think doesn't exist... because you say so?

You've also failed to read (or possibly comprehend) most of the responses made to you, which make it clear dealing with the concept of deities and a particular deity are quite different.

You simply don't want to have a clearer understanding of it - which is your problem, not ours.

Before you get too bent out of shape, he has made an attempt to see other points of view, which is rare in threads on topics like this. He is struggling, but he has made an effort. Don't get upset with some one for stepping out of their comfort zone and not seeing things as others do right away.
 
So apparently what people think doesn't exist... because you say so?

You've also failed to read (or possibly comprehend) most of the responses made to you, which make it clear dealing with the concept of deities and a particular deity are quite different.

You simply don't want to have a clearer understanding of it - which is your problem, not ours.

That's true. I like to think of myself as a strong Agno-Atheist.
 
How can there be layers to disbelief/non-belief? (No, I don't buy the disctinctions. Those seem to be for you guys to kick around with each other.)

These have already been explained to you, Dan. They're different. Whether you buy it or not is your business, I guess, but there are concrete distinctions and that's why they are given different names. Atheism isn't simple and easy, and not all atheists think the same way or believe the same things. That's just the reality of it.

I think I prefer O'Hare and Hitchens. They're pretty damn sure and make no bones about it.

There's no rational basis for being sure about ANYTHING when it comes to matters of faith (or un-faith). There is only certainty in knowing that you can't know all the answers.
 
Not understanding is fairly different from merely claiming other points of view can't or don't exist.
 
Back
Top Bottom