Philosophical Atheism - The Logic of Atheism - Atheism vs. Agnosticism Explained!

Atheism vs. Agnosticism Explained!

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive! Atheism addresses belief claims, agnosticism addresses knowledge claims, where knowledge is a subset of belief. Justified true belief is the classical definition of knowledge and the necessary precondition for it: something cannot be known if ...

1. It isn’t true
2. It isn’t believed, and
3. It isn’t justified

(Without any of these three elements, there is no knowledge)

However, justified true belief is not a sufficient criterion to count as knowledge (not enough to constitute knowledge).

What more is needed to complete the definition of knowledge is an open question in philosophy. Knowledge has the following properties:

1. Knowledge is demonstrable

2. Knowledge is testable

3. Knowledge is verifiable

4. Knowledge has measurable accuracy

5. Knowledge is the successful acquisition of truth.

6. If you can’t show it, you don’t know it.

etc.

1. Agnostic Atheist = One does not believe god exists, but does not know (or claim to know) that god does not exist.

2. Agnostic Theist = One believes god exists, but does not know (or claim to know) that god exists.

3. Gnostic Atheist = One who believes there is no god and knows (or claims to know) god does not exist.

4. Gnostic Theist = One who believes god exists and knows (or claim to know) god exists.

Soft Atheism vs. Hard Atheism

Soft Atheism =
I do not believe ‘there is a god.’

Hard Atheism =
I believe ‘there is no god.”

In addition to disbelieving there is a god, I go one step further and claim that in fact ‘there is NO god’ - which leads me to hard atheism. Depending on the god claim and the definition of knowledge used, I also qualify as a Gnostic Atheist (based on a reasonable confidence level or maximal certainty.)

The set of hard atheists is a subset of soft atheists.I claim there is no god, but that is not necessary for atheism in general. Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims as unsupported by the evidence, therefore theistic claims do not warrant belief. Atheism is the lack of theism; theism being the belief there is a god. So, atheism is disbelief or failure to be convinced that god exists. Not all atheists assert ‘there is no god’. It is only necessary that an atheist disbelieve there is a god, and claiming “god does not exist” is not required for someone to be an atheist. Of course, believing god does not exist also implies the lack of a belief that god exists. Among the people who lack belief in a god, only a subset has the belief that no god exists.

Theism and atheism address belief that god exists. Gnosticism and agnosticism address knowledge that god exists.

Gnostic = knowing or claiming to know that god exists

Agnostic = not knowing or not claiming to know whether god exists, or claiming god’s existence is unknowable.

Most theists are gnostic.
Most atheists are agnostic.

For god propositions which are unfalsifiable, I do not make knowledge claims, and merely disbelieve them due to insufficient evidence. Theists assert there is a god. They carry the burden of proof. I am rationally justified in disbelieving god’s existence until such time as god has been demonstrated to exist.

Nothing is presumed to exist until such time as something has been demonstrated to exist - this is how I approach existential claims. The burden of proof is on the claimant, regardless of whether the claim is a positive claim or a negative claim. However, there is no burden of proof for one who rejects a claim.

In court, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution, which has the burden of proof, which must be met before the defendant is found guilty.

I consider god not guilty of existing.
In fact, I go one step further and assert that god is in fact innocent of existing.

I am an atheist primarily as a rational consequence of applying my skepticism to god claims. I am not convinced there is a god because theists have not met their burden of proof!

How to assess propositions re: god’s existence...

Let X = God exists
Then ~X = God does not exist

There are only two possible outcomes: existence and non-existence. If existence is the case, then non-existence is not, and vice versa.

We do not assess the truth value of a proposition like so:

Positive proposition [+]: God exists {believe}
Negative proposition [-]: God does not exist {believe}

Instead, we assign belief or disbelief to a single proposition separately, as follows: by entertaining each of the positive and negative claims separately, like so:

[+]. Positive proposition: God exists.

There are only two possible belief positions here: one of belief (accepting the proposition as true) or disbelief (not accepting the proposition as true).

[-]. Negative proposition: God does not exist.

Again, one can only assign belief or disbelief. One cannot both believe and disbelieve a proposition X. One can also not neither believe nor disbelieve a proposition X. One has to choose either belief or disbelief, not neither, and not both! There is no middle option between belief in a proposition and disbelief.

In fact there either is a god or there isn’t. There are only two possible outcomes in reality. However, this true dichotomy (a set of only two options which exhaust all possibilities) refers to the facts of existence (ontology), not what we believe about them (epistemology). When assigning belief or disbelief to each positive and negative propositions, we end up with four possible belief positions:

[+]. God exists:

- I believe: carries the burden of proof!
- I do not believe: the default position in the absence of sufficient evidence to warrant belief; has no burden of proof!

[-]. God does not exist

- I believe: carries the burden of proof!
- I do not believe: has no burden of proof, and is in fact the default position.

Nothing is presumed to exist that does not have sufficient evidence indicating its existence warranting belief. We suspend belief in a proposition (ie. disbelieve) until it has been demonstrated to be the case. The burden of proof is on the claimant (regardless of whether the proposition is positive or negative).

This is why...

Hard atheism = I believe god does not exist = has the burden of proof! because it is an assertion of god’s non-existence. The hard atheist must meet his burden of proof in order for his belief position to become believable.

Soft atheism = I do not believe god exists = has no burden of proof; is in fact the default position! Notice that there is no burden of proof for rejecting a proposition! The burden of proof is always on the claimant! and not for those who persist in disbelief in the absence of sufficient evidentiary warrant to accept the proposition.

X = God exists
~X = God does not exist

1. I believe X (is true)
2. I do not believe X (is true)
3. I believe ~X (is true)
4. I do not believe ~X (is true)

[Note: ~X = not-X]

According to the logical absolutes (the laws of thought): Identity, Non-Contradiction, Excluded Middle:

X = X <=> X =|= ~X.
If X is true, then ~X is false.
If X is false, then ~X is true.
Either X is true or ~X.
X and ~X cannot both be true.
X and ~X cannot neither be true.

Thus,

(I) I believe X (god exists)
(II) I do not believe X (god exists)
(III) I believe ~X (god does not exist)
(IV) I do not believe ~X (god does not exist)

Note!

The set (I) is not identical to set (IV).

That is, saying “I believe god exists” is not the same as saying “I do NOT believe god does NOT exist”. The former is an acceptance of a positive claim; the latter is a rejection of a negative claim.

The set (II) is not identical to set (III).

That is, saying “I do not believe god exists is not the same as saying “I believe god does not exist”. The former is a rejection of a positive claim; the latter is an acceptance of a negative claim.

Clarification:

Within the set of people who do not believe ‘god exists’, is a subset of people who believe ‘god does not exist.’

Examples to drive the point home!

Example 1. Flip a coin!

The only two possible outcomes are “heads” and “tails”. However, belief is not limited to only these two options:

- I believe “heads”
- I do not believe “heads”
- I believe “tails”
- I do not believe “tails”

In the absence of sufficient information to assess the probability of “heads” and “tails”, it is conceivable that one could find himself in no better position than to disbelieve either claim:

Claim 1. The outcome is “heads”
Claim 2. The outcome is “tails”

One can be forced by rationality to disbelieve both possible options (due to insufficient information to assess probability), even though one of these options has to actually be the case!

Not believing the coin is going to land “heads” is not necessarily equivalent to believing the coin is going to land “tails”.

Example 2. To be odd or not to be odd!

The number of blades of grass in my backyard is either even or odd. If the number is not even, it must be odd (and vice versa). Here are the possible belief positions:

The only two possible outcomes in reality:

Claim A. The number is “even”
Claim B. The number is “odd”

The four possible belief positions:

- I believe “even”
- I do not believe “even”
- I believe “odd”
- I do not believe “odd”

In the absence of sufficient evidence warranting belief on either proposition one can be forced by rationality to disbelieve either one of only two possible options: one may be rationally justified to disbelieve either claim (even though we know, one of them has to actually be the case).

Notice again!

Not being convinced the number is even is not the same as being convinced the number is odd. One can disbelieve both the claim that the number is even as well as the claim that the number is odd! because not being determined to be true is not equal to being determined to be false.

Example 3. The Courtroom Analogy

Either the defendant is guilty (committed the crime) or the defendant is innocent (did not commit the crime). However, failing to find the defendant guilty does not in any way establish the defendant’s innocence!

In court, we assess the proposition
“the defendant is guilty”, due to

- the presumption of innocence until proven guilty,

- the burden of proof being on the prosecution,

- the standard of proof being beyond a reasonable doubt.

Proposition: “The defendant is guilty”.

The only two possible belief positions for this single proposition are belief (affirmation, acceptance) and disbelief (denial, rejection).

- Belief, if the defendant has been found guilty

- Disbelief, if the defendant had not been found guilty (does not necessarily mean innocent)

The set of people who are in fact innocent is a subset within the set of people who have not been found guilty.

Similarly, the set of people who believe ‘god does not exist’ is a subset within the set of people who do not believe ‘god exists.’

Among those who have failed to be proven guilty, there are those who are in fact innocent (a subset of the “not guilty”).

Similarly,

“I believe god does not exist” implies
“I do not believe god exists”.

However,

“I do not believe god exists” does not (necessarily) imply that “god does not exist.”

Just as not being found guilty does not imply innocence, not being convinced that god exists does not imply being convinced of god’s non-existence.

Atheism vs. Agnosticism Explained!

(i) Gnostic Atheist = I believe god does not exist, and I know or claim to know it.

(ii) Agnostic Atheist = I do not believe there is a god, but do not know or claim to know god does not exist.

(iii) Gnostic Theist = I believe god exists, and I know or claim to know god exists.

(iv) Agnostic Theist = I believe god exists, but do not know it or claim to know it.


Hard vs. Soft Atheism Explained!

Hard Atheism = I believe there is no god

Soft Atheism = I do not believe there is a god

The Courtroom Analogy:

1. God has been found ‘guilty of existing’ {analogous to: I believe god exists}

2. God has not been found to be ‘guilty of existing’ {analogous to: I do not believe god exists}

3. God has been found innocent of existing {analogous to: I believe god does not exist}.

4. God has not been found innocent of existing {analogous to: I do not believe god does not exist}.

The defendant is in fact either guilty (committed the crime) or innocent (did not commit the crime): these are the only two options, however there are four belief positions here:

1. The defendant has been found guilty (GUILTY).

2. The defendant has not been found guilty (NOT GUILTY).

3. The defendant has been found to be innocent (INNOCENT).

4. The defendant has not been found innocent (NOT INNOCENT).

Not being able to prove the defendant is guilty does not establish the innocence of the defendant!

The set of the “not guilty” includes a subset of “the innocent”: among the people who have not been found guilty (NOT GUILTY), there is a subset of people who are in fact innocent (INNOCENT)

Hard Atheism (Strong Atheism) vs. Soft Atheism (Weak Atheism)

Soft atheism = I do not believe god exists (rejecting a positive claim)

Hard atheism = I believe god does not exist (accepting a negative claim)

“I do not believe god exists” (soft or weak atheism) =|= “I believe god does not exist”, (hard or strong atheism)

Every proposition X has its negation ~X ( = non-X)

Let: X = god exists
Then: ~X = god does not exist

X can either be true or false according to the principle of bivalence.

Either X is true or ~X is true, according to the law of excluded middle.

X and ~X cannot both be true according to the law of non-contradiction.

X and ~X cannot neither be true according to the law of excluded middle.

For the true dichotomy:

1. God exists: (believe or disbelieve)
2. God does not exist (believe or disbelieve)

Notice:
‘I do not believe X’ does not necessarily imply ‘I believe ~X

Given the proposition X:

One can only either believe X (accept X as true) or disbelieve (fail to accept X as true).

For the positive proposition:
[+]. God exists.

one can either believe or disbelieve

For the negative proposition
[-]. God does not exist.

one can either believe or disbelieve

We do *not* assess the positive and negative propositions simultaneously as follows:

<+> God exists! - {believe}
<-> God does not exist! - {believe}

The Courtroom Analogy

Guilt and innocence refer to whether the defendant in fact committed the crime or not, respectively.

But we do not assess propositions in pairs simultaneously, like so:

1. The defendant is guilty {believe}
2. The defendant is innocent {believe}

Rather, we only assess a single proposition at a time, to which we assign either belief or disbelief, like so:

P 1. The defendant is guilty

(i) Assigning belief P1: the defendant is found guilty.

Or

(ii) Assigning disbelief to P1: the defendant is found not guilty.

Likewise

P 2. The defendant is innocent

(iii) Assigning belief to P2:
the defendant is found innocent

Or

(iv) Assigning disbelief to P2:
the defendant is found not innocent.

Failing to find the defendant guilty does not establish innocence. Failing to establish innocence does does not establish guilt.

The set of the innocent is a subset of the not guilty. Among the people who have not been found guilty, there are innocents, but these sets are not identical!

The set of hard atheists is a subset of soft atheists. Among the people who do not believe god exists, is a subset of those who believe god does not exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petros Agapetos

Atheism vs. Agnosticism Explained!

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive! Atheism addresses belief claims, agnosticism addresses knowledge claims, where knowledge is a subset of belief. Justified true belief is the classical definition of knowledge and the necessary precondition for it: something cannot be known if ...

1. It isn’t true
2. It isn’t believed, and
3. It isn’t justified

(Without any of these three elements, there is no knowledge)

However, justified true belief is not a sufficient criterion to count as knowledge (not enough to constitute knowledge).

What more is needed to complete the definition of knowledge is an open question in philosophy. Knowledge has the following properties:

1. Knowledge is demonstrable

2. Knowledge is testable

3. Knowledge is verifiable

4. Knowledge has measurable accuracy

5. Knowledge is the successful acquisition of truth.

6. If you can’t show it, you don’t know it.

etc.

1. Agnostic Atheist = One does not believe god exists, but does not know (or claim to know) that god does not exist.

2. Agnostic Theist = One believes god exists, but does not know (or claim to know) that god exists.

3. Gnostic Atheist = One who believes there is no god and knows (or claims to know) god does not exist.

4. Gnostic Theist = One who believes god exists and knows (or claim to know) god exists.

{Soft Atheism vs. Hard Atheism}

Soft Atheism =
I do NOT believe ‘there is a god.’

Hard Atheism =
I believe ‘there is NO god.”

In addition to disbelieving there is a god, I go one step further and claim that in fact ‘there is NO god’ - which leads me to hard atheism. Depending on the god claim and the definition of knowledge used, I also qualify as a Gnostic Atheist (based on a reasonable confidence level or maximal certainty.)

The set of hard atheists is a subset of soft atheists.I claim there is no god, but that is not necessary for atheism in general. Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims as unsupported by the evidence, therefore theistic claims do not warrant belief. Atheism is the lack of theism; theism being the belief there is a god. So, atheism is disbelief or failure to be convinced that god exists. Not all atheists assert ‘there is no god’. It is only necessary that an atheist disbelieve there is a god, and claiming “god does not exist” is not required for someone to be an atheist. Of course, believing god does not exist also implies the lack of a belief that god exists. Among the people who lack belief in a god, only a subset has the belief that no god exists.

Theism and atheism address belief that god exists. Gnosticism and agnosticism address knowledge that god exists.

Gnostic = knowing or claiming to know that god exists

Agnostic = not knowing or not claiming to know whether god exists, or claiming god’s existence is unknowable.

Most theists are gnostic.
Most atheists are agnostic.

For god propositions which are unfalsifiable, I do not make knowledge claims, and merely disbelieve them due to insufficient evidence. Theists assert there is a god. They carry the burden of proof. I am rationally justified in disbelieving god’s existence until such time as god has been demonstrated to exist.

Nothing is presumed to exist until such time as something has been demonstrated to exist - this is how I approach existential claims. The burden of proof is on the claimant, regardless of whether the claim is a positive claim or a negative claim. However, there is no burden of proof for one who rejects a claim.

In court, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution, which has the burden of proof, which must be met before the defendant is found guilty.

I consider god not guilty of existing.
In fact, I go one step further and assert that god is in fact innocent of existing.

I am an atheist primarily as a rational consequence of applying my skepticism to god claims. I am not convinced there is a god because theists have not met their burden of proof!

---

Damn , I spent an hour replying to this but the forum lost it because it logged me out when I pressed the 'go advanced ' feature and the auto-save reply only remembered a portion of it. Sorry, Borham but I am not spending another hour replying :P

Philosophy of Atheism

Weak Atheism = I do not believe there is a god.
Strong Atheism = I believe there is no god.

What is the difference between weak atheism and strong atheism?
Is there a distinction without a difference?
Or are they different in meaning?
If so, how so; if not, why not?