Is athistiam a Religon?

[Jane_the_Bane]

ghazirizvi, are you honestly saying that you can't see the dilemma that the Abrahamaic notion of a personal, more or less anthropomorphic god creates?

Then let me clue you in:

There's a perfect, omnipotent and benevolent entity.
It sets out to create a universe.
Afterwards, it sees that this creation is good.

Then something happens: either it's one of the deity's creatures messing it all up, or else a secret ploy of the deity itself, but whichever way, all of a sudden the Creation isn't perfect any longer, but marred by something that we'd call "evil".

Now tell me, how is this reconcilable with the notion of omnipotence and benevolence?
NB: The deity is also omniscient, and thus fully aware of all future events that were to happen in the specific creation that it was about to bring forth.
So how could the Fall take place against the deity's will? And if it was its will, how could it be called benevolent?

With great power comes great responsibility, like Uncle Ben said.
So this omnipotent, benevolent good and perfect deity supposedly exists, and yet there are earthquakes, the ebola virus, tapeworms and a thousand other nuisances out there that are clearly not "good".

Thus, it stands to reason that the aforementioned deity doesn't exist, because it doesn't line up with what we may perceive in the world that surrounds us. The death of a single innocent child dispells the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god.

 

[ghazirizvi]

I've never seen a contradiction between atheism and agnosticism. I'm an agnostic atheist myself. I don't know if God exists but until I see evidence of him, I'm not going to believe. Likewise I don't believe in Bunnies on Mars or in Snagblortsicans. If we had to disprove the existance of every concept man can invent we would never get anywhere.
I cannot disprove the existance of God any more than I can disprove the existance of Carl Sagan invisible Dragon but that doesn't mean I should believe in them.

Agnostic Athiesims is one of the biggest lies out there propogated by athiests probably to justify thier irrational belief. I will never understand how you can have doubt and certainty in your mind at the same time.

Belief: You are certain of something whether it is true or not.
Knowledge: You know something to be true.

You are rejecting God with a certainty (belief) yet at the same time acknowledging the possibility he exists.

And people dont have to disprove every concept man invents only acknowledge the possibility of the veracity of his claim.

And no one is asking you to believe in God only acknowledge the possibility he exists if you are going to call yourself an agnostic.

 

[ghazirizvi]

ghazirizvi, are you honestly saying that you can't see the dilemma that the Abrahamaic notion of a personal, more or less anthropomorphic god creates?

No.

Then let me clue you in:

If you wish.

There's a perfect, omnipotent and benevolent entity.
It sets out to create a universe.

Ok.

Afterwards, it sees that this creation is good.

What do you mean by "good" ?

Then something happens: either it's one of the deity's creatures messing it all up, or else a secret ploy of the deity itself, but whichever way, all of a sudden the Creation isn't perfect any longer, but marred by something that we'd call "evil".

The creation is created in the most perfect way, however that doesnt mean the creation is perfect or "good". Satan is part of God's creation so contrary to what you may believe, Satan doesnt disfiguire anything.

Now tell me, how is this reconcilable with the notion of omnipotence and benevolence?
NB: The deity is also omniscient, and thus fully aware of all future events that were to happen in the specific creation that it was about to bring forth.
So how could the Fall take place against the deity's will? And if it was its will, how could it be called benevolent?

Firstly you just like Asimov are restricting God to a timeline.
Secondly it was God's will that Adam was decieved by Satan.

002.021
YUSUFALI: O ye people! Adore your Guardian-Lord, who created you and those who came before you, that ye may have the chance to learn righteousness;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

002.030
YUSUFALI: Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: "I know what ye know not."

002.031
YUSUFALI: And He taught Adam the names of all things; then He placed them before the angels, and said: "Tell me the names of these if ye are right."

002.032
YUSUFALI: They said: "Glory to Thee, of knowledge We have none, save what Thou Hast taught us: In truth it is Thou Who art perfect in knowledge and wisdom."

002.033
YUSUFALI: He said: "O Adam! Tell them their names." When he had told them, Allah said: "Did I not tell you that I know the secrets of heaven and earth, and I know what ye reveal and what ye conceal?"

002.034
YUSUFALI: And behold, We said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam" and they bowed down. Not so Iblis: he refused and was haughty: He was of those who reject Faith.

002.035
YUSUFALI: We said: "O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden; and eat of the bountiful things therein as (where and when) ye will; but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression."

002.036
YUSUFALI: Then did Satan make them slip from the (garden), and get them out of the state (of felicity) in which they had been. We said: "Get ye down, all (ye people), with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be your dwelling-place and your means of livelihood - for a time."

002.037
YUSUFALI: Then learnt Adam from his Lord words of inspiration, and his Lord Turned towards him; for He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.

With great power comes great responsibility, like Uncle Ben said.
So this omnipotent, benevolent good and perfect deity supposedly exists, and yet there are earthquakes, the ebola virus, tapeworms and a thousand other nuisances out there that are clearly not "good".

These things are but tests for mankind. And who ever said creation was "good" (whatever that means).

Thus, it stands to reason that the aforementioned deity doesn't exist, because it doesn't line up with what we may perceive in the world that surrounds us. The death of a single innocent child dispells the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god.

The death of a single child does nothing to the notion of God because God tests all people

 

[MewtwoX]

Agnostic Athiesims is one of the biggest lies out there propogated by athiests probably to justify thier irrational belief. I will never understand how you can have doubt and certainty in your mind at the same time.

Belief: You are certain of something whether it is true or not.
Knowledge: You know something to be true.

You are rejecting God with a certainty (belief) yet at the same time acknowledging the possibility he exists.

And people dont have to disprove every concept man invents only acknowledge the possibility of the veracity of his claim.

And no one is asking you to believe in God only acknowledge the possibility he exists if you are going to call yourself an agnostic.

Except that the notions of belief are based on a belief in the existence of deities. If you believe that deities exist, then you are a Theist. If you don't, then you are an Atheist. Whether you make the further claim that no gods exist is a difference between Weak and Strong Atheism.

Being an Agnostic Atheist is one who does not make a positive claim on god's existence, while acknowledging that evidence of gods cannot be found (either just now, or forever).

The idea of labelling it a lie by Atheists makes absolutely no sense, given the philosophical basis behind it and the fact that Agnostic can apply to both Theist and Atheist. It sounds like your beef is with the "Weak/Strong" differences within Atheism.

The death of a single child does nothing to the notion of God because God tests all people.

There's no need for testing, when a god would be omniscient. This only becomes a problem for a god's omniscience or omnibenevolence.

 

[Asimov]

Fair enough except for the definition for Knoledge. It should read....
Knowledge: Proven belief.
Justifications arent always right, even for true things.

What do you mean by proven?

" To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence."

Hm, sounds like justification.

You are doing the same thing with this argument that Illuminatus tried to do (i.e. Occams Razor). Please read his conversation with me for a rebuttal (if its still not clear, I will explain further).

And you don't even provide a link for me to see? There's pages of conversation here, dude.

This is ridiculous. How about the universe, our existence. For that is what the (for the sake of argument) "theory of God" tries to explain. If however you are talking about evidence which proves God's existence then I doubt you will find much which can be objectively conclusive. It is here that I must also point out no evidence to the contrary.

You can't have evidence to the contrary. That would be negative evidence...and that doesn't exist. You can only give reasons to the contrary.

What about the universe is evidence for God?

What is the "Theory of God"? Please syllogistically explain it.

You misunderstand God (indeed we all do) because you are limiting him to a timeline yet at the same time you are claiming his omnipotence.

What does that mean?

What is the problem of moral responsibility ?

You're not a Christian so why bother?

Firstly this is a purely subjective matter (I think) unless there are proven facts which are contradicted in the bible.

Which there are.

The argument from moral responsibility stems from the idea that Adam and Even had no concept of Good and Evil and therefore had no moral responsibility to behave morally. Essentially, they were punished for disobedience when they had no concept of disobedience.

Omniscience and Free Will are incompatible because an action is free if and only if the subject could have done otherwise. Since God knows the future actions of all humans, the future actions of all humans are facts. These facts cannot be changed since that would imply that God is not omniscient.

Since all future human actions are facts, humans have to do a specific future action and are not free to do otherwise.

Secondly the bible isnt the only holy book belonging to an Abrahamic Religion (there is also Tora [unless you count it in the bible] and Quran).

Really, well then I guess you guys are all errant.

I dont understand the conflict. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Again I dont understand the conflict.

Well, if you believe that God is omniscient, then you cannot believe that God transcends Creation, because he would have to be a part of it.

And if you believe that God is an all-Good being, and that God is omnipresent, and you believe that Evil exists...then God must exist where evil exists and be a part of that evil. Yet if God is all-good, he can't be a part of evil.

God is not part nor does he exist in his creation from an Islamic viewpoint. So this poses no problem for me.

Really? So you don't believe that God is omnipresent then? Why didnt you say so instead of making me write all of that.

 

[Asimov]

The creation is created in the most perfect way, however that doesnt mean the creation is perfect or "good". Satan is part of God's creation so contrary to what you may believe, Satan doesnt disfiguire anything.

So you're saying that God perfectly created the universe flawed? Mhm...

These things are but tests for mankind. And who ever said creation was "good" (whatever that means).

Morally and Aesthetically good. Pleasing to the eye of God and in line with his prescription of morality.

The death of a single child does nothing to the notion of God because God tests all people

Why does he test all people when he's omniscient? That's redundant.

 

[AlanGurvey]

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Religion

b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural

Atheism is a lack of a religious viewpoint.As one person said, if Atheism is a religion, bald is a hair color

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

So the baby is tested by being brought to a slow and painful death?
Abomination.

So Adam was deliberately deceived, so that God might justify His cruelties, punishing his sentient creation for doing *exactly* what He wanted them to do?
Abomination.

And what is this sadistic "test" supposed to prove? God is all-knowing. He needs no test to figure out what's in a man's heart. He knows it long before it ever happens.

He knows exactly what would be necessary to keep the suicide bomber from blowing up the schoolbus. The right word, whispered in his ear at the right moment, a flicker of doubt crossing the back of his mind, a glimpse of empathy with all the kids in the bus - none of this is beyond God's power, and none of this interferes with free will, and yet the bus is blasted to smithereens.
Abomination.

 

[ghazirizvi]

Except that the notions of belief are based on a belief in the existence of deities. If you believe that deities exist, then you are a Theist. If you don't, then you are an Atheist

Agreed.

Whether you make the further claim that no gods exist is a difference between Weak and Strong Atheism.

This is the sentence which confuses me in light of your previous statement. You said previously....

If you believe that deities exist, then you are a Theist. If you don't, then you are an Atheist

Then how can you say the difference between Weak Atheism and Strong Atheism is that no God exists when common to all Atheist belief is, as you said that "no deity exists".

Being an Agnostic Atheist is one who does not make a positive claim on god's existence, while acknowledging that evidence of gods cannot be found (either just now, or forever).

I would say that's the definition for Agnostic with one missing element (i.e. that evidence for god's non-existence cannot be found).

Or is an Agnostic Atheist one who believes that evidence for God cannot be found but evidence denying the existence of God can be found ?

The idea of labelling it a lie by Atheists makes absolutely no sense, given the philosophical basis behind it and the fact that Agnostic can apply to both Theist and Atheist. It sounds like your beef is with the "Weak/Strong" differences within Atheism.

I dont understand the philisophical basis behind it. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Also I dont understand how the term Agnostic can be applied to thiest and athiest alike. No one has yet substantially demonstrated how a person can have doubt and certainty in thier mind at the same time which is effectively what an "Agnostic Athiest" must endure. Again I dont see any "Weak Athiesm" or any "Strong Atheism", it just doesnt make sense when fundamental to all Atheist belief is that God doesnt exist.

There's no need for testing, when a god would be omniscient. This only becomes a problem for a god's omniscience or omnibenevolence.

The test is not for God its for mankinds own benifit....

002.021
YUSUFALI: O ye people! Adore your Guardian-Lord, who created you and those who came before you, that ye may have the chance to learn righteousness;

That is why in Islamic Philosiphy one of the most important ways a muslim can serve God is by serving his fellow man.

 

[ghazirizvi]

What do you mean by proven?

" To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence."

Hm, sounds like justification.

If thats what you mean by justification then fine by me. So when you say "lack of evidence constitutes a justified belief that an object doesnt exist", then what you have really meant is that you have established the belief to be the truth ?

If thats the case then I can provide a counter-example. See the bbc article.

And you don't even provide a link for me to see? There's pages of conversation here, dude.

Please see posts 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36 and 38.

You can't have evidence to the contrary. That would be negative evidence...and that doesn't exist. You can only give reasons to the contrary.

I know. If you wish you can remove it as one of my reasons, it changes nothing though.

What about the universe is evidence for God?

What is the "Theory of God"? Please syllogistically explain it.

Well we have all these unique phenomena and unexplained mysteries (e.g. why have humans tended to believe in a supernatural power throughout human history ? How was the universe created ? Why were humans created ? How can cells combined become cognitive ?) and the only theory which answers all these questions is the existence of God. That is what I was referring to as the "theory of God" because I cant very well objectively state to you that the reason for this is the existence of God only that the reason for these "mysteries" may be the existence of God.

You misunderstand God (indeed we all do) because you are limiting him to a timeline yet at the same time you are claiming his omnipotence.

What does that mean?

The reason you see a conflict between free will and omnipotence of God is because you are thinking in terms of time. You are thinking the God of the past is bound to commit an action because he knows it will occur in the future. You cant think in terms of time when you speak about God because for all we know God could exist in a "moment" (whatever that means).

You're not a Christian so why bother?

Then why list it if you arent gonna bother explaining it to me or if its irrelevant to me because I am a muslim. Because it is to a muslim you are trying to demonstrate the non-existence of God.

Which there are.

Ill take your word on that. But I am sure many Christians would disagree.

The argument from moral responsibility stems from the idea that Adam and Even had no concept of Good and Evil and therefore had no moral responsibility to behave morally. Essentially, they were punished for disobedience when they had no concept of disobedience.

This is ludicrous. Who says that Adam and Eve had no concept of disobedience ? I doubt they even say that in Christianity.

007.019
YUSUFALI: "O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden, and enjoy (its good things) as ye wish: but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression."


YUSUFALI: Then began Satan to whisper suggestions to them, bringing openly before their minds all their shame that was hidden from them (before): he said: "Your Lord only forbade you this tree, lest ye should become angels or such beings as live for ever."


007.021
YUSUFALI: And he swore to them both, that he was their sincere adviser.

007.022
YUSUFALI: So by deceit he brought about their fall: when they tasted of the tree, their shame became manifest to them, and they began to sew together the leaves of the garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: "Did I not forbid you that tree, and tell you that Satan was an avowed enemy unto you?"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

007.023
YUSUFALI: They said: "Our Lord! We have wronged our own souls: If thou forgive us not and bestow not upon us Thy Mercy, we shall certainly be lost."

How could they admit that they had wronged [because they disobeyed - see previous verse] when they had no concept of disobedience ?

Omniscience and Free Will are incompatible because an action is free if and only if the subject could have done otherwise. Since God knows the future actions of all humans, the future actions of all humans are facts. These facts cannot be changed since that would imply that God is not omniscient.

Since all future human actions are facts, humans have to do a specific future action and are not free to do otherwise.

If you say so. But I dont see how this adds to the discussion because we are talking about the non-existence of God. If God doesnt exist and humans have free will then how does it substantiate the claim that God doesnt exist ?

Really, well then I guess you guys are all errant.

Thankfully you saying so does not make your statment right.

Well, if you believe that God is omniscient, then you cannot believe that God transcends Creation, because he would have to be a part of it.

How can God not exist in creation and not be omniscient ? Is a criteria for omniscience of God is to exist in his creation ?

And if you believe that God is an all-Good being, and that God is omnipresent, and you believe that Evil exists...then God must exist where evil exists and be a part of that evil. Yet if God is all-good, he can't be a part of evil.

No we dont believe that.

Really? So you don't believe that God is omnipresent then? Why didnt you say so instead of making me write all of that.

My apologies.

 

[ghazirizvi]

So you're saying that God perfectly created the universe flawed? Mhm...

My wording in that paragraph was a bit unclear. What I am saying is that God created the creation perfectly but he set upon it bounds and limits.

Morally and Aesthetically good. Pleasing to the eye of God and in line with his prescription of morality.

Ok.

Why does he test all people when he's omniscient? That's redundant.

002.021
YUSUFALI: O ye people! Adore your Guardian-Lord, who created you and those who came before you, that ye may have the chance to learn righteousness;

God doesnt test humans to see what they will do. This test is meant for the benifit of humans not God.

 

[ghazirizvi]

So the baby is tested by being brought to a slow and painful death?
Abomination.

So Adam was deliberately deceived, so that God might justify His cruelties, punishing his sentient creation for doing *exactly* what He wanted them to do?
Abomination.

And what is this sadistic "test" supposed to prove? God is all-knowing. He needs no test to figure out what's in a man's heart. He knows it long before it ever happens.

He knows exactly what would be necessary to keep the suicide bomber from blowing up the schoolbus. The right word, whispered in his ear at the right moment, a flicker of doubt crossing the back of his mind, a glimpse of empathy with all the kids in the bus - none of this is beyond God's power, and none of this interferes with free will, and yet the bus is blasted to smithereens.
Abomination.

This world is a test for mankind. Perhaps the suffering which exists today is to show humans attributes such as compassion, mercy, kindness, love, courage, fortitude - things which might not have been brought to light in an otherwise utopian paradise. Now I dont claim to speak for God or his reasons for our existence but I am sure there is a very valid reason for everything a just God would do - even if we cant comprehend or know those reasons yet.

 

[TooCurious]

Then how can you say the difference between Weak Atheism and Strong Atheism is that no God exists when common to all Atheist belief is, as you said that "no deity exists"

I would say that's the definition for Agnostic with one missing element (i.e. that evidence for god's non-existence cannot be found).

Or is an Agnostic Atheist one who believes that evidence for God cannot be found but evidence denying the existence of God can be found ?

I dont understand the philisophical basis behind it. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Also I dont understand how the term Agnostic can be applied to thiest and athiest alike. No one has yet substantially demonstrated how a person can have doubt and certainty in thier mind at the same time which is effectively what an "Agnostic Athiest" must endure. Again I dont see any "Weak Athiesm" or any "Strong Atheism", it just doesnt make sense when fundamental to all Atheist belief is that God doesnt exist.

All right, the difference between agnosticism, weak atheism, and strong atheism...

Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge: "I do not think it is possible to know for certain whether any gods exist." I agree with this statement; I am agnostic.

Atheism is a statement about belief: "I do not hold the belief that any gods exist." I agree with this statement; I am an atheist.

One can believe something to be true without having certain knowledge of that proposition's veracity. Thus, one can be agnostic ("I do not think it is possible to know for certain whether any gods exist") and also be either theistic ("I believe one or more gods exist, despite being unable to know for certain whether this is true") or atheistic ("I do not believe that any gods exist, though I am unable to know for certain whether there are any").

The difference between "weak atheism" and "strong atheism" is the difference between not accepting a proposition and affirming its opposite.

Weak atheism: "I do not profess a belief in the existence of any gods."

Strong atheism: "I assert that no gods exist."

I hope that helps to clarify matters. For the record, I am an agnostic weak-atheist.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

This world is a test for mankind. Perhaps the suffering which exists today is to show humans attributes such as compassion, mercy, kindness, love, courage, fortitude - things which might not have been brought to light in an otherwise utopian paradise. Now I dont claim to speak for God or his reasons for our existence but I am sure there is a very valid reason for everything a just God would do - even if we cant comprehend or know those reasons yet.

OR - it might just show that the personal deity of the Abrahamaic religions is not a very good thesis with regards to describing reality, being in need of such rationalizations.

 

[ghazirizvi]

All right, the difference between agnosticism, weak atheism, and strong atheism...

Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge: "I do not think it is possible to know for certain whether any gods exist." I agree with this statement; I am agnostic.

Atheism is a statement about belief: "I do not hold the belief that any gods exist." I agree with this statement; I am an atheist.

Thank you. Someone finally understands the difference between knowing and believing (man this starting to sound like Morpheus's little talk to Neo).

One can believe something to be true without having certain knowledge of that proposition's veracity. Thus, one can be agnostic ("I do not think it is possible to know for certain whether any gods exist") and also be either theistic ("I believe one or more gods exist, despite being unable to know for certain whether this is true") or atheistic ("I do not believe that any gods exist, though I am unable to know for certain whether there are any").

Alas not again. The knowledge which you so candidly speak of here and which agnosticism is based on is the proposition that it is objectively impossible to know the existence of God. But wait a minute we can believe the existence of God at the same time knowing that he might or might not exist. Dont you see a fundamental difference in the line of thought ?

Unless someone explains to me how a person can have doubt and certainty in thier minds at the same time, this discussion is going nowhere fast.

So to me when a person says that he knows its impossible to determine whether God exists or not yet he believes that God doesnt exist then he is a liar.

The difference between "weak atheism" and "strong atheism" is the difference between not accepting a proposition and affirming its opposite.

Weak atheism: "I do not profess a belief in the existence of any gods."

Strong atheism: "I assert that no gods exist."

Fair enough. However my definition of Athiesm and I know there are many different ones out there is the "rejection of the existence of God".

Why dont people just call Weak Athiest, Agnostics then ? I personally think its ridiculous to try and umbrella agnostic belief under athiest belief by labelling it as weak atheism. I think people do it to justify the irrationality of the definition true athiesm (by which I mean strong athiesm) carries if you believe in it as a result of objective, rational and logical understanding of our world at large.

I hope that helps to clarify matters. For the record, I am an agnostic weak-atheist.

Why must you call yourself a weak-atheist when all you really are is an agnostic. I mean thats what "weak atheism" really is according to your definition of the term.

 

[ghazirizvi]

OR - it might just show that the personal deity of the Abrahamaic religions is not a very good thesis with regards to describing reality, being in need of such rationalizations.

OR - your personal opinion has no bearing on the matter as neither does mine. So your self-constructed morals nurtured from this perhaps frail reality which you live in, and which you impose upon God whom if you believe to be ompnipotent doesnt really change a thing now does it - merely because of the fact that he is God.

 

[TooCurious]

Thank you. Someone finally understands the difference between knowing and believing (man this starting to sound like Morpheus's little talk to Neo).

Yes. Knowing and believing are two different things. This is important with regard to my following statements.

Alas not again. The knowledge which you so candidly speak of here and which agnosticism is based on is the proposition that it is objectively impossible to know the existence of God. But wait a minute we can believe the existence of God at the same time knowing that he might or might not exist. Dont you see a fundamental difference in the line of thought ?

No. You can believe something that you do not know with certainty to be true. Remember, "knowledge" and "belief" are different things.

Unless someone explains to me how a person can have doubt and certainty in thier minds at the same time, this discussion is going nowhere fast.

Consider two hypothetical married men. We'll call them Man A and Man B. Both have a long commute to work, and as such are away from their wives for many hours each day. Both believe that their wives love the and are faithful to them. Neither man can know with certainty that his wife is faithful to him, because both are away from home for long hours. Both, however, believe the proposition, "my wife is faithful to me" to be true. Man A's wife is indeed loving and faithful. Man B's wife is having an affair. Belief, therefore, is independent of knowledge, or fact. Belief does not involve the same kind of falsifiable, factual certainty that knowledge does.

So to me when a person says that he knows its impossible to determine whether God exists or not yet he believes that God doesnt exist then he is a liar.

No. If I present you with a sealed box and tell you that there is a banana inside it, you may choose to believe or disbelieve my statement. However, without opening the box or performing some other test, you cannot know with certainty what, if anything, the box actually contains.

Fair enough. However my definition of Athiesm and I know there are many different ones out there is the "rejection of the existence of God".

I suppose you're entitled to define the word however you like; please realize, however, that most if not all atheists here will disagree with your definition, and meaningful discussion is difficult if all parties are not using compatible definitions of the basic terms.

Why dont people just call Weak Athiest, Agnostics then ?

Because the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" express different ideas.

I personally think its ridiculous to try and umbrella agnostic belief under athiest belief by labelling it as weak atheism. I think people do it to justify the irrationality of the definition true athiesm (by which I mean strong athiesm) carries if you believe in it as a result of objective, rational and logical understanding of our world at large.

You're entitled to that opinion. You are, however, mistaken, as I've tried to explain.

Why must you call yourself a weak-atheist when all you really are is an agnostic. I mean thats what "weak atheism" really is according to your definition of the term.

Please don't tell me what I am or what my beliefs are. I would have the courtesy not to do the same to you. I AM an atheist, as I do not believe that any gods exist.

Again... atheism and agnosticism address different topics. Agnosticism addresses knowledge. Do I think it's possible to know whether or not there are any gods? No. This means that I concede the possibility, remote as I may think it is, that I might be wrong. However, I think it's vastly more likely that I'm right, and that there are no gods. Thus, I'm an atheist.

"Agnostic," without an atheist/theist qualifier, just means, "I don't and can't know whether or not there are any gods. There might be, there might not be. I'm really not sure."

"Agnostic atheist" means, "I can't know for certain if there are any gods, but I have no reason to believe that there are, and it seems most likely to me that there aren't, so I don't believe there are any gods."

"Agnostic theist" means, "I can't know for certain if there are any gods, but I think or feel that one or more gods exist, and so I believe, even though I can't be certain."

 

[Asimov]

002.021
YUSUFALI: O ye people! Adore your Guardian-Lord, who created you and those who came before you, that ye may have the chance to learn righteousness;

God doesnt test humans to see what they will do. This test is meant for the benifit of humans not God.

So why not just create them as righteous? Make them perfect in the first place.

 

[TheMissus]

Forgive me if this point has been made previously, but yes, I do consider Atheism a religion. They worship the refusal to worship.

 

[TheInstant]

They worship the refusal to worship.

This statement is completely self-contradictory. I'm having a very hard time making sense of it. Could you elaborate, please?