4 ms·

Best way to look at it is as a person's view on the probability of any god existing. Theists are of the opinion that the probability that god exists is likely,

Best way to look at it is as a person's view on the probability of any god existing. Theists are of the opinion that the probability that god exists is likely, in say 50-100% Agnostics are of the opinion that the probability that god exists is uncertain, in say 33-66% Atheists are of the opinion that the probability that god exists is unlikely, in say 0-50% One gotcha is that, if you account for the greater number of theists, the distribution is not symmetric. Atheists tend to be less certain (more agnostic) than theists.

adamzap 16y ago
For the theist, probability has nothing to do with it. I would hope the same is true or the atheist/agnostic. Edit: I was considering the Christian theist.
rue 16y ago
Why come up with such a convoluted scheme? The "I'm not atheist, I'm an agnostic" argument always sounds smug and disingenuous. Theism is belief in god. Atheism is lack thereof. Agnostics claim that gods' existence is unknowable. To co-opt Gervais' skiing simile: we have people who go skiing, those who do not, and then people who maintain it's impossible to know whether skiing actually occurs.
- DougBTX 16y ago
  I understood atheism as those who do not ski, and insist that there is no such thing as skiing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Definitions_and_distinctions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Definitions_and_distinc... Looks like my understanding was of "Strong Atheism", while the one Gervais describes would be "Weak Atheism".
  - rue 16y ago
    Sort of, yes. I dunno how many "strong atheists" there really are. The distinction itself seems borne out of a misconception. I think the "not skiing"-style example is very illustrative of the actual mental model atheists have, and importantly works relatively well in most languages to explain the concept of lack of belief which the "opponent" — someone espousing a belief — has a hard time understanding. So most atheists don't really insist that a god cannot possibly exist, merely that one doesn't according to available evidence, and as such can and should be ignored. Exactly in the same way I do not take into account leprechauns when making decisions, they are a non-factor. Edit: mind, I do agree there are some quite argumentative and belligerent atheists.
__david__ 16y ago
No, that's still not really a good way of looking at it--you are assuming those things are mutually exclusive when they aren't. I would call myself an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in gods, but I have to admit there's no way to prove they don't exist. I've met people who consider themselves agnostic theists--they think a god probably exists but they admit they cannot prove it.

adamzap 16y ago

For the theist, probability has nothing to do with it. I would hope the same is true or the atheist/agnostic. Edit: I was considering the Christian theist.

rue 16y ago

Why come up with such a convoluted scheme? The "I'm not atheist, I'm an agnostic" argument always sounds smug and disingenuous. Theism is belief in god. Atheism is lack thereof. Agnostics claim that gods' existence is unknowable. To co-opt Gervais' skiing simile: we have people who go skiing, those who do not, and then people who maintain it's impossible to know whether skiing actually occurs.

DougBTX 16y ago
I understood atheism as those who do not ski, and insist that there is no such thing as skiing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Definitions_and_distinctions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Definitions_and_distinc... Looks like my understanding was of "Strong Atheism", while the one Gervais describes would be "Weak Atheism".
- rue 16y ago
  Sort of, yes. I dunno how many "strong atheists" there really are. The distinction itself seems borne out of a misconception. I think the "not skiing"-style example is very illustrative of the actual mental model atheists have, and importantly works relatively well in most languages to explain the concept of lack of belief which the "opponent" — someone espousing a belief — has a hard time understanding. So most atheists don't really insist that a god cannot possibly exist, merely that one doesn't according to available evidence, and as such can and should be ignored. Exactly in the same way I do not take into account leprechauns when making decisions, they are a non-factor. Edit: mind, I do agree there are some quite argumentative and belligerent atheists.

__david__ 16y ago

No, that's still not really a good way of looking at it--you are assuming those things are mutually exclusive when they aren't. I would call myself an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in gods, but I have to admit there's no way to prove they don't exist. I've met people who consider themselves agnostic theists--they think a god probably exists but they admit they cannot prove it.