• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Agnostic or Atheist?

new drkitten said:

If the notion of "God" is provably incoherent, as many atheists have claimed, then in fact one can legitimately know that God does not exist.
Click to expand...

Only if there is a definition of "God" that makes it knowable.

It's not that God is "provably incoherent," it is that God is "untestibly defined"

(or "undefined" as the case may be)
 
pgwenthold said:
Only if there is a definition of "God" that makes it knowable.

It's not that God is "provably incoherent," it is that God is "untestibly defined"

(or "undefined" as the case may be)
Click to expand...

When did you get to be the person who defines God?
 
new drkitten said:
When did you get to be the person who defines God?
Click to expand...

Because if I claim I believe God exists or can exist, I have the burden of explaining what I mean by God.

When did you get to be the person who gets to define what God isn't?

This could go on all day.
 
Therefore:

An omnipotent God cannot exist - omnipotence is illogical and results in paradox.

An omniscient God cannot exist if free will exists. Omniscience as an attribute of the Creator requires predestination of all outcomes.

An omnipresent God may be a possibility; and we are but component atoms in His body. But this loses personal relationship, doesn't it?

A non-temporal God cannot change in any way, nor create, nor destroy.

So what do we have? Either a God whose attributes are far less than we normally imagine, a God of which we are but molecules and atoms within who probably doesn't care about us that much, or (and I do consider this possibility) a God who, having created the Universe, ceased to exist (within that Universe)... either watching from 'beyond' or simply dying.

Maybe the Big Bang was God's death throes...

So, yep, it's all in the definition.

But I know Eris exists, because hot dogs exist. Fnord.
 
I don't believe or disbelieve in god, but I tend to believe we were created but not with enough evidence to be convinced. I call myself a non-theist. Just to have a name for it, but it's a lot more complicated than that.
 
If agnostic is someone that doesn't KNOW FOR CERTAIN that god exists then we are all agnostics. Some agnostics call themselves christians some call themselves moslem, some call themselves atheist, but all are agnostic.
 
There is yet another definition of agnostic, which I've seen referred to as the "classic" definition.

One who maintains that humans cannot know these things. That human intellectual tools are insufficient to adress the problems of "life, the universe, and everything."
 
zaayrdragon said:

Maybe the Big Bang was God's death throes...
Click to expand...

Never heard that one before. Interesting concept.

Let......(cough)......there be......(choke).......light!! (gurgle.........)

Did you see the recent Wall Mart episode of South Park. Maybe the universe is the crap that God took after he died.
 
Mosquito said:

I think this is one of those cases where you really are either a theist or an atheist. And if you're not a theist, you have to be an atheist.
Click to expand...

No - you can also be a deist, which is different from both theism and atheism.
 
agnostic/Atheist

My take on this is: atheism is a theological position, agnosticism is an epistemological position.

Atheism is about god(s): I dont know ther is one, or there definitely aint one. The opposite of 'atheism' is 'theism'.

Agnosticism is about knowlege. It denies that knowlege can come from "inside", declaring instead that it mist come from evidence. The opposite of an agnostic is a gnostic, a credophile, a believer, a woo.

The intersection between the two is that agnostics are often atheist in that they see no evidence for God. But other combinations are possible - a person may decide that it is more likeley that there is a god than not.

Confusingly, 'beliver' is used in both senses.
 
Mosquito said:
Sometimes people make distinctions between agnostics and atheists, many(?) religious people seem to be more comfortable with labelling the unbeliever as agnostic rather than atheist.

Dunno about you guys, but I make the assumption that an agnostic is an atheist. The agnostic does not believe in any god(s), thus is an atheist.

I think this is one of those cases where you really are either a theist or an atheist. And if you're not a theist, you have to be an atheist.

Agnostic thus becomes a sub-group of atheist, kind of like weak/strong atheists.

Anybody disagree?
Click to expand...



Hmmmm...

As others have pointed out it really is a semantic matter more than a matter of substance in many cases, but...

I break it down as follows:

Strong theist: God exists
Weak theist: I believe god exists
Agnostic: I don't know whether or not god exists.
Weak atheist: I don't believe god exists
Strong atheist: god does not exist.

The strong theist and atheist are illogical in my opinion because both confidently proclaim that which they cannot prove to be true.

The weak theist and atheist are both sensible positions in my opinion because both are labels that reflect what the individual considers most likely and neither claims to be able to prove their belief or lack of belief to be correct.

The agnostic position is also sensible as it acknowledges that the existence of god is something that lies outside the normal realm of knowledge. If there is a god, it is outside of the ability of our 5 senses to perceive.

So the weak theist believes the existence of a god is the most probable choice, the weak atheist believes the non existence of a god is the most probable and the agnostic doesn't really have any opinion either way as to which is more probable.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Agnostic or Atheist?

new drkitten said:
There are lots of things about whether I have neither belief nor disbelief. For example, if you ask me to compare two restaurants in a city I've never visited, I do not believe the first is better, nor do I believe the second is better, nor do I believe the first is worse. For that matter, I don't believe they're the same. I have, literally, no belief, because I have, literally, no evidence upon which to base such a belief.

Usually the word "atheist" is restricted to those who deny or actively disbelieve in the existence of a God or gods. Under this conventional restriction, an agnostic is not an atheist, as he holds no beliefs regarding the subject, but does not deny the existence of a God.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

Labels "theism" and "atheism" have to do with what you believe, "agnosticism" has to do with what you know (or think you know).

If you believe the nature or existence of God is not knowable, then you are an agnostic. If you dont, you arent.

I limit "atheism" to simple "lack of theism", and "theism" to simple "affirmation of belief in a god or gods".
 
I think that the classification atheist - agnostic - theist is too crude to be truly useful. I'd rather separate them to two different axes so that we would get:

gnostic theist : knows that god exists.
agnostic theist: believes that god exists but doesn't think that its existence is provable.
agnostic atheist: doesn't believe that god exists but doesn't think that it is possible to prove that it doesn't.
gnostic atheist: knows that god doesn't exist.

With this classification I'm an agnostic atheist.
 
LW said:
I think that the classification atheist - agnostic - theist is too crude to be truly useful. I'd rather separate them to two different axes so that we would get:

gnostic theist : knows that god exists.
agnostic theist: believes that god exists but doesn't think that its existence is provable.
agnostic atheist: doesn't believe that god exists but doesn't think that it is possible to prove that it doesn't.
gnostic atheist: knows that god doesn't exist.

With this classification I'm an agnostic atheist.
Click to expand...

I'm an apathetic agnostic atheist - I don't belive in any gods and I don't really care if they do or don't exist :D
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agnostic or Atheist?

Yahweh said:
I disagree.
Click to expand...

So don't take it up with me. Take it up with the people who -- in your opinon -- misuse the labels.


Labels "theism" and "atheism" have to do with what you believe, "agnosticism" has to do with what you know (or think you know).

If you believe the nature or existence of God is not knowable, then you are an agnostic. If you dont, you arent.
Click to expand...

That's nice. It's not, however, what the words actually mean, if you look at how people use them.

Guess what? "Lightning bugs" aren't electrical, either!
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agnostic or Atheist?

new drkitten said:
That's nice. It's not, however, what the words actually mean, if you look at how people use them.
Click to expand...

What people? How about atheists?

In fact, that is exactly how the atheists at alt.atheism used the words.

Or are you suggesting that atheists don't know what atheist means?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agnostic or Atheist?

pgwenthold said:

Or are you suggesting that atheists don't know what atheist means?
Click to expand...

Quite possibly. Most specialists have no idea of what the meanings of words used by the general public are.

This is generally called "jargon."
 
Bikewer said:
There is yet another definition of agnostic, which I've seen referred to as the "classic" definition.

One who maintains that humans cannot know these things. That human intellectual tools are insufficient to adress the problems of "life, the universe, and everything."
Click to expand...

But this implies that a lot of "known gods" are not gods. All gods we KNOW do not exist sort of becomes a problem to this definition.


Mosquito
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom