Agnosticism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vimy_Ridge
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlemagne_II said:
There is little difference between an agnostic and an atheist. Bertrand Russell preferred to call himself an agnostic. Yet he wasted much ink arguing the case against God but never the case for God.
Click to expand...
Well one can be an agnostic theist.
 
Dharles_Carwin said:
Well one can be an agnostic theist.
Click to expand...
It is common now to talk about agnostic theists and agnostic atheists but I think it is missing the point. Agnostics are right when they say we cannot know for certain if God exists or does not exist and also that we cannot fully understand what God is. Eventually we will need to make the leap of faith into belief in God or belief in no God. Agnosticism is useful for fully realizing that whatever way you go it will be on faith not knowledge.
 
AntiTheist said:
Not necessarily. One could simply not believe in gods and not believe in no gods indefinitely.
Click to expand...
True, you could stay agnostic and say God may exist or may not exist till the day you die. I don’t think that is a position I would be satisfied with for very long though.
 
Vimy_Ridge said:
It is common now to talk about agnostic theists and agnostic atheists but I think it is missing the point. Agnostics are right when they say we cannot know for certain if God exists or does not exist and also that we cannot fully understand what God is. Eventually we will need to make the leap of faith into belief in God or belief in no God. Agnosticism is useful for fully realizing that whatever way you go it will be on faith not knowledge.
Click to expand...
Well an athiest need not believe there “is no god”. An atheist can just reject the claim there is a god. There is a big difference.

You are correct, agnosticism is a term that relates to knowledge. It says nothing about ones belief.
 
Dharles_Carwin said:
Well an athiest need not believe there “is no god”. An atheist can just reject the claim there is a god. There is a big difference.

You are correct, agnosticism is a term that relates to knowledge. It says nothing about ones belief.
Click to expand...
The old dictionary definition of an atheist is one who claims there is no God. Modern atheists are trying to include more people on there side so they will say someone who lacks belief is an atheist too. Atheism is a world view in and of its self.
 
AntiTheist said:
If you currently do not have a belief in a god, you are automatically an atheist, even if you think there’s a possibility that gods might exist.

Now, you don’t have to embrace the label if you don’t like how it sounds, but that’s essentially what you are.
Click to expand...
Spot on, if asked if you believe in god, and your answer is anything other than yes (including i don’t know). Then you are by definition an atheist.
 
Vimy_Ridge said:
The old dictionary definition of an atheist is one who claims there is no God. Modern atheists are trying to include more people on there side so they will say someone who lacks belief is an atheist too. Atheism is a world view in and of its self.
Click to expand...
I’m not really concerned with popluar dictionary definitions. Break the word down. A-theist, ie. without-theism. Just because the masses misunderstand the word, does not mean i should.

However if you wont to go with the common understanding of the word here you go…

Atheism **can be either the ** rejectionof theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
 
Vimy_Ridge said:
The old dictionary definition of an atheist is one who claims there is no God. Modern atheists are trying to include more people on there side so they will say someone who lacks belief is an atheist too. Atheism is a world view in and of its self.
Click to expand...
I agree. I’m quite suspicious why atheists are so adamant to expand the definition so much. I suppose it is to make them seem like their not quite so much a minority.
Dharles_Carwin said:
Spot on, if asked if you believe in god, and your answer is anything other than yes (including i don’t know). Then you are by definition an atheist.
Click to expand...
If asked if you believe that anything existed outside your mind and your answer is anything other than yes (including I don’t know), then you are by definition of solipsist. Right?

Well, if that doesn’t work, if anyone has an absence of the belief in rhinoceroses, they automatically are arhinocerosists. Right?

I suppose we could talk this way. It’s not very useful or clever though.
Dharles_Carwin said:
I’m not really concerned with popluar dictionary definitions. Break the word down. A-theist, ie. without-theism. Just because the masses misunderstand the word, does not mean i should.
Click to expand...
Words get their meaning by how the masses use them. And sometimes, the common usage of a word does not match up very well to its etymology. If it was a linguistic moral law that we had to adhere to etymologies, there would have to be quite a change in current common usage indeed.
Dharles_Carwin said:
However if you wont to go with the common understanding of the word here you go…

Atheism **can be either the ** rejectionof theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Click to expand...
Wikipedia has spoken.

The point is, the third sense is not a very common definition. It’s not very useful either. I know that not accepting it leads to a lot of lost members in the atheist community (like the stones and the trees), but this is a sacrifice that must be made … out of decency.

Or not. On the other hand, sure, take it. If it makes you feel better, sure. Just don’t use it to make some sort of claim that “atheism is the natural state of the human mind, and thus it is unnatural to believe in God” … for then one could also argue that “arhinocerosism is the natural state of the human mind, and hence it is unnatural to believe in rhinoceroses.”
 
Areopagite said:
I agree. I’m quite suspicious why atheists are so adamant to expand the definition so much. I suppose it is to make them seem like their not quite so much a minority.

If asked if you believe that anything existed outside your mind and your answer is anything other than yes (including I don’t know), then you are by definition of solipsist. Right?

Well, if that doesn’t work, if anyone has an absence of the belief in rhinoceroses, they automatically are arhinocerosists. Right?

I suppose we could talk this way. It’s not very useful or clever though.

Words get their meaning by how the masses use them. And sometimes, the common usage of a word does not match up very well to its etymology. If it was a linguistic moral law that we had to adhere to etymologies, there would have to be quite a change in current common usage indeed.

Wikipedia has spoken.

The point is, the third sense is not a very common definition. It’s not very useful either. I know that not accepting it leads to a lot of lost members in the atheist community (like the stones and the trees), but this is a sacrifice that must be made … out of decency.

Or not. On the other hand, sure, take it. If it makes you feel better, sure. Just don’t use it to make some sort of claim that “atheism is the natural state of the human mind, and thus it is unnatural to believe in God” … for then one could also argue that “arhinocerosism is the natural state of the human mind, and hence it is unnatural to believe in rhinoceroses.”
Click to expand...
You claim we should obide by the masses, then when i give you the common definition you slate the source? Its not my fault if most people don’t actually know what the word actually means, sorry but i’m not going to dumb down to their level as educated people do know what the word means.

Your right atheism is an utterly irrelevant term. It tells you nothing about what a person believes. All it tells you is that person does believe in any god.

Its like me calling you a non-muslim, while the discription is 100% accurate it tells me nothing about what you do believe, in this case catholicism. To discribe one as an atheist is utterly pointless, hence why you dont see it as my “religion”.
 
Dharles Darwin

Well an athiest need not believe there “is no god”. An atheist can just reject the claim there is a god. There is a big difference.

What is the big difference? I’ve never heard of this difference? Is it one you just made up, or is it generally accepted that there are two kinds of atheists, some who believe there is no God and some who just reject the claim?

In either case, does the “atheist” want anything to do with God? That would seem to be the crucial issue.
 
Dharles_Carwin said:
Your right atheism is an utterly irrelevant term. It tells you nothing about what a person believes. All it tells you is that person does believe in any god.
Click to expand...
"…you are an atheist if you believe that the material world is all that exists; that this world was not created by a spiritual entity of any kind; and that your life force does not survive your death. You are an atheist if you believe that man created religion and that “God” serves humanity (a true believer will always assert that humanity serves God). - from the book An Atheist Defends Religion

Atheism is best understood as a world view it is the same as calling yourself a Secularist or a Materialist. Most people hold some form of religious belief so a person who takes the label ‘Atheist’ is definitely saying something about their beliefs.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Dharles Darwin

Well an athiest need not believe there “is no god”. An atheist can just reject the claim there is a god. There is a big difference.

What is the big difference? I’ve never heard of this difference? Is it one you just made up, or is it generally accepted that there are two kinds of atheists, some who believe there is no God and some who just reject the claim?

In either case, does the “atheist” want anything to do with God? That would seem to be the crucial issue.
Click to expand...
Yes there is a very big difference between having no belief in god, and believing there is no god.
 
Vimy_Ridge said:
"…you are an atheist if you believe that the material world is all that exists; that this world was not created by a spiritual entity of any kind; and that your life force does not survive your death. You are an atheist if you believe that man created religion and that “God” serves humanity (a true believer will always assert that humanity serves God). - from the book An Atheist Defends Religion

Atheism is best understood as a world view it is the same as calling yourself a Secularist or a Materialist. Most people hold some form of religious belief so a person who takes the label ‘Atheist’ is definitely saying something about their beliefs.
Click to expand...
There is no atheist world view. All an atheist is, is someone that lacks a believe in a god, and thats all atheism tells you about someone.

“]”…you are an atheist if you believe that the material world is all that exists;" says who? I could have no believe in god, yet still believe i that spirits live on mars. Or i could believe in ghosts. I would still be an atheist, for i dont have a believe in a god.

I really fail so see why this is so hard for people to grasp. A-theism. = without - theism. Thats it, thats your lot. It tells you nothing else about someone.
 
I have seen Agnostic defined as someone who believes that one cannot know with certainty whether God is or is not–probably due to inability to define a proper experiment. There are many folk who be uninterested in finding the answer–they do not like the possibility of having to be accountable to anyone but themselves.

Atheism is an interesting dilemma too. For one to say there is no God, one has to know everything. No one does, so they ride the fence–kind of an Agno-the-ist. Many are practical atheists–they live as if there is no God. They have not a clue–not looking for clues.

We have trouble with the concept of being created; yet we love to practice procreation–usually without a license.

Where will we be in 100 years?

Are we sure?

If this is all there is–we are in bad shape.

Selah,

James Least.
 
Vimy_Ridge said:
Being agnostic means that you do not know if there is a God. Neither believers nor unbelievers really know the answer to this question, so you could say both are in a sense agnostic.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say that both are Agnostic. Agnosticism is the only reasonable position to take prior to a revelation of faith; the only real difference between a true believer and an Agnostic.
 
I like the analogy my Philosophy of Religion professor used.

Imagine a couple is dating, and they have been dating a good while. Inevitably the question of marriage comes up. The man states that he is not ready to get married, is waiting for certainty, etc. This continues for 30 years. Essentially his refusal to answer the question is practically the same as saying no.

I feel that agnostics are pretty much in a practical sense the same as atheists.
 
Dharles_Carwin said:
There is no atheist world view. All an atheist is, is someone that lacks a believe in a god, and thats all atheism tells you about someone.

“]”…you are an atheist if you believe that the material world is all that exists;" says who? I could have no believe in god, yet still believe i that spirits live on mars. Or i could believe in ghosts. I would still be an atheist, for i dont have a believe in a god.

I really fail so see why this is so hard for people to grasp. A-theism. = without - theism. Thats it, thats your lot. It tells you nothing else about someone.
Click to expand...
God is a spirit by definition so to say you don’t believe in God or gods is to say you don’t believe in spirits.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top