On agnosticism (Calling Atheists and Agnostics)

[Fran65]

Solus vistor,

You’ve done your best.

I’ve given up.

CD,

Thank you for trying to explain yourself.

An agnostic atheist…okay.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Solus vistor,

You’ve done your best.

I’ve given up.

CD,

Thank you for trying to explain yourself.

An agnostic atheist…okay.

If you are trying to say that i am incorrect i suggest you do your homework for on this matter i am spot on.

“An agnostic atheist…okay.” - this just shows complete ignorance. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge! I challange anyone to find me a break down of the word agnostic that says anything else.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

* Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
* Pronunciation: \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: **Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know**
* Date: 1869

dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

Origin:
< Gk ágnōst(os), var. of ágnōtos not known, incapable of being known (a- a- 6 + gnōtós known, adj. deriv. from base of gignskein** to know**) + -ic, after gnostic; said to have been coined by T.H. Huxley in 1869>

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-,** without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge;** after Gnosticism)

encyclopedia.com/doc/1O101-Agnosticism.html

Agnosticism (Gk., a + gnōstos, ‘not know’).

Now as i have explained many people use the word agnostic to refer to those that claim they don’t know, however the answer don’t KNOW deals with KNOWLEDGE not belief.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Agnostic atheism, also called Atheistic agnosticism, encompasses atheism and agnosticism. An agnostic atheist is atheistic because he** or she does not believe in the existence of any deity** and is also agnostic because he or she does not claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist.

Agnostic atheism…OKAY???

 

[Solus_vistor]

We will have to agree to disagree. “Agnostic” deals with my knowledge of the subject, it is due to my agnosticism that i lack a belief in a god (which falls under atheism), if you removed my agnosticism i would not lack a belief. I would ethier be a theist, or i would assert that there definitely is no god (which also would fall under athiesm but as i said before does not encompass it).

The fact that i don’t claim there definitely is no god means that, far from being superfluous, my agnosticism is infact key to my atheism.

All atheist tells you is someone is not a theist. It does not mean the positively believe there is no god, it just means they don’t accept theism, i.e the claims there is a god.

The conception that agnosticism it is a sit on the fence stance its commonly held, but im afraid to say it is just not true.

atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/theism.htm

Thank you for this interesting discussion. It essentially concerned two things: definitions of the term “atheist“ (so that we understand each other) and what is your position on the matter.

I suggested to you that instead of building our definitions around the traditional statement “God exists“ we start with what I called Sagan‘s maxim “The (physical) cosmos is all there is”. As I understand you, you want to distinguish between two kinds of people who believe this maxim:

(i) those who not only believe but also know (or “positively believe” as you put it) the maxim is true (i.e. the classical atheists, though it is perhaps more appropriate to call them anti-theists) and
(ii) those who believe the maxim (rather than its opposite) but do not know if it is true, (whom you, and apparently also others, call agnostic atheists).

You see yourself as belonging to the second group. That is fine, I only thought that the involvement of the hard to clearly define concept of knowledge was not necessary. However, I can understand your need to emphasise that you do not belong to the first group.

As for myself, if you asked me if I believe Sagan’s maxim, I would reply with a simple “no”. However, if I thought you would want to compare me with e.g. Bin Laden (who would also answer “no”) I should also add some qualifications to indicate that my belief is very different from his. The same if you asked me if I was a Christian, my answer would be a simple “yes” and would further explain that I was a Catholic only if I thought you might confuse me with e.g. Young Earth Creationists.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Thank you for this interesting discussion. It essentially concerned two things: definitions of the term “atheist“ (so that we understand each other) and what is your position on the matter.

I suggested to you that instead of building our definitions around the traditional statement “God exists“ we start with what I called Sagan‘s maxim “The (physical) cosmos is all there is”. As I understand you, you want to distinguish between two kinds of people who believe this maxim:

(i) those who not only believe but also know (or “positively believe” as you put it) the maxim is true (i.e. the classical atheists, though it is perhaps more appropriate to call them anti-theists) and
(ii) those who believe the maxim (rather than its opposite) but do not know if it is true, (whom you, and apparently also others, call agnostic atheists).

You see yourself as belonging to the second group. That is fine, I only thought that the involvement of the hard to clearly define concept of knowledge was not necessary. However, I can understand your need to emphasise that you do not belong to the first group.

As for myself, if you asked me if I believe Sagan’s maxim, I would reply with a simple “no”. However, if I thought you would want to compare me with e.g. Bin Laden (who would also answer “no”) I should also add some qualifications to indicate that my belief is very different from his. The same if you asked me if I was a Christian, my answer would be a simple “yes” and would further explain that I was a Catholic only if I thought you might confuse me with e.g. Young Earth Creationists.

**No, thank YOU. **

I have a bad habbit of grouping individuals, it is one of my down faults. Your correct that many times i do associate all people of religion with the absurdity of Young Earth Creationists. It is something i know i do, and i should not.

It is people like yourself that make me realise my down falls, and I have had a thoroughly enjoyable conversation with you.

Lets me just add one thing. I used to have the exact same understanding of agnosticism, as is held on this board, until it was pointed out to me i was incorrect. I researched the subject and i conceded i was worng, and as a result it deepend my understanding of what i believe and why. It is ok to be wrong aslong as one can realise and accept when they are.

So i beg you… accept this. Not all atheists assert there is definitely no god. Not all athiests claim such an absoloute, and please continue to approach atheists in the manner you do, for you have had nothing but a positive influence on my experience here.

Thank you.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hello everyone i am a catholic and proud of it for many years i was agnostic i’ve never been atheist though i have questioned Gods existence.My dh is agnostic a lot of my friends (good people) are agnostic or atheist.At present my kids are agnostic although brought up in catholic faith.
I dont think reasoned scientific argument or “proof” of Gods exsitence is helpful in encouraging our brothers and sisters (yes i regard you all as my brothers and sisters no matter religious or not)to know or love God.
For my personal journey i have had tragedies in my life that i wrongly blamed God for and it took becoming a Grandmother to make me realise Gods plan for me.I would love to convert you all to catholicism as i feel it is Gods will.
I dont wish to try to make people believe something just on my say so or my own belief.

I do believe however in the power of prayer.God had truly answered my prayers and im so very grateful.If you want to you could try a prayer see what happens for you?

You could try…
Lord hear our prayer
Show yourself to all who seek you in sincerity of heart-
Lord Jesus Christ,light of all the nations,shine upon
those who walk in darkness and in the shadow of death
Be with all those who suffer in mind,body or spirit
show mercy to the dead,bring them to rejoice in the
company of the blessed Virgin Mary and all your saints

Amen

I respect each and every one of your in your views and you are all in my prayers
Peace

Intercessory prayer is a waste of time IMHO. *Maybe *adoration isn’t.​

The trouble is that prayer to the Flying Spaghetti Monster is probably no more unreliable than the intercessory kind. Polytheism can explain why Christian prayer seems to be so very hit-and-miss, where Christian theology can’t. The NT says that prayer:

• should be according to the pattern of the Lord’s Prayer
• should be in the name of Jesus: therefore, for His sake
• will gain us “whatever” we ask
• can be of one person in private; or, where two or three are gathered together
• is to be persistent
• is to be according to the will of God

and so on. So, you go off and pray in the way and the spirit that you are supposed to, but…nothing happens. Yet people do as they have been commanded. Result - things either go bad or get worse; or: there is complete silence. It is a waste of time. God may have an eternity of life, but we don’t - we have only 70 or so years, if not far less; so wasting time on something so barren of result is a serious matter. It would have been simpler, and much more honest, to tell people to conform themselves to God’s Will, instead of misleading them with this rigmarole that encourages them to imagine that all that advice is any practical use.

Contrary to a persistent myth, people do not make purely selfish or trivial prayers all the time (one explanation sometimes put forward to account for unanswered prayer); the truth is that they often pray very hard for (say) those who are very sick, just as the NT tells thems to. And yet all that praying often goes unanswered: despite what the book says.

The best comment on Christianity was made in “The Simpsons”:

• “You know, the one with all the well-meaning rules that don’t work in real life – uh, Christianity.”

– Homer Simpson, telling what religion the family belongs to.

STM that is an excellent description. Since God “delivers” only now and then - if it is God at work, which is a very dubious supposition; it seems reasonable to conclude God either is: non-existent, or malicious, or is playing with the human race as a man might with a hamster in a lab; or, that there are many gods, & that some are stopping him do what he intended to do. The vast difference between what the NT says about prayer, and the realities of real life, is a great weakness in Christianity.

Where was God in Ireland ? Not much sign of Him in the behaviour of the Catholic Church there, that’s for sure. Or does God approve of the rape of the young ? There was plenty of that - but where was God ? What sort of God leaves people in the lurch like that ? And how can people possibly be better for being abused & tormented & violated in such horrible ways ? A theology which cannot face facts like those, & be honest with them, is not worth the paper it’s written on.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[Fran65]

Hi Solus,

You have explained it completely, so thank you. CD, if I have misunderstood you I am sorry. I thought that agnosticism - in its usage within religious debate - meant the position of not knowing if there is a God, and therefore not rejecting the possibility His existence.