Agnosticism, the *Only* Logical Belief Today?

Okay, all this arguing between theists and atheists is getting on my nerves. No, I like the people of DV, so I'm not talking about anyone specifically. I'm talking about the WHOLE conflict, where it takes place in the world. So you can see where I'm coming from, I'll tell you a little about myself:

I was born and raised a Christian for about 15 years of my life. I've been a Baptists, Pentecostal, Seventh-Day Adventist, and even a Non-Denominational at some point in my life. When I was 14, I came up with this crazy idea: make a work of fiction that truly pieces together the origins of the world, God, and religion. The desire to create a fictional world based upon real-life religions got me interested in studying religion as a whole. So I started comparing religions, and saw their similarities through the lens of a Christian. Then, I started to become interested in philosophy, and started to ask myself why Christianity was the true religion, and why other religions were wrong.

But, I kept on reading about it, and saw that people brought claims against Christianity. I did not understand Atheists, nor did I believe in evolution. So, I debated with people on the internet often, and realized that evolution, in fact, did not conflict with Christianity at all. I examined it closer and saw that the half-assed arguments against Christianity were indeed half-assed and incorrect. Then, I thought that if Christianity was correct, and evolution is actually correct as well, then there was nothing stopping me from solving those big questions of life.

I would not believe something till I had evidence for it when trying to answer these questions, which eventually led me to question the value of human life itself. Life has no absolute value in itself, as we eat other organisms to survive. So, ethics failed when it came to other species, but what about humans themselves? After some serious deliberation, I came to the conclusion that human life has no absolute value in itself, and it's value exists in an abstract, relative sense within each human being. The laws of the Bible, if correct, were meant to protect human life, but I saw that it leaned more towards the protection of the faith itself in many cases as well.

I then wondered about the Flood, Creation, and God Himself. Where was the evidence? Wasn't it obvious they happened and exist? If God was real, how could Atheists exist? So I continued to think about it and concluded that Genesis was metaphorical, and that the universe could have been created 4.6 billion years ago, and that Genesis never really happened. But, that would imply that either God lied to us either way, since either the world was made with the appearance of age (a lie to physicists), or that the world was made long long ago (a lie to Christians). Still, God's "plan" seemed overrated and fraught with inconsistencies, mainly because an omniscience, omnipotent being cannot have made Adam and Eve with freewill if He knew that they would sin (omniscience), or with a brain stupid enough to be fooled by the Serpent.

Even so, the geological timescale conflicted with Genesis, as humans were not created by God but rather evolved from Homo erectus and their ancestors. But I seemed to dismiss this idea in my thinking, and rather question God's existence as a whole instead. Without evidence FOR His existence, I couldn't say yes, so I jumped to the conclusion that He didn't exist. I became an atheist, and remained as such until a few weeks ago. I thought about the "burden of proof" for theists pertaining to god(s), and then I remembered an old argument I proposed when I was a Christian. I said that it was irrational to say that god(s) don't exist without proof, but the irony was that I had done the same thing, except I assumed the existence of god(s).

So I'm thinking, hey, aren't theists AND atheists both being irrational when they claim their views are correct. Unless we have proof that god(s) do and don't exist, shouldn't we all just be agnostics and look at things in a neutral, skeptical view?

Your thoughts.

You manage to sum up my thoughts quite accurately. And with that, I just mean the last paragraph.

I reached the very same conclusions myself not too long ago.

Both sides of the argument are effectively unsupportable - the only rational position is that of uncertainty.

This is true.

However I feel it logical to conclude that none of the Gods worshipped by mankind exist

Of course we can never conclude there is no greater power; but I do believe we can deduce that if there is; it isn't one we know about. Sure there is a chance it is, but it is somewhere in the region of 0.01%

Well, that's life. You make a thread like this and the three or four people who already agree with you are the only ones who answer. :lol:

I really wish people like lucid_boy and that lonewolf guy would read this, as well as some of the more outspoken militant atheists. :(

well i class myself as Atheist although I'm not 100% God doesn't exist...

I feel if i said without a doubt God doesn't exist I'm being arrogant and ignorant. So i am open to the possibility of a creator( maybe not a God, maybe so, depends on definition) however i feel it is very slim, as in like 99% no God. So because I'm not 50/50 unsure and strongly lean toward no God, i class myself as Atheist and if i were to debate I'd strongly stick with any Gods humans have come up with do not exist, but i am not "militant Atheist", as in i don't go around pushing it on people. I;ll mention i don't believe in their view point if they say they are religious and it will probably turn into a debate. But i don't go around handing out loads of leaflets, knocking on door or shouting that all religious folks are idiots or killing people.

Carousoul, I think it'd be pretty hard to put a real percentage on whether God exists or not. :lol:

I like this though. It's great logic, and you think very similarly to myself, and many others.

It is definitely wrong for anybody to assume that they are right. Atheists and Theists alike. I am an Agnostic by definition, but I lean more torwards my own beliefs that are mostly Theist. I completelly despise the comcept of religions though, and believe that it is making spirituality a commodity and a cheap trick, but still keep an open mind and learn from them. Especially Buddhists and Christians. Buddhism has many great ideas, and Christianity has many horrible ideas and mistakes to learn from. :lol:

This whole argument is why I always stress to people while I'm in an argument about religion, this is why they call it faith or belief. Because there is no factual evidence to any side that gives an absolute right answer. It's up to people themselves to decide, but not to dictate. Another reason why religion is so horrible. People have the arrogance to claim that their religion is right without a doubt. People have the hypocracy to claim that other religions are crazy and wrong. People have the ignorance to join a religion blindly without thinking about spirituality to an extent needed to make a major decision such as that, leading to insufficient knowledge and oversufficient portrayal of faith.

Then they try to convert, which just makes it all seem like a market. Buy our product of faith! This is the way to heaven! :lol:

I keep my spirituality basic. I believe in a God, I like him. I call him Alfred because it pisses of Christians when I say that I renamed God. :D I don't pray to him every night or ask for forgiveness. I don't do all these wierd rituals. The only thing that I do that is somewhat of a whatever is I meditate on occasion. This is both for Dream Yoga, control over myself, and sometimes for some guidance from clear thinking, and maybe even spiritual thinking. If it's needed though, I might pray to Alfred to relieve some pressure, and maybe see if I get some idea. :P Don't completelly abandon the subject of God, but don't take it too far. Basically, all I do is acknowledge the existence that I believe there is a God. And I also accept that I could definitely be wrong about that, which means no repricussions. If I rot in the ground, I rot in the ground. If there is a God, I think that I'm good. Especially since I don't believe in Hell. :P And since I'm minimally spiritual, I at least don't dedicate my whole damn life to preaching to pygmies in Africa about some bullshit. :lol:

Religion is a joke. Atheism, even though probably more logical than religion, is still a joke because of it's abandonment of anything. Agnosticism is as close to not stupid as we can get. Even though we're still all dumbasses in the end. Either way.

If this makes no sense to you, don't worry... I make little sense to most people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephent91

Carousoul, I think it'd be pretty hard to put a real percentage on whether God exists or not. :lol:
arn from.

---

Well; it's a rough estimate to demonstrate "a very low probability".






On another note; does it make one agnostic if they are willing to accept that there "could be a God"?

In this case our man Richard Dawkins isn't an atheist; he is agnostic, in an unexpected turn of events.

Agnosticism is unsure about whether there is a God or not. It's where they generally haven't decided whether they think there is a God or not. Or they are slightly steered torwards one side or the other like me.

If they think that there isn't a God but are willing to accept that they could be wrong, they are still Atheist, except must more respectable in my opinion because of their acceptance of fallability. :P So he's still Atheist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephent91

Agnosticism is unsure about whether there is a God or not. It's where they generally haven't decided whether they think there is a God or not. Or they are slightly steered torwards one side or the other like me.

If they think that there isn't a God but are willing to accept that they could be wrong, they are still Atheist, except must more respectable in my opinion because of their acceptance of fallability. :P So he's still Atheist.

---

Hm.

I guess this makes me atheist then.

It's iffy.

Define yourself with whatever you see as fit. If you don't believe that there is a God, then your probably Atheist. Unless you think that there may be a God or there may not, but probably not, then probably Agnostic.

So there's common ground for both I guess.

Also, I forgot to note... I'm no religious scholar... yet... so don't take my word on too much because I can be and probably am wrong on something here. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Hm.

I guess this makes me atheist then.

---

Ditto.

I hate this ever-shifting vista of confused terminology.

Screw it, let's make up our own word! As far as I can tell, other than "weak" or "soft" atheist, there is no word for being "99% sure that there is no god, but I could be wrong".

Any possible words?

99ist. :D

Don't have time to read it all now, but:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

So I'm thinking, hey, aren't theists AND atheists both being irrational when they claim their views are correct. Unless we have proof that god(s) do and don't exist, shouldn't we all just be agnostics and look at things in a neutral, skeptical view?

---

Skepticism doesn't mean "staying on the fence" - skepticism means "not believing things without evidence/proof". Of course, the level of skepticism varies among people.

I'll post a full-blown reply later on.

I am atheist because I have yet to find a cogent reason to believe in a God. I give room for it and the possibility for it, but I have no reason to believe in it. I utilize empiricism and logic to prove facticity.

Where is the flaw in the above...? How is the above different than previous purported points?
~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

I am atheist because I have yet to find a cogent reason to believe in a God. I give room for it and the possibility for it, but I have no reason to believe in it. I utilize empiricism and logic to prove facticity.

Where is the flaw in the above...? How is the above different than previous purported points?
~

---

The problem is one of semantics. You are effectively the same type of person as Carou and I - a "99ist", I suppose.

I believe the OP was referring to actual atheists - what some would call 'strong' or 'militant' atheists, which claim that no God exists. These people are making an unsupported statement in the same way as the theists are. The only safe ground is slightly closer to the middle - where you acknowledge that it's a possibility, but dismiss it as extremely unlikely and baseless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegnome54

The problem is one of semantics. You are effectively the same type of person as Carou and I - a "99ist", I suppose.

I believe the OP was referring to actual atheists - what some would call 'strong' or 'militant' atheists, which claim that no God exists. These people are making an unsupported statement in the same way as the theists are. The only safe ground is slightly closer to the middle - where you acknowledge that it's a possibility, but dismiss it as extremely unlikely and baseless.

---

I do this.

I would call thoes atheists fundamentalists or zealots whereas I am simply a mere atheist that has not yet received reason to believe in a God.

I fear that most agnostics are simply afraid to label themselves atheist becaue of its pejorative connotation when atheism seems to encapulsate their intentions. However, theists and people in general have associated atheists with nay-saying arseholes.
~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

On another note; does it make one agnostic if they are willing to accept that there "could be a God"?

In this case our man Richard Dawkins isn't an atheist; he is agnostic, in an unexpected turn of events.

---

If you claim that there are no deities in existence then you are a atheist, whether you have evidence to back it up or not. However, if you claim that you could be wrong, but still believe there are no deities, then you are still an atheist. Either way, to be an actual agnostic (with no extra labels), you need to admit that you don't know for sure. You can believe it's more likely, but I really don't know how that works if you strive for unbiased rationality.

It looks to me that Dawkin's is an atheist, because it seems to me that he's explicitly trying to deny theism as a whole. (Flying Spaghetti Monster anyone?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Don't have time to read it all now, but:

Skepticism doesn't mean "staying on the fence" - skepticism means "not believing things without evidence/proof. Of course, the level of skepticism varies among people.

I'll post a full-blown reply later on.

---

Even if you use that reasoning for every side of the argument, you would still be an agnostic. The claim "no god(s) exist" cannot be believable without evidence/proof as much as the claim "god(s) exist" cannot be believable without evidence/proof. Either way both remain currently unproven, but one must be correct. Since no god-o-scopes exist, and neither has any deity shown themselves to humanity, the only rational option we have left to say "we don't know yet".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegnome54

I believe the OP was referring to actual atheists - what some would call 'strong' or 'militant' atheists, which claim that no God exists. These people are making an unsupported statement in the same way as the theists are. The only safe ground is slightly closer to the middle - where you acknowledge that it's a possibility, but dismiss it as extremely unlikely and baseless.

---

Sure, let's go with that. I do this as well, but seem to disagree with that last statement. Claims for their existence may be baseless, but the possibility of deities (creators or not) existing cannot be measured due to the inability for one to actually define WHAT they are, why they exist, and so forth. The odds are impossible to measure with this concept. I'm just saying that the odds aren't against deities, they're against the theists who think they know exactly who the real one is and know exactly what he's like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

I fear that most agnostics are simply afraid to label themselves atheist becaue of its pejorative connotation when atheism seems to encapulsate their intentions. However, theists and people in general have associated atheists with nay-saying arseholes.

---

Actually, as an atheist I cared little about being called what I was. :) Even as an agnostic still didn't give. I used to be an arsehole about religion when I got frustrated with family members, but got over it when I saw that arguing is pointless when someone doesn't have an open mind *cough*mydad*cough*. I do agree with some of the intentions of atheists, with all the secularization of society and government, but sometimes they just go too far with it. If we stop saying "merry Christmas", what do we call the holiday now, "excuse to party, give presents, and have an orgy or something"? :roll: And if we can take Jesus out of Easter, should we take Ishtar out too? :? Or does this "secularization" only apply to currently-active, powerhouse religions like Christianity?

(O'nus, either side can say that the others are nay-saying arseholes. You should've seen me when I was an atheist. :P)

Well, I do agree being skeptic is staying on the fence a bit. But at least you actually pick a side. I mean, there is no evidence concerning god, so I choose not to believe him for that matter. If evidence ever comes up, then I'll consider the evidence and maybe believe him (if the evidence is right conclusive of course).

Most people claim to have evidence god exists, but they make silly mistakes. Also, many atheists claim to have proof god doesn't exist, but it is based on philosophy only (for example, the way Carou proved there can be no omnipotent being because it creates a paradox).

So I'm kind of an atheist agnostic, if that's ever possible ^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Well, I do agree being skeptic is staying on the fence a bit. But at least you actually pick a side. I mean, there is no evidence concerning god, so I choose not to believe him for that matter. If evidence ever comes up, then I'll consider the evidence and maybe believe him (if the evidence is right conclusive of course).

Most people claim to have evidence god exists, but they make silly mistakes. Also, many atheists claim to have proof god doesn't exist, but it is based on philosophy only (for example, the way Carou proved there can be no omnipotent being because it creates a paradox).

---

Dude, you're a little late with the whole "we proved omnipotent beings cannot exist"; I believe my man Siddharta solved that riddle long ago. Or wait, that logic only applies to beings whose characteristics you actually define. Since the Judeo-Christian god's qualities have been explained, we can instantly deduce that he doesn't exist. Heck, the only deity that can escape disproving is a deity that cares for humanity, yet refuses to show their existence to humanity for reasons that they cannot alter, overcome, or in other ways simply override. Oh, and they can't know everything, because everybody knows that Laplace's demon would lead himself into an infinite loop of insanity, because when he finally calculates the totality of everything past, present, and future, he'd know that he'd know that he'd know that he'd know that he'd know that he'd know......[insert random bit of information] before he knew that he knew that he knew that he knew that he knew that he knew......it.

:uhm:

Either way, it's completely foolish for a god to hide their existence from humanity for ANY reason, so a god that cares for humanity is pretty much out of the picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

So I'm kind of an atheist agnostic, if that's ever possible ^^

---

I think you're this.

haha Daniel thanks for the enlightenign references, but I really meant that as an example only.

And OMG at the link - there is actually something named that? lol now we talk business ^^

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/ag...theist-faq.htm

Guess I qualify for an agnostic atheist, really :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

If you claim that there are no deities in existence then you are a atheist, whether you have evidence to back it up or not. However, if you claim that you could be wrong, but still believe there are no deities, then you are still an atheist. Either way, to be an actual agnostic (with no extra labels), you need to admit that you don't know for sure. You can believe it's more likely, but I really don't know how that works if you strive for unbiased rationality.

It looks to me that Dawkin's is an atheist, because it seems to me that he's explicitly trying to deny theism as a whole. (Flying Spaghetti Monster anyone?)

---

Dawkins is definitly an atheist. Just search up "The Atheist Alliance" and you will see for yourself.

However, he still gives room for others to prove if God exists or why he should believe in one. He never explicity says that there is no God and that there will never be proof of one. Just read/watch some of his material and you will see that many people manipulate his words beyond belief.

Dawkins is someone who I very well respect because of how fair his beliefs are and how much he is attacked for them. Atheists are underdogs today and in his "I am an Atheist, but" he explains how it seems that we must give justifications for being atheist rather than simply stating so. Case in point, you presumed that he thought there is no way we could ever prove a God when he fervently believes otherwise; he just has not found the reason yet.

Quote:

---

Actually, as an atheist I cared little about being called what I was. :) Even as an agnostic still didn't give. I used to be an arsehole about religion when I got frustrated with family members, but got over it when I saw that arguing is pointless when someone doesn't have an open mind *cough*mydad*cough*. I do agree with some of the intentions of atheists, with all the secularization of society and government, but sometimes they just go too far with it. If we stop saying "merry Christmas", what do we call the holiday now, "excuse to party, give presents, and have an orgy or something"? :roll: And if we can take Jesus out of Easter, should we take Ishtar out too? :? Or does this "secularization" only apply to currently-active, powerhouse religions like Christianity?

(O'nus, either side can say that the others are nay-saying arseholes. You should've seen me when I was an atheist. :P)

---

See what I mean though? I consider myself a very strong atheist and yet I ardently advocate people to say "Merry Christmas" rather than anything else. I am all for freedom of thought and liberal-esque movements. I encourage people to find out the reasons for holidays and why they are the way they are rather than simply blindly following them. I do not encourage others to remove and abolish them because they were founded on benign foundations.

What do you think...?
~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Dawkins is someone who I very well respect because of how fair his beliefs are and how much he is attacked for them. Atheists are underdogs today and in his "I am an Atheist, but" he explains how it seems that we must give justifications for being atheist rather than simply stating so. Case in point, you presumed that he thought there is no way we could ever prove a God when he fervently believes otherwise; he just has not found the reason yet.

---

I'm not so sure I presumed that about him. What I was trying to say was that I presumed he was an atheist in the sense that he's a person who attempts to affirm that no god(s) exist. I doubt it to be impossible to prove/disprove god's existence, and Dawkins could very well agree with me. But still, if you didn't prove/disprove any of the sides so far, you need to remain neutral about the subject until you come to a conclusion. Sure, you can disprove/prove man-made gods, but you can't disprove/prove the existence of creators of the universe. It doesn't fit the bill of a god, who is someone/something that wants worship from you, so then that makes me qualify as an atheist.

Wait, did I JUST justify why we should be atheists? Should someone change the title to the thread now? Maybe that'll start more arguments...I mean discussions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

See what I mean though? I consider myself a very strong atheist and yet I ardently advocate people to say "Merry Christmas" rather than anything else. I am all for freedom of thought and liberal-esque movements. I encourage people to find out the reasons for holidays and why they are the way they are rather than simply blindly following them. I do not encourage others to remove and abolish them because they were founded on benign foundations.

What do you think...?
~

---

Sure, go find out why it's called Easter, but has to do with Jesus and eggs for some reason. I don't care if you want to say Merry Christmas or not, or if you want to remove religion out holidays as well. Just don't be damn annoying and act as if others can't say those religious expressions either. That's when your goals turn against you, and you become a hypocrite to your own cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

I'm not so sure I presumed that about him. What I was trying to say was that I presumed he was an atheist in the sense that he's a person who attempts to affirm that no god(s) exist. I doubt it to be impossible to prove/disprove god's existence, and Dawkins could very well agree with me.

---

He asserts that he is more than welcome to see a convincing reason to believe a God exists, but he has yet to find or hear one. He says that it is possible, just not recorded yet.

Quote:

---

But still, if you didn't prove/disprove any of the sides so far, you need to remain neutral about the subject until you come to a conclusion.

---

So, what is the difference between this and the goals of the scientific method? Something all atheists revere.

Quote:

---

Sure, you can disprove/prove man-made gods, but you can't disprove/prove the existence of creators of the universe. It doesn't fit the bill of a god, who is someone/something that wants worship from you, so then that makes me qualify as an atheist.

Wait, did I JUST justify why we should be atheists? Should someone change the title to the thread now? Maybe that'll start more arguments...I mean discussions.

Sure, go find out why it's called Easter, but has to do with Jesus and eggs for some reason. I don't care if you want to say Merry Christmas or not, or if you want to remove religion out holidays as well. Just don't be damn annoying and act as if others can't say those religious expressions either. That's when your goals turn against you, and you become a hypocrite to your own cause.

---

As a passionate atheist, I can tell you that I would never do such a thing.

For the sake of brevity, let me summarize my thoughts on this matter:

Agnosticism - The belief that we can never know or understand the nature of things.

Atheism - The belief that we require empirical grounds to believe in something (ie. a God). However, the meaning of Atheists has deteriorated because of fundamentalist atheists who claim that there is no God and never will be proof of one (which sounds more agnostic to me). In addition, the world is predominantly Theists who adhor Atheists and will obviously invariably manipulate the meaning of an Atheist with a pejorative connotation.

Theist - The belief that a God exists, regardless of lack of proof.

What do you think..?
~

It's pretty well-established that Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. One can be an Agnostic Atheist (as I am), or more rarely, even an Agnostic Theist.

There are different flavors of Agnosticism:

"I do not know if there is a God"
"I can never know if there is a God"
"No one knows if there is a God"
"No one can ever know if there is a God"

If you hold any of these to be true, but also believe there is no God, you are both Agnostic and Atheist.

I swear, too many labels for something so freaking simple. Anyway, if that's the case, O'nus, I'm an atheist. I always thought at atheists said there wasn't one, but I guess those are just the oddballs of the group. *sigh* Crap, ANOTHER change in my system of belief.

I hate language, because any combination of words can be twisted into something else different than the original intention. "Firetruck" doesn't mean a truck that is used to combat fires by firefighters, it is a truck that is really on fire, and is used by firefighters to spread fires! After all, they fight FOR fire, don't they?[/rant]

Then I'm an Agnostic Theist. :P

We're rare?

There seems to be a dichotomy here - which definition is the right one?

Atheism:
A) The belief that there is no god
B) A lack of belief that there is a god

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegnome54

There seems to be a dichotomy here - which definition is the right one?

Atheism:
A) The belief that there is no god
B) A lack of belief that there is a god

---

I would say it like this:

Atheism:
A) Does not have a reason to believe there is a God but is open to proof of God.

Agnosticism:
A) Does not believe we are capable knowing there is a God. (Which seems to be what atheists are more commonly blamed of believing).

This is as how I see it.

What do you think...?
~

Quote:

---

I would say it like this:

Atheism:
A) Does not have a reason to believe there is a God but is open to proof of God.

Agnosticism:
A) Does not believe we are capable knowing there is a God. (Which seems to be what atheists are more commonly blamed of believing).

This is as how I see it.

What do you think...?
~

---

I disagree

The only way you can define atheist, theist and agnostics is this

Do you believe in god? tick yes, no or maybe

You have to define god, because that is a vague term. Also, on the atheist side, not believing in god would be like not believing in santa claus or unicorns. It not that they don't have a reason, it because it is obvious their is no god.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

I disagree

The only way you can define atheist, theist and agnostics is this

Do you believe in god? tick yes, no or maybe

You have to define god, because that is a vague term. Also, on the atheist side, not believing in god would be like not believing in santa claus or unicorns. It not that they don't have a reason, it because it is obvious their is no god.

---

You are not giving room for those who believe that we are incapable of knowing whether or not there is God (or supernatural being that created us all) or giving room for those that give the possibility of a God, but do not have any reson to believe. You could say that the latter her is "maybe" but I would then call that atheism.
~

Quote:

---

You are not giving room for those who believe that we are incapable of knowing whether or not there is God (or supernatural being that created us all) or giving room for those that give the possibility of a God, but do not have any reson to believe. You could say that the latter her is "maybe" but I would then call that atheism.

---

Science is the nail in the coffin for religion. Believing in something and not believing in something is two different things, their not opposite. Again, I don't believe in unicorns. It stupid to say lets allow the fact a unicorn might exsist.
Not really I would define agnostics as sitting on the fence and not making their mind up.

Alright, to what I've always regarded, it is like the following:

Atheist:
*belief that there is no god (strong atheism)
*lack of belief in a god (moderate atheism, or agnostic atheism)

Agnosticism
*belief that it is impossible to know if there is a god

Theism
*lack of belief in any particular god (moderate theism, or agnostic theism)
*belief in a god (strong theism)

and I do not think agnosticism is sitting on the fence. sitting on the fence is sitting on the fence. agnosticism is agnosticism :D

So I guess that's it. Opinions?

Quote:

---

Atheist:
*belief that there is no god (strong atheism)
*lack of belief in a god (moderate atheism, or agnostic atheism)

---

Again, can you strongly not believe in unicorns?

Quote:

---

Agnosticism
*belief that it is impossible to know if there is a god

---

Sitting on the fence.

Quote:

---

Theism
*lack of belief in any particular god (moderate theism, or agnostic theism)
*belief in a god (strong theism)

---

Can strongly believe in unicorns? I would say yes.

I would say atheism is not about belief. Theism is about belife. Again, a atheist follows the scientific method, you know where is the evidence and to only believe something if it has evidence.

I will refer to the dictionary of philosophy by Simon Blackburn.

Atheism:
"Either the lack of belief that there exists a God, or the belief that there exists none. Sometimes thought itself to be more dogmatic than mere agnosticism, although atheists retort that everyone is an atheist about most Gods, so they merely advance one step further."

Agnosticism:
"The view that some proposition is not known, and perhaps can not be know to be true or false. The term is particularly applied to theological doctrines."

Theism:
"Belief in the existance of a God. Theism is also a morbid condition brought on by excessive tea-drinking, but this is a different sense of the word, or an instance of homonymy."

~

Quote:

---

I will refer to the dictionary of philosophy by Simon Blackburn.

---

Simon Blackburn is a idiot.

Quote:

---

Atheism:
"Either the lack of belief that there exists a God, or the belief that there exists none. Sometimes thought itself to be more dogmatic than mere agnosticism, although atheists retort that everyone is an atheist about most Gods, so they merely advance one step further."

---

Again, belife is a stupid word to describe atheism. Are we now defining stuff we don't believe and then calling that a name. Again, I don't believe in unicorns what does that make me? a noiconist.

Quote:

---

Agnosticism:
"The view that some proposition is not known, and perhaps can not be know to be true or false. The term is particularly applied to theological doctrines."

---

This is a better

Quote:

---

Theism:
"Belief in the existance of a God.

---

This is better

You can't say atheism is a belife, as it is not. Unless, we call everything we don't believe a belife then you can't use belife. If atheism is opposite to theism, then one most not be a belife.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

Simon Blackburn is a idiot.

---

Perhaps if you had a justification for this, I might regard it as something more than mere opinionated banter.

Quote:

---

Again, belife is a stupid word to describe atheism. Are we now defining stuff we don't believe and then calling that a name. Again, I don't believe in unicorns what does that make me? a noiconist.

This is a better

This is better

You can't say atheism is a belife, as it is not. Unless, we call everything we don't believe a belife then you can't use belife. If atheism is opposite to theism, then one most not be a belife.

---

Yawn. You really want to get into semantics?

I believe I am using a keyboard right now. Oops, should I have used a different word? Does it matter? The idea is how it is being used within its context, right? Do not spend too much time on the semantics of the contextual description of the word.

As an atheist, I do not go around saying, "I hold my view of the world (rather than saying belief) to be that there is a possibility of a God or supernatural entities, but I require empirical evidence to believe such. etc."

~

i am okay with being agnostic for now.


...or as Stephen Colbert calls them, Atheists without balls :roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt5678

i am okay with being agnostic for now.


.........or as Stephen Colbert calls them, Atheists without balls :roll:

---

Yup.

Consider:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,31...ichard-Dawkins

~

Quote:

---

Yawn. You really want to get into semantics?

---

Yeah, since precise word don't matter. Like in psychology what does conformity actually mean, we should just call it obediance, since their kind of the same. You know who care about semantics anyway?

Quote:

---

I believe I am using a keyboard right now. Oops, should I have used a different word? Does it matter? The idea is how it is being used within its context, right? Do not spend too much time on the semantics of the contextual description of the word.

---

Yes it does. First of all if you said it is scientifically proven I am using the keyboard then that be different then believing. Since, you could be lying, however if you where then science would show it.

Quote:

---

As an atheist, I do not go around saying, "I hold my view of the world (rather than saying belief) to be that there is a possibility of a God or supernatural entities, but I require empirical evidence to believe such. etc."

---

Again, if you had empirical evidence then it wouldn't be a belife. You would say it is fact that or that science shows. You have to have a belife to believe in god, since you would be making a claim, unless that claims is scientific or not a claim then it can't get passed belife. Atheism is not a belife since it not making any claim, it just saying god does not exsist.

Unless you want atheist to prove the negative. Which, would actually contradict your thread on how you can't prove a negative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

Yeah, since precise word don't matter. Like in psychology what does conformity actually mean, we should just call it obediance, since their kind of the same. You know who care about semantics anyway?

Yes it does. First of all if you said it is scientifically proven I am using the keyboard then that be different then believing. Since, you could be lying, however if you where then science would show it.

Again, if you had empirical evidence then it wouldn't be a belife. You would say it is fact that or that science shows. You have to have a belife to believe in god, since you would be making a claim, unless that claims is scientific or not a claim then it can't get passed belife. Atheism is not a belife since it not making any claim, it just saying god does not exsist.

Unless you want atheist to prove the negative. Which, would actually contradict your thread on how you can't prove a negative.

---

Yeah, I agree with you. I just use the word "belief" for the sake of brevity. I cannot think of another word that is short to use when I tell people what I "believe". I blame this on a predominant theistic society which presumes you "believe" in something. Thus, I simply say I "believe" in Atheism. However, I am willing to divulge into how it is not a belief, nay, relies on empiricism.

If you know a better word, I am more than willing to know it. However, I think it is really the result of presumptious interrogation. Don't you?

Edit: Like being asked, "So how long have you been gay?" it prepositions you to be gay before you can give a straight (mind the pun) answer. "What belief do you have?" is pre-prepositional.
~

Quote:

---

Yeah, I agree with you. I just use the word "belief" for the sake of brevity. I cannot think of another word that is short to use when I tell people what I "believe". I blame this on a predominant theistic society which presumes you "believe" in something. Thus, I simply say I "believe" in Atheism. However, I am willing to divulge into how it is not a belief, nay, relies on empiricism.

---

I guess it the problem with negative statements. It kind of like when people say isn't evolution just a theory. A scientific theory is semantically different then a theory, which can be misleading. I guess the only thing you can really say is that their is evidence for god.

Quote:

---

If you know a better word, I am more than willing to know it. However, I think it is really the result of presumptious interrogation. Don't you?

---

Yeah, but I would define the belife in atheism as the thought that their is no god. And theism as the belife their is a god and agnostic as the belife we will never know if their is a god.

Since, you can think about something without believing it. However, if you fore something like unicorns exsisting then that would be belife.

wendylove, I don't get you.

I mean, it's right to say that atheism is not a religion. Buy why should atheism not be a belief? After all, you believe god doesn't exist, is that it.


And yes, you can strongly believe there is no god. You can make it a part of your life and advocate it (atheism heh). But you may also not give shit about any god, and not bother much about "disbelieving" it. (weak atheism or agnostic atheism)

So it's more or less like this:

atheism - a person that gets into discussions, advocating there is no god
agnostic atheism - a person that doesn't bother about believing a god/chooses to believe none
agnosticism - a person that believes it is impossible to know if a god exists (which makes more sense than it appears, if you are into philosophy)
agnostic theism - a person that believes a god, but doesn't choose any particular religion (e.g. sincretic religion)
theism - a person that believes the god advocated by a religion (e.g. a regular christian)

----

And btw wendylove, about your sig. Planets mightnot reproduce the way we think of reproduction, but they do. Just liek starts, for example. A star will most likely die away and not reproduce, but don't forget they are born from star "nests", which are resulting of other stars' deaths. So, yes they do reproduce.

LOL completely out of topic, but I just had to say it. Maybe we can create a thread for this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

And yes, you can strongly believe there is no god. You can make it a part of your life and advocate it (atheism heh). But you may also not give shit about any god, and not bother much about "disbelieving" it. (weak atheism or agnostic atheism)

So it's more or less like this:

atheism - a person that gets into discussions, advocating there is no god
agnostic atheism - a person that doesn't bother about believing a god/chooses to believe none
agnosticism - a person that believes it is impossible to know if a god exists (which makes more sense than it appears, if you are into philosophy)
agnostic theism - a person that believes a god, but doesn't choose any particular religion (e.g. sincretic religion)
theism - a person that believes the god advocated by a religion (e.g. a regular christian)

---

Where would I fall then?

I believe in empirical matters; those of which can be systemically observed via empiricism.

I have no reason to believe there is a God, thus, I do not believe in one.

However, this is misleading. Let me represent this better:

- If there is/was a God, we would have evidence for God.
- There is no evidence for a God.
- Thus, there is no God.

Obviously the matters of the second premise are debatable, but I have yet to find a reason to believe otherwise. Thus, I do not think God exists. This does not mean that I zealously pontificate that there is no God no matter what anyone says.

What do you think...?
~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Consider:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,31...ichard-Dawkins

~

---

ok....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt5678

ok....

---

Do you feel you can relate to anything within the link..? That is why I provided it.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Do you feel you can relate to anything within the link..? That is why I provided it.

~

---

are you implying that the only reason i posted a joke was because i am uncomfortable with my agnosticism?

Not really, that was just a joke I got a chuckle out of. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt5678

are you implying that the only reason i posted a joke was because i am uncomfortable with my agnosticism?

Not really, that was just a joke I got a chuckle out of. :)

---

Oh... my bad..

lol

~

O'nus, I really think you (and me) classify as atheists.

But it really depends. Agnostic atheism is like someone that doesn't believe because he doesn't care about religion. Atheism is like someone that doesn't believe, but care about religion (discussing it etc).
Also with agnostic theism, which is when someoen believes, but not sure of what (e.g. believes in the christian god but believes in spirits as well) And theism is sticking to one religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

But it really depends. Agnostic atheism is like someone that doesn't believe because he doesn't care about religion. Atheism is like someone that doesn't believe, but care about religion (discussing it etc).
Also with agnostic theism, which is when someoen believes, but not sure of what (e.g. believes in the christian god but believes in spirits as well) And theism is sticking to one religion.

---

What do you mean when you say "doesn't care about religion"? What does care, in this context, mean?

~

Someone tha tdoesn't bother about religion, i.e. never thinks of it/considers it to a big extent

While someone that "cares" about religion is a person interested in discussing the topic, learnign about other religions, and making his opinions known. heh

It is like the difference between a practising christian and a christian that believes but doesn't practise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Someone tha tdoesn't bother about religion, i.e. never thinks of it/considers it to a big extent

While someone that "cares" about religion is a person interested in discussing the topic, learnign about other religions, and making his opinions known. heh

---

Do I contradict that then? I constantly debate over religion and discuss it while maintaining an atheistic view open to belief in supernatural as long as it it is in conjunction with empirical evidence.

I am also considering entering the psychology of religion.

I have my own grounds of opinion here, but I am curious to learn more about your view.

~

Well O'nus, being open to beliefs doesn't really have to do with it - it's a parallel matter. Actually, someone that doesn't bother much about religion would never spend time to hear another person's opinion about it.

I still think you qualify for atheist (just like I do). Of course, this is my view, which is actually slightly different from that on the link provided.