Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are there statistics to support #1 is more common than #2? I'm a full blown 2, and personally find the belief that there is or maybe a god to be a ludicrous position. Is #1 an escape clause, just in case? Sounds like the fear of a vengful god still has a tight grip.
Not true. Some people just realize that not everything can be proven. How did the earth become what it is? Alot of the scientific theories might be realistic and great hypothesis but we can't prove them. So someone who believes in #1 might be pretty sure there isn't one, but can't mark it at 100%. It doesn't mean they are afraid of a vengeance. I'm pretty sure the Mets aren't going to be in the World Series in the next 5 years, but I can't guarantee it either. (and no, I am not a Mets fan.)
Not true. Some people just realize that not everything can be proven. How did the earth become what it is? Alot of the scientific theories might be realistic and great hypothesis but we can't prove them. So someone who believes in #1 might be pretty sure there isn't one, but can't mark it at 100%. It doesn't mean they are afraid of a vengeance. I'm pretty sure the Mets aren't going to be in the World Series in the next 5 years, but I can't guarantee it either. (and no, I am not a Mets fan.)
I give belief in god the same status as belief in the tooth fairy, so I have to conclude that I am absolutely sure god is a figment of people's imagination.
I give belief in god the same status as belief in the tooth fairy, so I have to conclude that I am absolutely sure god is a figment of people's imagination.
...and I wont argue with you on the point because you might be right.
I know there is no god, there is not one tiny bit of doubt in my mind about that. I guess that makes me #2. I personally would have a hard time classifying anyone that fell under #1 as a true atheist, sounds more like a "just in case christian" to me.
Knowledge requires evidence. Because there is no evidence for or against a generic god, we are all technically "agnostic". Granted the term "god" needs much better definition and thus makes this debate almost meaningless. Still, humans believe in gods of many stripes and varieties and often confuse knowledge with belief. Therefore what it comes down to is not knowledge but belief.
Some things humans have called gods or are still calling gods, do demonstrably exist. For instance, people used to refer to the sun as a god. The sun demonstrably exists, but unless you're willing to think of it as god (which carries some baggage such as worship and whatnot) then it is not a god to you. Pantheists believe the universe is a god, and the same would apply if you reject that notion.
As I've been saying in another thread, there is no middle ground between theism and atheism. You either believe in a god or you do not. Thus you are either one or the other, whether you wish to label yourself with the terms or not. This is the true dichotomy.
I believe in a god. (theist)
I do not believe in a god. (atheist)
This whole agnosticism debate simply serves to cloud the issue. Damn you Thomas Huxley!
Edit: I might add to anyone who claims to know a god does exist or that no gods exist entirely, do this little thought experiment. First you will need to very thoroughly define exactly what a god is, then attempt to prove either affirmative position with evidence. You will quickly find yourself in a very untenable position. I feel global gnostic atheism is not a good position to put oneself in. You then become the one making the positive claim, and that requires proof. How exactly does one provide proof of something that does not exist? Only things that exist leave proof.
Last edited by NOTaTHEIST; 02-25-2014 at 12:28 AM..
How many times must I correct posters on these improper definitions? Do I need to create a thread on this?
1) ALL AGNOSTICS ARE ATHEISTS but:
2) NOT ALL ATHEISTS ARE AGNOSTICS
---
Here's what happened: (Get ready for a short etymology lesson)
The word AGNOSTIC was not coined until the mid 19th century. Before AGNOSTIC was a term, everyone who was unsure of God or lacked a theistic belief was called an ATHEIST.
The word ATHEISM simply means: "without theism" - Literally. That's all it means, folks! It doesn't necessarily mean that every atheist is saying, "Yo, there's no way in H-E-double hockey sticks that there's a God."
In our colloquial dictionary, you'll find two definitions:
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
And as you will learn, either one MAY apply dependent on the TYPE of atheist someone is.
The reason that AGNOSTIC became an oft-used term to describe SOME ATHEISTS is because of the problem of differentiating a WEAK ATHEIST from a STRONG ATHEIST.
WEAK Atheist: One who doesn't say one way or another if there is a God or not (essentially, an AGNOSTIC)
STRONG Atheist: This is similar to the previous, "radical" atheist who believes there is no way there's a God.
Has anyone ever seen a Venn diagram? If you were to draw two circles and label them AGNOSTIC and ATHEIST, you would place a WEAK Atheist in the middle of the two terms as they are overlapping. You would then place a STRONG Atheist on the extreme right side simply under Atheist, because he is clearly not also an AGNOSTIC.
Does this make sense?
---
OP, I'm just like you. I am an ATHEIST who has no idea if there is a God or not but is without a theistic belief. I happen to be in both categories.... and so are you.
Please learn the meaning of the terms you're throwing about - it does nothing but discredits people who have come before you.
And all of the terms have negative connotations because we live in a theistic society.
Agnostic - tends to be labeled as apathetic or too stupid to decide
Atheist - evil, hard-lined radical who tells everyone there is no God
Weak Atheist - just like an agnostic, too weak and feable minded to make up his mind.
---
Side note: OP, not all Atheists are scientifically minded, or in the same vein as Dawkins, etc. An atheist is simply anyone without a theistic belief, so be careful about throwing out generalizations as you did regarding who or what an 'atheist' is all about.
I hope that helped someone.
This should be pasted as a sticky! I'm still so old fashion that I don't acknowledge the differences in Agnostic and Atheist. They are the same to me. The only difference is the reasons why one is not a Theists, we aren't a religion so those reasons differ, as they should.
Again, great post!
If you concede that we might be right not to believe in a god of any kind, then that is really all we ask of the believers.
We still have an ongoing battle against organized religion and its influence on the world *koff* 'ganda*koff*..
I can appreciate your sentiment and it highlights what seems to be the biggest and most consistent negative reactions to my posts . . . my certainty. This seems to give the erroneous impression of extreme arrogance. I cannot apologize for it nor admit that I could be wrong about the existence of God . . . because my personal experiences will not allow it. To deny what I so absolutely know to be true would require that I accept the idea that I am insane. I have far too much evidence to the contrary. My other beliefs and hypotheses about God MAY be off . . . but I don't really think so. So in my case, Arq . . . I cannot accommodate your concession. But I thank you for expressing it. It makes the general hostility and negativity to my posts understandable . . . but no less disturbing and unpleasant.
I cannot apologize for it nor admit that I could be wrong about the existence of God
Therein lies the difference between us I feel. I am happy to always be ready to admit being wrong - or to update my views based on new evidence. I would never be the type to declare myself immune to ever changing my position on an issue as you have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I have far too much evidence to the contrary.
I look forward to the day you present some. Maybe in the 20,000s given it has not happened in posts 1k to 19k?
I can appreciate your sentiment and it highlights what seems to be the biggest and most consistent negative reactions to my posts . . . my certainty. This seems to give the erroneous impression of extreme arrogance. I cannot apologize for it nor admit that I could be wrong about the existence of God . . . because my personal experiences will not allow it. To deny what I so absolutely know to be true would require that I accept the idea that I am insane. I have far too much evidence to the contrary. My other beliefs and hypotheses about God MAY be off . . . but I don't really think so. So in my case, Arq . . . I cannot accommodate your concession. But I thank you for expressing it. It makes the general hostility and negativity to my posts understandable . . . but no less disturbing and unpleasant.
I perceive the glimmer of a mutual understanding of the other's position. I do understand why you believe what you believe and it only requires you to understand why I don't, and we can perhaps call a truce - though the peddling of our respective viewpoints to the purchasing public will go on.
I ought to reiterate that I do not contest your belief -system, because I don't see it as an organized religion -threat. I only don't buy your beliefs and the hypothesis, for the reasons I have explained at length. I do not contest your influence on society through organized religion because I don't think there is one.
I don't mean that in a deprecating way, I mean that you do not appear to be a social pest as the organized religions are.
I am sure that you are not crazy, and I do not accept A. C Clarke's view that religious belief is a form of insanity. I think that it is an evolved instinctive belief. A delusional one, but real enough. Your remark that your other beliefs and hypotheses 'may be off' is a concession in itself. Accepting that your God -experience (real though it is) may be misinterpreted (or at least understanding that we might have perfectly sound reasons for thinking that it may be) would remove the only mental barrier preventing you from accepting the concession that you can't accept, as yet.
I am aware that some of the exchanges with myself and others have been superheated. But I would think that, if you see your way to accepting that we do have a good, sound, evidence (lack of) case for not buying into a priori god -belief and therefore our position, based on that, is logically valid and is not some sort of ignorance or blindness on our part, and I believe that you would find that a lot of the hostility would evaporate.
Your posts are always so insightful, Arequipa, I could quote and comment on everyone. But for brevity sake I'll take just this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I think that it [god belief] is an evolved instinctive belief.
Yes, this is probably what makes it difficult for the believer to understand how we perceive things. They most likely believe because they have a very strong innate tendency to do so. That combined with the memetic nature of god belief causes them to become infected with the meme.
But then there's the other side of the genetic coin. There are people who either have a very weak tendency to believe or perhaps lack it altogether. Our brains don't feed us the same high-dose of feel-good, emotional chemicals when we're exposed to the god meme and thus we look at it without that blinder. We attempt to approach the same issue from our only remaining position... rationality. Because we don't see this belief as rational, we reject it. We must appear to the believer as cold and distant.
From the believers perspective it "feels" completely rational and for demonstrable, biological reasons. It's probably not possible from them to separate the subject from how it makes them feel, and when we attack the belief it understandably becomes a personal affront. When you get right down to it, "god" probably only exists in the human brain, or perhaps other brains also capable of manifesting the concept.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm still so old fashion that I don't acknowledge the differences in Agnostic and Atheist. They are the same to me. The only difference is the reasons why one is not a Theists, we aren't a religion so those reasons differ, as they should. 
But I would think that, if you see your way to accepting that we do have a good, sound, evidence (lack of) case for not buying into a priori god -belief and therefore our position, based on that, is logically valid and is not some sort of ignorance or blindness on our part, and I believe that you would find that a lot of the hostility would evaporate.
