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.
1: Agnostic Atheism: One That does not beleive in god but leaves open the possibillity of a deity if evidence shows otherwise.
2: Gnostic Atheism: One that does not beleive in their is a god and comvinced of it.
Many atheists like myself, Richard Dawkins and others say we dont beleive in god and think its a ridiculous concept, but to say there is no chance of there being a god is just foolhardy.
I'd say that Dawkins too would say the possibility of a deity is open if evidence shows it to be so, but ..well..we can see the problems:
"beleive in god but leaves open the possibillity of a deity"
That's two things: 'Believe in god' (I imagine "God" was meant) and the possibility of a deity - such as Allah, Krishna, Thor, Viracocha or some Shinto or Voodoo god.
There's also 'god' (small g) which could be anything from a sorta everybody's god to just the ordered workings of the universe.
What Dawkins and I am talking about is any one of the personal gods on offer for which there is no chance. I mean, there is no chance that the oft - asked question 'what would convince you to believe in God?' is going to work, because the debate was lost so long ago there is really no way back.
As to sorta god or god as nature. That is a little more possible but so far there is no sound evidence for it despite the best efforts of Behe and Mystic Philosopher. If one has any regard for sound evidence and logic, there is no honest alternative to (technically) agnostic - based (strong) disbelief.
Or you could say Gnostic atheism in the same way one 'knows' there are no dragons, fairies and no Santa Claus.
I'd say that Dawkins too would say the possibility of a deity is open if evidence shows it to be so, but ..well..we can see the problems:
"beleive in god but leaves open the possibillity of a deity"
That's two things: 'Believe in god' (I imagine "God" was meant) and the possibility of a deity - such as Allah, Krishna, Thor, Viracocha or some Shinto or Voodoo god.
There's also 'god' (small g) which could be anything from a sorta everybody's god to just the ordered workings of the universe.
What Dawkins and I am talking about is any one of the personal gods on offer for which there is no chance. I mean, there is no chance that the oft - asked question 'what would convince you to believe in God?' is going to work, because the debate was lost so long ago there is really no way back.
As to sorta god or god as nature.That is a little more possible but so far there is no sound evidence for it despite the best efforts of Behe and Mystic Philosopher. If one has any regard for sound evidence and logic, there is no honest alternative to (technically) agnostic - based (strong) disbelief.
Or you could say Gnostic atheism in the same way one 'knows' there are no dragons, fairies and no Santa Claus.
There can't be a god as in nature b/c the very definition of a god is a supernatural deity. This is my problem with Pantheism. It is an attempt to broaden the god definition. I think people are afraid to identify as atheist, so they come up with these non controversial terms. Despite its name, Pantheism doesn't have anything to do with traditional theism. The difference between them and me is they call nature and the universe "god", while I don't. Dawkins probably said it best that pantheism is sexed up atheism. Not calling you a pantheist btw.
Last edited by Chicagoland60426; 11-13-2010 at 12:56 AM..
There can't be a god as in nature b/c the very definition of a god is a supernatural deity. This is my problem with Pantheism. It is an attempt to broaden the god definition. I think people are afraid to identify as atheist, so they come up with these non controversial terms. Despite its name, Pantheism doesn't have anything to do with traditional theism. The difference between them and me is they call nature and the universe "god", while I don't. Dawkins probably said it best that pantheism is sexed up atheism. Not calling you a pantheist btw.
This is the problem with trying to argue on definitions rather than concepts.
Anything that there is can be called 'natural' as it exists in nature - even ghosts, gods and prediction (if they were real).
When I discussed the matter most usefully with MysticP, it seemed to come down to whether nature was intelligent (forward planning) as distinct from working in predictable ways. As soon as you think that the cosmos is planning ahead and executing that plan, then one could feasibly apply the 'god' label.
This is a very grey area as quantum introduces the idea that something could plan ahead without actually planning ahead. But all that is in the 'Pantheist' and deist - god area and is more a philosophical problem (as well as scientific) because we are not required to do anything about it.
As soon as the leap of faith is made from a forward planning nature to one which wants to interract with us and starts issuing instructions, we are talking personal gods with laws, Dogma, holy books and general interference in all our lives. That is a problem on all levels and we cannot afford to be as accommodating as we might be on Pantheism.
Agnosticism does not address "belief" in god/s, it addresses "knowledge". On the spectrum of belief, there are only 2 choices. You either have a belief in god, or you don't. There is no fence sitting. Let's say someone asked you the question "do you believe in god."? If you cannot answer affirmatively "yes, I believe in god", then you are by definition an atheist in regards to belief. You still can claim that you do not "know" whether or not god exists (agnostic), but you additionally would currently be without a belief in one (atheist). That doesn't mean that you don't think gods are "possible", just that you do not currently actively believe in any particular god. All agnostics either have a belief in god (theist/deist) or they don't (atheist). You don't have to choose to be an atheist, or purposely claim the title of atheist, to be one by definition. Sort of like being bald.....
Agnosticism does not say "I don't know if I believe in a god." It says "I believe that god cannot be known". All agnostics still either have a belief in god or not despite their understanding that gods cannot be known. Agnostic theists/deists believe in god despite acknowledging that gods cannot be known. That is why they call it “faith”. Whereas, agnostic atheists acknowledge that gods cannot be known and therefore withhold belief in any until such time as they are presented with any convincing evidence which would make them believe in one.
This is one of the more perceptive explanations I've yet heard regarding the definition of an agnostic. Ever since I was fourteen, I've defined myself as an agnostic. Forty years later, that hasn't changed. Unfortunately, I have found that atheists are just as likely to ridicule the beliefs of agnostics as are theists. Madalyn Murray-O'Hare once said that an agnostic is a "milk-toast atheist".
Theists will argue in favor of the existence of a god, while many atheists will strongly assert that gods do not exist. My finding is that a true agnostic is someone who refuses to engage the argument concerning the existence of gods. In the mind of the agnostic, the question of a divine existence is never asked because any potential answer requires information not available through human perception.
As we tend to use the terms, people who call themselves atheists are emphasizing their lack of belief, while those of us who refer to ourselves as agnostics are highlighting our lack of knowledge. Regardless of the etymological meaning of the words "atheist" and "agnostic", or of how we may define ourselves; we share a common interest in creating a society in which the personal religious beliefs of others stay out of the public realm.
Last edited by rogead; 11-14-2010 at 12:38 PM..
Reason: spelling
Good post. Which is why, apart from the belief position which one adopts in response to a knowledge position, an agnostic, fence - sitter, not sure or milktoast atheist or Pantheist/Deist or spiritual humanist or whatever the heck, I can live with anyone who does not push a personal god, Holy book and religion as a Truth which everyone should believe.
That does leave irreligion, a humanist and rationalist - based worldview and religion kept on a purely personal belief (and accountable to Law and the revenue office) basis as the default. I can live with anyone who can live with that.
...I can live with anyone who does not push a personal god, Holy book and religion as a Truth which everyone should believe.
That does leave irreligion, a humanist and rationalist - based worldview and religion kept on a purely personal belief (and accountable to Law and the revenue office) basis as the default. I can live with anyone who can live with that.
Very well said. (I had a pair of AT&T employees visit my front porch yesterday who approached the level of religious proselytizing.)
Agnostic is someone who doesn't believe in Religion but can believe in Jesus and his teachings. Religion is conforming to a faith's rituals and traditions. Religious people know that in group setting, people working together can contribute and make a tremendous difference in implementing collective beliefs, etc. Religion is a faith based club but it's supposed to be a club that is nurturing, loving, supportive, effective, positive and righteous...not judgemental but righteous in protecting the poor, indigent, mentally ill, families, etc.
Agnostic is someone who doesn't believe in Religion but can believe in Jesus and his teachings.
Dude, you ain't even close Whatever else you said was ignored for your first statement shows you are clearly speaking from the vast wasteland of ignorance.
No it isn't. An agnostic has a knowledge position regarding gods - either that we don't know whether there are any gods or not or that if there are, we cannot know anything about them. Or Both.
Theism or atheism is a Belief - position regarding gods. Since agnosticism - not knowing - is the only clearly valid position (personal knowledge/revelation etc is purely anecdotal) non- belief is the only logical position.
To believe where one does not know is a faith - position and must be illogical.
To take jesus as a sort of moral or social role - model is another position altogether and is rather the position Thomas Jefferson took in his Jefferson bible - taking Jesus as a moral teacher but cutting all the divine stuff.
I'm not sure what one calls such a 'Christian' but agnostic isn't the right term.
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.
Whatever else you said was ignored for your first statement shows you are clearly speaking from the vast wasteland of ignorance.
