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.
Basically, an agnostic is someone who believes it's impossible to know whether there's a God. Whereas an atheist disbelieves in God or gods. ............From the point of view of a Christian, wouldn't agnosticism and atheism be almost the same concept?
Two part answer ---
1. An agnostic can be sub divided down into two seperate kinds :
a. A Person who hasnt made up his mind and who is still diligently looking for the answer and isnt afraid of making a sound commitment to the personal theistic Creator once reasonably convinced a Creator is required and exists from all we have as physical evidence around us. He is WILLING to go where the evidence leads.
b. A Person who is perpetually on the fence regarding this most important issue there is, and who isnt really investigating because he finds it palatable to sit on the fence without committing . He is NOT WILLING to go where the evidence leads.
A proclaimed Atheist can be sub divided into two also :
a. A Person has truly investigated the issue but cant reconcile things like world suffering, pain, dying, etc... or why something bad happened to them or a loved one....to a benevolent loving Creator ,so the Person concludes that a Creator cannot exist .
b. A Person that hasnt and doesnt want to investigate the issue because the Person has an apriori-commitment to Atheism at any and all costs .. even if a Creator exists. His decision isnt based on scientific reasoning, logic, rationale, etc...for embracing atheism as a worldview/origins but rather on the persons philosophical desire which must rule .
2. From a Christian perspective, the concept of an Agnostic and Atheist are quite simular because both choose to suppress , ban, or willfully nullify the vast evidence that abounds for an intelligently designed and engineered Cosmos and all things within it. They both involve some common excuses for not wanting to follow the personal theistic Creator (God) and feel content with their analysis. Typically what i see from both Agnostics and Atheists are some prior bad experiences with Christianity whether growing up or as an adult, they feel God abandoned them during a tragedy in their life , they dont like the concept of Sin because it is an affront to their ego which has them as 'a good person overall' , they dont want to be OWNED not even by the Universes Creator who is rightful in owning them, they dont want their autonomy threatened in any way, they dont want anyone or a set of objective moral standards imposed on them because its a fly in the ointment of fun (yet they always appeal to a set of objective moral standards when others morally violate them as evidence by their strong REaction ) , et al..
In reality, we only invent these labels of 'agnostic' and 'atheist' because they coincide with whatever philosophical interests One may occupy ; there isnt anyone on Earth or who ever lived that cant and didnt see the obvious physical evidences of intelligence and power in the created things around (and in) each and every one of us ; in fact, children of 4-7 years of age ask thier Parents about such obvious things. This makes people without excuse for denying the Creator just as the Bible in Romans chapter 1 explicitly states . Its plain to all that SOMEONE is responsible for something which is here that doesnt have to be and especially when its something that is so incredibly precise, complex, beautiful, masterful, and discoverable by the senses and logical Mind we have.
Ergo, everyone believes but the real issue is : Not all want to FOLLOW or try to get to know the Creator better ... at least not yet but there will certainly come a time when ALL will truly want to know the Creator better and desire not to be dismissed from his loving presence. What awaits us all is either : Greater closeness or greater distance to God....based on what we wanted in this earthly life which is like a midst and then it is gone suddenly and usually without warning.
1. An agnostic can be sub divided down into two seperate kinds :
a. A Person who hasnt made up his mind and who is still diligently looking for the answer and isnt afraid of making a sound commitment to the personal theistic Creator once reasonably convinced a Creator is required and exists from all we have as physical evidence around us. He is WILLING to go where the evidence leads.
b. A Person who is perpetually on the fence regarding this most important issue there is, and who isnt really investigating because he finds it palatable to sit on the fence without committing . He is NOT WILLING to go where the evidence leads.
There are so many things wrong in this post that I will have to address a small part at a time. First of all, it sounds like you may be confused about agnosticism. Agnosticism is not some kind of third choice in between belief and non-belief. Agnosticism does not even address "belief", 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 such thing as fence sitting regarding whether or not you have a belief. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. 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.
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 “faithâ€. 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.
So, in your example above, 1a and 1b both describe agnostic atheists.
Quote:
A proclaimed Atheist can be sub divided into two also :
a. A Person has truly investigated the issue but cant reconcile things like world suffering, pain, dying, etc... or why something bad happened to them or a loved one....to a benevolent loving Creator ,so the Person concludes that a Creator cannot exist .
b. A Person that hasnt and doesnt want to investigate the issue because the Person has an apriori-commitment to Atheism at any and all costs .. even if a Creator exists. His decision isnt based on scientific reasoning, logic, rationale, etc...for embracing atheism as a worldview/origins but rather on the persons philosophical desire which must rule . .
You are incorrect in both of your statements for atheists.
2a is incorrect because what do any of those things you mention (i.e, suffering, pain) have to do with whether or not a god exists? What if a deist type god exists who just created the universe and is not responsible for any of these things? Alternatively, god could be a cruel SOB and it would make no difference in whether or not I believe he actually existed. If there were convincing evidence that a particular god existed, then I would have no choice but to believe it existed....regardless of whether or not the god was an A-hole.
2b is incorrect because no atheist has a "commitment to atheism." What is there to commit to? Atheism is not a worldview and does not even address origins. A person does not "choose" to become an atheist. A person already believes what they believe, and because of that, they are consequently labeled "atheist" or "agnostic" or "theist". A person doesn't just say "I'm going to choose to be an atheist, so let me somehow change my beliefs to fit the definition". Rather, a person is exposed to information that changes their beliefs and because of this change in beliefs, they are now labeled something different than what they used to be. "Atheism" doesn't mean a thing to those of us who have no belief in gods (atheists). It is just a label used to represent a state of unbelief that we already have. Should we come across convincing evidence of the existence of any god, then we would be persuaded to believe, and would consequently be labeled as theists. Either is fine by me. I just am unable to believe in something without convincing evidence or proof. That is why I am currently without a belief in god. That does not mean that I hold the opposite belief that gods do not in fact exist.
There are so many things wrong in this post that I will have to address a small part at a time. First of all, it sounds like you may be confused about agnosticism. Agnosticism is not some kind of third choice in between belief and non-belief. Agnosticism does not even address "belief", 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 such thing as fence sitting regarding whether or not you have a belief. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. 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.
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 “faithâ€. 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.
So, in your example above, 1a and 1b both describe agnostic atheists.
You are incorrect in both of your statements for atheists.
2a is incorrect because what do any of those things you mention (i.e, suffering, pain) have to do with whether or not a god exists? What if a deist type god exists who just created the universe and is not responsible for any of these things? Alternatively, god could be a cruel SOB and it would make no difference in whether or not I believe he actually existed. If there were convincing evidence that a particular god existed, then I would have no choice but to believe it existed....regardless of whether or not the god was an A-hole.
2b is incorrect because no atheist has a "commitment to atheism." What is there to commit to? Atheism is not a worldview and does not even address origins. A person does not "choose" to become an atheist. A person already believes what they believe, and because of that, they are consequently labeled "atheist" or "agnostic" or "theist". A person doesn't just say "I'm going to choose to be an atheist, so let me somehow change my beliefs to fit the definition". Rather, a person is exposed to information that changes their beliefs and because of this change in beliefs, they are now labeled something different than what they used to be. "Atheism" doesn't mean a thing to those of us who have no belief in gods (atheists). It is just a label used to represent a state of unbelief that we already have. Should we come across convincing evidence of the existence of any god, then we would be persuaded to believe, and would consequently be labeled as theists. Either is fine by me. I just am unable to believe in something without convincing evidence or proof. That is why I am currently without a belief in god. That does not mean that I hold the opposite belief that gods do not in fact exist.
The OP asked for a CHRISTIAN perspective on agnostisicm and atheism , so i gave my personal one.
Yes...KNOWLEDGE concerning what constitutes obvious design and engineering in the many things around us as well as our own personal anatomy...leaves One without excuse for not noticing , realizing, and admitting it didnt just happen willy nilly by accident without purpose without intelligence. A personal theistic Creator such as ours CAN be known because of the obvious personal element to our Creation from having willed it into being....in conjunction with the spiritual nature every human being occupies . That applies to : Agnostics, Atheists, Humanists, Theists, Non Theists, Christians, Heathen, and any other labels there are . People have to work hard at jettisoning our personal theistic Creator and it is always centered around Ones personal pride, arrogance, and narcissism. No excuse is justifiable. Yet a great part of the populace is willing to adopt futile thinking that natural causes and materials can accomplish that which only a willful super intelligence could . Ergo, the depravity of mankind which will echo in eternity to all those who enjoyed (for a time) charade playing. End.
The OP asked for a CHRISTIAN perspective on agnostisicm and atheism , so i gave my personal one.
That's fair enough. It was also asking for our views on whether agnosticism and atheism were the same thing or different and in fact a general discussion of the views. This means that, if a Christian viewpoint is making basic logical errors such as arguing that they are either closed - minded or 'angry at God' for some reason (as you did above), and no other reason for doubt or disbelief is even considered, then we are at liberty - in fact it is necessary -that we correct such errors of reasoning (to put it charitably).
The OP asked for a CHRISTIAN perspective on agnostisicm and atheism , so i gave my personal one.
Yes...KNOWLEDGE concerning what constitutes obvious design and engineering in the many things around us as well as our own personal anatomy...leaves One without excuse for not noticing , realizing, and admitting it didnt just happen willy nilly by accident without purpose without intelligence. A personal theistic Creator such as ours CAN be known because of the obvious personal element to our Creation from having willed it into being....in conjunction with the spiritual nature every human being occupies . That applies to : Agnostics, Atheists, Humanists, Theists, Non Theists, Christians, Heathen, and any other labels there are . People have to work hard at jettisoning our personal theistic Creator and it is always centered around Ones personal pride, arrogance, and narcissism. No excuse is justifiable. Yet a great part of the populace is willing to adopt futile thinking that natural causes and materials can accomplish that which only a willful super intelligence could . Ergo, the depravity of mankind which will echo in eternity to all those who enjoyed (for a time) charade playing. End.
Obvious design? What obvious design? ok, I am looking at a rock right now. How is it obvious it has been designed? And what is this assumption about a spiritual nature? Can you prove there is such a thing as a "spirit" much less a "spiritual nature"? I have no reason to believe I have such a thing. As far as origins of the universe, I have no idea of how it began, or if it has always existed (eternal). What is "prideful, arrogant, and narcissistic" about admitting that I don't know? I think that assuming a god did it just because you have no better explanation (god of the gaps) and then claiming that others are prideful and arrogant because they do not believe as you do......is the very epitome of pride and arrogance.
See... this equivalence is what I find annoying. Now, maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but the term "agnostic" is a qualifier.
-Agnostic atheist: I do not believe in any higher powers, but I don't have enough knowledge to outright reject their existence.
-Agnostic theist: I do believe in a higher power, but I don't have enough knowledge to say it absolutely does exist.
The fact is, we are all agnostic. There is no one alive, nor anyone who's lived so far, who is truly gnostic about the question of whether or not there is a higher power or powers. Now, I do not believe that the question is forever unanswerable. "Does God exist" is not just a scientific question; it is the scientific question. It is very likely the whole reason science came about in the first place... to find God.
Now, don't mistake me... I'm not saying that we'll have an answer any time soon. Heck... we may destroy ourselves before we get close to answering the question. In fact, if we do manage to answer it, it'll be so far off in the future that we may have very well evolved into a whole new species of creature, mainly because we'll probably not be living on the earth anymore.
But it is a scientific question that can be answered.
But until that happens, everyone is truly agnostic. It's why I believe the "agnostic" part should be assumed... because it's what we all are. The labels "atheist" and "theist" merely explain that we either don't or do believe in a higher power or powers. Belief does not require absolute knowledge.
No. Everyone is agnostic. 100% of the world's human population is agnostic. That doesn't mean most of them will admit it, however.
No, we are not all agnostics. While I don't personally find any annoyance with your usage of the term "agnostic" as an adjective; the term is most typically used as a noun, not as a "qualifier" to someone else's ideological proclamations.
While there are many semantic variations one can construct out of the terms "theist", "atheist", and "agnostic"; each of these terms has a fairly well-understood general meaning in practical usage.
Theists make a positive assertion as to their belief in a deity or deities. Atheists make a positive assertion as to their lack of such beliefs. Both theists and atheists stake out a position on an axis of belief: "I believe" <...>"I don't believe".
Agnostics don't address the issue of belief because we consider it futile to take-up a question, the answer to which, lies beyond the capacities of human perception. We define our ideology as being in the realm of knowledge: "I know"<...> "I don't know".
If you were to ask me whether or not I believe in any deities; I would simply argue that, given the sensory limitations of my species, I don't possess the ability to address the question. I don't deal with the question of belief, because my (or anyone else's) inability to know...forecloses that question.
No, we are not all agnostics. While I don't personally find any annoyance with your usage of the term "agnostic" as an adjective; the term is most typically used as a noun, not as a "qualifier" to someone else's ideological proclamations.
While there are many semantic variations one can construct out of the terms "theist", "atheist", and "agnostic"; each of these terms has a fairly well-understood general meaning in practical usage.
Theists make a positive assertion as to their belief in a deity or deities. Atheists make a positive assertion as to their lack of such beliefs. Both theists and atheists stake out a position on an axis of belief: "I believe" <...>"I don't believe".
Agnostics don't address the issue of belief because we consider it futile to take-up a question, the answer to which, lies beyond the capacities of human perception. We define our ideology as being in the realm of knowledge: "I know"<...> "I don't know".
If you were to ask me whether or not I believe in any deities; I would simply argue that, given the sensory limitations of my species, I don't possess the ability to address the question. I don't deal with the question of belief, because my (or anyone else's) inability to know...forecloses that question.
Not quite. It is a pity that so much effort is spent on arguing about these terms and the only people who get anything out of it are the theists ...however.
"We define our ideology as being in the realm of knowledge: "I know"<...> "I don't know"." That is indeed agnosticism. Strictly speaking, Nate above is correct in saying that nobody really knows, but I have to concede that many consider that there is strong evidence for a god of some kind and are so sure of it that 'agnostic' is really not the term to apply.
However, the type you refer to, rogead, is one who considers the whole matter 'I don't know'. Which is fair enough. That is a knowledge position and there are those who say they do know (by direct experience or compelling evidence) and those who have not that surety of knowledge (a-gnostic). And I'll set aside the red herring issue of being agnostic about what the nature of that god is.
Having arrived at not knowing as a knowledge position, what is out belief position? Not knowing whether there is a god or not sound as though it madates the belief position of not knowing whether to believe in a god or not.
I can see how that position rather than atheism is going to seem more reasonable and logical than atheism which often says that a god doesn't exist, so there. Leaving aside how sure we are about it, the logical position of atheism is that what we do not know to be so we do not believe (not say definitely is not true) until we do have some reason to be sure that it is so.
That is all that is needed to be atheist. The 'Don't know' knowledge position (agnosticism) logically mandates the 'don't believe (yet) belief position of atheism. The two are not only compatible and not mutually exclusive, bit one logically is the outcome of the other.
The definite disbelief in any of the personal gods and religions on offer is a rather different matter and I am a very strong atheist about those.
Not quite. It is a pity that so much effort is spent on arguing about these terms and the only people who get anything out of it are the theists ...however.
"We define our ideology as being in the realm of knowledge: "I know"<...> "I don't know"." That is indeed agnosticism. Strictly speaking, Nate above is correct in saying that nobody really knows, but I have to concede that many consider that there is strong evidence for a god of some kind and are so sure of it that 'agnostic' is really not the term to apply.
However, the type you refer to, rogead, is one who considers the whole matter 'I don't know'. Which is fair enough. That is a knowledge position and there are those who say they do know (by direct experience or compelling evidence) and those who have not that surety of knowledge (a-gnostic). And I'll set aside the red herring issue of being agnostic about what the nature of that god is.
Having arrived at not knowing as a knowledge position, what is out belief position? Not knowing whether there is a god or not sound as though it madates the belief position of not knowing whether to believe in a god or not.
I can see how that position rather than atheism is going to seem more reasonable and logical than atheism which often says that a god doesn't exist, so there. Leaving aside how sure we are about it, the logical position of atheism is that what we do not know to be so we do not believe (not say definitely is not true) until we do have some reason to be sure that it is so.
That is all that is needed to be atheist. The 'Don't know' knowledge position (agnosticism) logically mandates the 'don't believe (yet) belief position of atheism. The two are not only compatible and not mutually exclusive, bit one logically is the outcome of the other.
The definite disbelief in any of the personal gods and religions on offer is a rather different matter and I am a very strong atheist about those.
Not really anything to disagree with here, and you're right about the petty squabbling that can sometimes occur. I'm probably a bit over-sensitive on the issue due to my occasional encounters with a certain type of atheist who approaches agnosticism in an arrogant and condescending manner. I'm not suggesting that Nate fits that profile, but the post to which I responded did slightly take on that tone.
I'm in complete agreement with your references to "personal" gods and specific religions. While I have no way of knowing of the existence of deities in general, I find it relatively easy to rationally counter those organized positions.
No, we are not all agnostics. While I don't personally find any annoyance with your usage of the term "agnostic" as an adjective; the term is most typically used as a noun, not as a "qualifier" to someone else's ideological proclamations.
I'm fully aware that it is used as a noun, but I'm not talking about the word as it is used by individual people. I'm talking about the description of our current state of understanding of our reality. Given that we do not know what caused the Big Bang, a person cannot say with 100% absolute, factual certainty that a deity does or does not exist.
So, functionally, we are all agnostic... because we honestly don't know.
Quote:
While there are many semantic variations one can construct out of the terms "theist", "atheist", and "agnostic"; each of these terms has a fairly well-understood general meaning in practical usage.
I personally have a problem with those meanings; I think those meanings construct false equivalencies and negative stereotypes that might cause some people who, for example, are functionally atheists, to be afraid of ever being associated with that term. So I'm disputing those meanings and saying we would do better if we changed the general usage to the more etymologically correct usages:
Theism - the belief in a higher power or powers
Atheism - the lack of theism
Gnosticism - knowledge
Agnosticism - the lack of knowledge
And I argue this because doing so would, I believe, help to remove many of the negative stereotypes from atheism and help to clarify the entire discussion.
(For the record, I'm not suggesting that going back to etymologically correct usage is something we should do for every word ever. I simply think it should be applied to this specific case.)
Quote:
Theists make a positive assertion as to their belief in a deity or deities. Atheists make a positive assertion as to their lack of such beliefs. Both theists and atheists stake out a position on an axis of belief: "I believe" <...>"I don't believe".
This is what I mean by stereotype. The reason I call myself an atheist is because I do not believe the claims theists make about the existence of gods. I want them to prove it to me, and so far, they have failed to do so. That is, at its most basic, what an atheist is.
Quote:
Agnostics don't address the issue of belief because we consider it futile to take-up a question, the answer to which, lies beyond the capacities of human perception. We define our ideology as being in the realm of knowledge: "I know"<...> "I don't know".
But that's the whole point of belief, isn't it? One does not require knowledge to believe in something.
Like you, I do not know if gods exist. However, I do not believe theists when they say that gods do exist, because, so far, theists have failed to provide evidence for this claim, and there are logical roadblocks to the God Hypothesis that are extremely hard to overcome, such the problem of complexity (leading to infinite regress) and the fact that without time, space, energy, and matter, the act of creation is impossible to undertake, so they could not have been created (meaning any "creator of universes" would be limited by the laws of nature and physics because they'd be forced to work only with what already exists).
Thus, I am an Agnostic Atheist.
I'm fully aware that there are people so certain in their belief that they think they know, but this does not make them gnostic. Thinking you know and actually knowing are two different things. The former is rampant, but the later is currently non-existent, at least as far as the god question goes.
Quote:
If you were to ask me whether or not I believe in any deities; I would simply argue that, given the sensory limitations of my species, I don't possess the ability to address the question. I don't deal with the question of belief, because my (or anyone else's) inability to know...forecloses that question.
But why does a current inability to know mean one can't decide whether or not they believe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogead
Not really anything to disagree with here, and you're right about the petty squabbling that can sometimes occur. I'm probably a bit over-sensitive on the issue due to my occasional encounters with a certain type of atheist who approaches agnosticism in an arrogant and condescending manner. I'm not suggesting that Nate fits that profile, but the post to which I responded did slightly take on that tone.
I'm in complete agreement with your references to "personal" gods and specific religions. While I have no way of knowing of the existence of deities in general, I find it relatively easy to rationally counter those organized positions.
It's not arrogance... I apologize for that. It's annoyance. I really do believe that the PR problem with atheism is the "popular" definition: "people who insist that gods do not exist". When I see it bandied about, or even alluded to, it annoys me. This particular definition should be relegated to history, and the definition "people who lack belief in a higher power or powers" should become the widely-understood meaning. That definition is much more inclusive and, in my opinion, much more accurate.
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.
It is a pity that so much effort is spent on arguing about these terms and the only people who get anything out of it are the theists ...however. 
