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.
On the other side of the knowledge coin, there are gnostic or strong atheists who may believe/claim that there is no god, or god does not exist. This has a claim of knowledge (gnosis) tied to it, and is actually a claim made by very few atheists. On the other hand, a large percentage of theists are gnostic because they make knowledge claims, claiming that they do indeed have "knowledge" (evidence/personal experience) of god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Agnosticism 'I don't know' (about the existence of gods).....
Atheism '....therefore, I will not believe (in the existence of gods) until I do know'.
It has been complicated by the use of agnosticism to denote those who are unsure whether to believe or not and the traditional representation of atheism as claiming to know whether or not gods really exist, which is not a claim that atheism can (strictly speaking) make (though we can be pretty confident that the personal gods described in the Holy Books do not exist - just as we can be pretty sure that Santa, leprechauns and fairies do not exist - strictly speaking we don't know absolutely for sure, but nobody says we are being illogical in disbelieving in Santa or fairies).
Or, in the absence of any decent evidence to try to make a case by fiddling the parameters (e.g requiring that we disprove the existence of God rather than they trying to prove it) telling us that we need to believe in God otherwise we have no morality, our lives are without meaning or it does at least provide an answer to unanswered questions, even if we don't know whether it is true or not (in fact 'God' answers nothing) and of course Pascal's wager - we should believe in God just in case it should turn out to be true and we can't risk being sent to hell.
These arguments are dishonest hogwash and the only rationally sound belief -position arising from agnosticism is to reserve belief in gods until there is some decent evidence. In fact what evidence there was (cosmic and biological origins, Biblical records, divine intervention) are dwindling away all the time, as the debate goes on.
Hope that clarifies the issue.
Of course it does, but clarification is, and never has been, hardly what the once-numerous but still fundamentalist Nazi Christians have declared. On literally anything but their vastly out-of-date mandates and punishments. It seems that evolving human abilities to consider any alternate concepts with potential truth in them, has been vastly over-rated. For the most part we are hypocritical sheeple, unable to break away from those who would lord it over us...
(Oh.. and notice note the arrogant and sly smirk on this man's face! He knows exactly where his fancy lifestyle comes from. Fear mongering. Simple and obvious.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenyo
The definitions I presented are actual definitions not opinions. Words have definitive meanings. If they didn't, language would be pointless. Sorry sir, you just can't make words fit what you want them to fit.
Quite so. Typical of the manipulative N-Cs. RThey want everyone to think, automatically, of atheists as Evil, unethical and therefore untrustable. What sad but also telling hogwash, and in the eventual end, the actual and functionally evil ones here, the antiquated Christian bullies, will get what they so richly deserve! A life in their own "hell".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenyo
Agnosticism answers the question of knowledge while atheism answers the question of belief.
People (including the OP) think they're being noble by claiming what they believe to be the "neutral" position when they're usually just afraid to answer the question of belief.
That quesiton (never actually asked by any of them..) would demand rational review of the now-fully-debunked and so-called "evidence" for an actual God. All of it has now been clearly shown to have even less credibility than the obviously outrageous "possibilities" conceded by the same nonsense pseudo-philosophies active Christians accede to: that one cannot just dismiss something with so much written about it (as in that hilarious bible.. what a hoot!).
Sadly for them, Logical and open-mindedness have completely debunked Creation, Genesis, and anything else that this one true GOd claims. vast misunderstanding of how one logically evaluates any hypothesis proves my point. They want to believe the fabricate evidence, and so they do.
But..sadly for them, such registered nonsense no longer holds majority sway with so many people, esp. our younger, better educated (in scientific logical processes, for instance.. drat, huh?)
Imagine how the western world will behave in the next few years as these young people become the politicians and community leaders of the future. Then, they will only have to take on the utter fanatical discrepancies and lies of Islam and it's growing masses of devout, chanting fundy idiots. All for those promised 72 virgins? A few good fusion reactions ought to take care of it however...
Quote:
Originally Posted by nana053
I don't think most atheists object to *public displays* of religion. We object to having our taxes pay for them. You can easily display your religious *art* on the grounds outside your church (public display, since anyone walking or driving by can see it). Private museums can have nativities and the public can go see that.
You cannot, however, place your symbols on the grounds at city hall or the courthouse. Those are venues where the Constitution prohibits them.
Actually no. Atheist is the opposite of theist. Either you have belief in a god or you don't. Black or white, no gray area. Agnostic is the opposite of gnostic. Either you have knowledge or you don't. Agnostic and Atheist are independent of one another and unrelated.
Sadly, Amazn, this sort of clarification probably won't sink in, since the fundies have to add in "unethical and Evil" to their chanting adjectival definitions of anyone who does not fall to their knees in manifest supplication. Thankfully, all this will be gone in the next few decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
It really is very simple:
Do you believe that it is possible to definitively know if there is a god? If, yes, the you are gnostic, if no you are agnostic.
I think where you are going wrong is lumping any personal character traits that you don't like (combative, sarcastic, stubborn, whatever...) in with "atheist" and assuming "agnostic" is somehow a non-theist position that avoids the character traits you don't like.
This "character assassination" of the word atheist has been ongoing since the greeks. It has been used as an insult, as an indicator of moral failure, of evil, of rejection of ones own humanity for a long time. There is simply no excuse for perpetuating the "evil atheist" meme. It is patently untrue, divisive and unnecessary, particularly coming from a fellow non-theist!
The overriding hope is to tag unsavory descriptors to any debate or discussion of atheism. How insulting, and thus demanding of our return commentary about how essentially bad orchestrated Christianity has become as they now clearly visualize their upcoming social and cultural demise. No longer holding absolute power over some once-quivering masses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Yep. Blinding exposition, Capo. It is of course one reason why some are so aped by this idea that an atheist is claiming certain knowledge that no gods exist that they shrink from the term and instead prefer the term agnostic.
The rationale for atheism per se, is very sound. I should know, as Stanford University's best has rolled up here to have a crack at showing it unsound and got thumped both times, whether it was admitted or not .
Thus (the argument proceeds) those who are just too dumb, disinterested or diseased to be able to comprehend the God -claim also disbelieve and are equally (if technically) atheists, just as those who have never heard of Biblegod don't believe in it and are atheist as far as that god -claim goes, though they may worship geckoes, coconuts and oddly shaped rocks instead.
And so to get down to basic physical matter, sub atomic particules and spring -theory, rocks, socks and dandelion clocks are all (for all we are able to tell) not only materialist -natural by default but atheist, too. It is only a technical and not very helpful apellation since practically, atheism is only applied to thinking atheists and some try to get around this rather uncomfortable conclusion by inventing other definitions like 'non -theist' or arguing that they are irreligious or humanist, which is actually even more confusing, inapplicable and wrong.
It is actually right that, by default, all creatures that on earth do dwell, and everything they eat, beat into shape or use to conceal their pink forms are also atheist and do not give praise unto the Lord unless it has been trained to do so by organized religion or its catspours.
This is not only technically real, true and so, but is tactically very handy for us goddless satanslime.
Sigh! I feel so guilty in taking on my spiritual guide-God source, the Holy RC church! How can I live with myself I wonder? With such hidden doubts. I hear that if you internalize such stressful ideals, you will eventually go starkers-mad!
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg42
A lot of people think that proclaiming yourself an atheist requires as much faith as believing in the Christian god. It doesn't. It's not faith in anything that leads you to being an atheist; it is absence of it.
There is observation and simplification and reasoning and probably a few other things that aren't coming to mind at the moment. But it does not involve any faith.
don't worry, greg: it's simply their endless ploy to demonize atheism while they can. As the truth comes out daily however, it also becomes factual that they are now, officially, running scared.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg42
I wanted to touch on this bit (it may not still matter, but hey, I noticed it at the beginning) in the very first post because it struck me as a little bit odd.
Basically, the question that went through my mind was "How is being an atheist at odds with finding a more advanced being somewhere in the universe?"
I'd like to think there are other advanced life forms in the universe, perhaps more advanced than us. Perhaps they are so advanced as to have capabilities akin to the powers our species ascribe to certain deities. But, that is not the same as expecting to find gods out there. Having more advanced powers than us does not a deity make. Thus, this does not put me in a position where I am at all waffling about being an atheist.
But, instead you have phrased this "higher power" in a very theist way. Why would a higher power than yourself somewhere in the universe leave you conflicted? Basically you've phrased it as any more advanced being out there would necessarily be a deity. Since there's no reason to believe that is true, there's no particular reason to base your "agnosticism" as you've defined it on such a premise.
This one really needed to be reposted for anyone who may have missed it. All true, and again, it's a sad fact to the now-scattering and chaotic fundy mindset.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg Bach
There is no such thing as a "Christian" God- God does not have a religion. Yes Christ was very bright and very logical and had the best advice in the universe as how to have a heavenly life on earth....BUT....There is only one force and source of it all...
I really get irritated by the foolish atheists who say "which god?" or "your god" - It is as if they can prove the non-existence of God through some notion that people have numerous gods....No- there is but one SOURCE.
Why? The basis for your non-critical God beliefs are based on a series of so-called factual events, but which were only confirmed in your multiple-authored and hugely conflicted and contradictory bible.
If that were the status of the now-millions of our well-tested chemistry, biology, physics, ecology and engineering knowledge and text books, we'd have to concede that we are in no better position than you so sadly now find yourselves in. hardly.
Well, the fact is...it's not a equal fight any more! Your side has already lost by dint o your fear of any admission of doubt or that what we've tested has any validity. Your loss, of course.
We can and have proven, far too many times now wasted if re-performed, all the simple once-hypothesis-driven testing which Christians either don't understand or are in mortal fear of. And so they won't ever discuss nor participate in such fact-finding efforts.
To that point, I've asked, but have never seen, any one of them ever re-do any of those standardized publication tests and conclusions (a key requirement of any credible science, btw..) or of now-well-established facts about the origins of this Universe, Evolution and so on.
And why not? It's really quite simple: a down-to-their-twinkle-toes fear of the undeniable truths such logic always produces. And THAT simply won't do to The Old Order of Things (TOOT btw... funny!), now will it?
You know i'd be curious and I apologize if this has been asked before. But for those of you who are 'atheist' did you come to it from childhood or did it come upon you as you lived life? When I say childhood, were you taught during that time to have an atheistic outlook?
For me, probably no difference I come across between human beings interests me so as those who are 'religious' versus those who are atheist. Personally, I just can't fathom the conception from my being. On the other hand, I do know that, like those who profess a religion, it does offer a raison d'etre for understanding some part of our human existence here.
You know i'd be curious and I apologize if this has been asked before. But for those of you who are 'atheist' did you come to it from childhood or did it come upon you as you lived life? When I say childhood, were you taught during that time to have an atheistic outlook?
For me, probably no difference I come across between human beings interests me so as those who are 'religious' versus those who are atheist. Personally, I just can't fathom the conception from my being. On the other hand, I do know that, like those who profess a religion, it does offer a raison d'etre for understanding some part of our human existence here.
You'll get a mixed bag. We have several who were mostly atheistic or non-religious growing up, as well as a good number, like myself, who were highly religious for a long time.
I was a devout Christian of the Evangelical Protestant Variety until my late 20's. It finally just all fell apart for me, and I couldn't hang on to my belief anymore. It just stopped making sense, the longer I lived, and the less I kept myself isolated from the rest of society.
It isn't so much choosing atheism in order to make sense of the world. Atheism isn't very explanatory... It was more that nothing else made sense.
Oh, please! Objecting to religious displays on public property, and going to court over it if necessary, never ruined anyone's holiday. There are countless venues for religious expression other than public property, and religious people make use of them all the time. They put displays in churches, private homes, every kind of business imaginable. To compare that to picketing the funerals of dead soldiers is disgusting.
I agree.
The U.S was founded on the separation of church and state. It is one of our guiding principles, and the forefathers deliberately sought to constrain and restrain the power of religious groups so as to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It doesn't matter if most Americans believe in a deity. "God" has no place on money, in the public school classroom, in science, or in displays funded by my tax dollars.
As Rogers said, there are plenty of places where people can express their beliefs--on private property. That is where it belongs.
a comment on the prevailing definition of agnosticism being used in this thread
I just read the first 14 pages, and I've seen AREQUIPA, NoCapo, mythunderstood, and perhaps others I can't recall (Frozenyo, also, now that I remember) advocate for the usage of the agnostic/gnostic theist/atheist "dual axis" paradigm. I think this construct is definitionally fatally flawed, and I've thought that from the start ("the start" being when I picked up "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H Smith sometime last year...he begins the book by advocating for this same usage of the terms). The problem is this: if one professes to be gnostic on the issue of knowledge, then one may continue on to logically claim a belief or disbelief in god, depending on the nature of the knowledge one would claim to possess. But if one professes to be agnostic about the idea of knowledge of god, then one cannot logically choose a side re: theist/atheist dichotomy. One may still choose a side, in spite of the fact that you're acknowledging that knowledge is impossible and therefore your selection is futile, but one must also acknowledge that it's illogical to pick either side in the absence of belief in knowledge about god. Basically, to me, an agnostic atheist using Smith's understanding of the terms is a logical impossibility. A true agnostic would resist the adoption or the general usage of either term. Which is ironic given that self-professed "agnostic atheists" are the same people most likely to attempt to bludgeon others to death with syllogisms (Smith himself being one, along with the people mentioned from this thread).
Analogies with ghosts and leprechauns and unicorns and whatever other tiresome imaginary entities that tend to crop up in these trite debates do not hold, because those entities, were they to exist, would be entirely physical. The god claim is in a class of its own, immune to analogy, because of its metaphysical component. It is unfalsifiable, and therefore not a claim that can be subjected to science or logic. Which is unfortunate for hyper-logical (or people who aspire to such, anyway) atheists who overlook this fact. In the aforementioned "Atheism: The Case Against God", Smith argues that any definition of god must necessarily be incoherent because of its reliance on metaphysical properties. Well...for me personally, I view this universe through an entirely naturalistic/physicalistic/scientist lens, as everything that happens herein can be explained by physics and nothing else, but as for what might otherwise "exist" (no word truly applies in this situation, given the unfathomability of the subject matter), there is nothing that is off the table. Anything that would "exist" outside the confines of this universe would seem incoherent by the standards of this universe. Even if it's quantum states that are beyond our comprehension...if we are not capable of understanding them due to their complete unrecognizability, then they are in some sense "metaphysical". If there's an infinite multiverse, then ________. Logically, anything. You can't draw any finite conclusions from infinity, including the conclusion that you can't draw any conclusions.
I list myself as a "staunch-not-militant atheist" on my profile on this site, but that's just for convenience's sake. On Facebook my religious views are listed as "none" and I think it's best left at that, as I consider the choice between theism and atheism (as presented) to be a false one, for reasons stated above. Imaginary or not, celestial teapots and unicorns are at least constrained by the laws of physics. They can be dismissed similarly. "god" is more in the class of "other universes". Undefined, undefinable, "incoherent" in one sense of the term but not in the sense that an argument made (such as this one, perhaps) in this world can be incoherent. Time and space are properties of this universe. It is literally impossible to imagine what could exist where existence is not possible, and all of the words I just used have no meaning, refer to nothing. Which is why we will never ever escape the prison of an anthropocentric perspective of this universe, even if a quantum infinity exists....
Basically, my post above reduces to epistemology. Knowledge is justified belief. If one admits that knowledge about god is impossible, then there is no stance on the topic that is justified/justifiable. Hence my problem with "agnostic atheists"
We're all agnostic (functionally), ultimately, as AREQUIPA said. Some of us are more in denial of that fact than others (and it varies based on mood, too. I have my phases where I'm more likely to self-identify as an atheist, despite underlying awareness that it's meaningless to do so).
But for those of you who are 'atheist' did you come to it from childhood or did it come upon you as you lived life?
I grew up in a religious family. During much of my youth, I even found religion to be fascinating. I never actually "rebelled" against it.
Basically, what happened is that scientific knowlege which I gained later in life destroyed any possibility for me to continue believing in religion. Reading some Richard Dawkins pretty much nailed the coffin.
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.
Serial misunderstandings.. <sigh...>
.
