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 don't usually think about it much. As often happens, this comes down to definitions. Many people seem to think an atheist claims they know for a fact there is no god, which I don't feel is accurate. Granted, I'm sure there are some atheists who would say that, but I'd bet most who call themselves atheists would tell you we can't know for certain. That's what most people consider agnostic. Personally, I see atheism as a basic lack of belief in a deity. That's all. I can say something is possible while still feeling it's extremely unlikely. It's possible there is a god(s), but I don't think it's very likely. Yet I call myself an atheist, not agnostic.
I'm in the atheist camp. I don't believe in gods or the supernatural. That doesn't mean I'll never believe; it just means I require proof of such things before I do, and no, telling me to have faith isn't gonna work. I guess you could call me a weak atheist.
I don't see much of a point in agnostics and agnosticism. They don't think it's possible to prove that God doesn't exist, yet they don't believe in him either? Why don't you just not believe in him until/if (and that's a big if) we get some extraordinary evidence that proves his realness.
As an atheist.. or rationalist.. or non believer, I truly think that labeling us has been one of the problems in the first place. The definitions of each depends a lot of the definition of god, knowledge, belief and how we use these to back up our own thoughts and ideas.
I do however, think that the original point is true in that there can be an atheism vs agnosticism when it comes to arguing against religion. Sort of like atheists think,"well, you guys think these beliefs are crap, so why don't you back us up". As well as the other side saying,"Well, we as humans don't truly know anything so why try and argue it". Other than that, we are both non-believers in the religious teachings of god and the variations of.
As an agnostic, I honestly could care less what atheists believe (or not, actually). That is their gig. The thing is, I've never had an atheist come and say to me, "You horrible agnostic! You renounce any ideas concerning knowledge of a Creator or the non-god will send you to the non-hell to be tormented by nothing forever!"
I get along with atheists just fine. Do THEY go too far? No, THEY do not go too far. Like any group, you will get a-hole loud mouths like the Madeline Murray O'Hares who feel it is their business to impose their non-belief on everyone else, but people like her are not the average atheist. Most atheists are folks who just want to be left alone to enjoy thier life without the state attempting establish religion in any form. In this, I will agree with anyone...believer or non-believer.
If you're in one camp, share your views on the other.
They're not sliding scales on a spectrum, they're positions in regards to different areas.
As far as I'm concerned, agnosticism/gnosticism concerns itself with knowledge of God's existence (and the possibility of getting said knowledge), where atheism/theism is concerned with faith in God's existence.
So I'm an agnostic atheist - I have no knowledge of God's existence, and I tend not to have faith in things I have no knowledge of.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that solipsism could be valid, or that there could exist a Supreme Being who just doesn't want to make himself known (omnipotence obviously includes the capability to stay hidden, if the omnipotent being so wishes.)
Ehm - I went with monotheism and male gender for simplicity, 'k?
I think atheism and agnosticism are two positions on different scales. I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist: I don't think we can ever know if deities exist (agnosticism), and I don't believe they exist ((weak) atheism).
Tthere could exist a Supreme Being who just doesn't want to make himself known (omnipotence obviously includes the capability to stay hidden, if the omnipotent being so wishes.)
I think this is a point of view for which there is weak justification. For what reason would the Supreme Being want to be "hidden" from all that is created? And if being hidden is what the Supreme Being prefers, why was the universe created at all? That would intimate that the Supreme Being is actually malevolent. (That is, wind up the "toy" universe and watch its constituents tear themselves apart. But the Supreme Being, as omniscient, already foresaw all of that, so what would be the point?)
I think this is a point of view for which there is weak justification. For what reason would the Supreme Being want to be "hidden" from all that is created?
No clue - having never been supreme, I can't tell what motivations a Supreme Being might have.
I'm not banking on a God playing hide-and-seek (if I did, I would've been a agnostic theist), but I've found no way to disprove the possibility.
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.
