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 agree with this. I am also agnostic because even if I accept the evidence for the (rather misnamed) Big Bang, it doesn't explain for me the origins of the cosmos, matter and (what Mystic Philosopher would call) the 'will' of the cosmos to get making.
I do not go as far as placing reliance on any hypothesis of cosmic origins based on, it must be said, limited human knowledge and little understanding of what's involved. Thus I resist applying the 'god' label to what we really know nothing about, because it is (I cannot do better that use Mystic's term here) merely labelling our ignorance. I prefer to keep my options wide open and say 'I don't know'.
The agnostic theist does seem to go a bit too far is supposing that 'god' has to be the answer, but even that is ok as a theory. So long as it doesn't go so far as claiming it as some life -changing fact or trying to undermine the validity of scientifically verified data in hopes to make supposition look more likely, I don't have a great problem.
As I say, Deism is something I can live with. We are both on the same side of the barriers as far as organized religion and the claims in the Holy Books are concerned.
Well not quite...I believe we can see God in nature but not that the Universe itself is the same as God. Maybe it's a part of God, in a sense, because everything is, but I do believe God exists at a higher level and can also exist independently of his creation.
At this stage I guess I'd describe myself as sort of a liberal Christian whose theology has elements of deism, pantheism, with some agnostic leanings. But I don't try to fit myself in one box.
In all of your descriptions, I never hear any mention of Jesus. Don't you have to believe in him too, that he is the "savior of the world", to be considered a "christian"?
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. 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. You do not have to hold an alternate belief (i.e., "god does not exist") to be labeled an atheist, you just have to be without the belief that god does exist. 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.
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. 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. You do not have to hold an alternate belief (i.e., "god does not exist") to be labeled an atheist, you just have to be without the belief that god does exist. 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.
I don't consider myself an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. I think the existence of a "god" (in whatever capacity) is just as likely as the non-existence of such an entity. My belief does not lean to either direction. My only position on this is that it is impossible for us to know whether "god" exists (let alone in what capacity) and therefore it is futile to hold any belief on this. I don't have a belief or disbelief in god and it doesn't matter to me that other people feel I have to choose in order to fit into one of the established categories. I have engaged in debates about religion for years and I have never heard a single argument that convinced me that one side was more likely than the other, because we all derive these arguments from our very limited understanding of the Universe. It's like toddlers arguing about quantum mechanics.
I don't consider myself an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. I think the existence of a "god" (in whatever capacity) is just as likely as the non-existence of such an entity. My belief does not lean to either direction. My only position on this is that it is impossible for us to know whether "god" exists (let alone in what capacity) and therefore it is futile to hold any belief on this. I don't have a belief or disbelief in god and it doesn't matter to me that other people feel I have to choose in order to fit into one of the established categories. I have engaged in debates about religion for years and I have never heard a single argument that convinced me that one side was more likely than the other, because we all derive these arguments from our very limited understanding of the Universe. It's like toddlers arguing about quantum mechanics.
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. You don't have to choose to be an atheist, or purposely claim the title of atheist, to be one by definition.
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. You don't have to choose to be an atheist, or purposely claim the title of atheist, to be one by definition.
If someone asked me "Do you believe in god?" I would say "I think anything to do with the metaphysical or supernatural is beyond our grasp and therefore I hold no beliefs about it". Conversely, if someone asked me "Do you not believe in god?" I would respond the same way. I am not an agnostic atheist because I have no disbelief in god. I am not an agnostic theist because I have no belief in god. My only belief in this case is that it is impossible for humans to attain knowledge of the metaphysical or supernatural. Why must I be either theist or atheist? If you asked me about my beliefs regarding quantum mechanics, I'd tell you "I don't have any beliefs about it because my knowledge of it is insufficient to have an informed opinion". Of course, this isn't a very good analogy (the knowledge of quantum mechanics can theoretically be attained) but I'm sure you get my point. I see no reason to have a belief or disbelief in something I know nothing about.
I know this point is often misunderstood but, as an atheist, I hold exactly the same view as you in that I have no knowledge (and therefore no beliefs) about a god. This 'No god- belief' position is all that I need to be an atheist. A - theism, is not having a god - belief.
I do not believe that no god exists. This is not the position of atheism.
That is about the sort of cosmic being that I think you are talking about here. It is the god of all peoples and none, it runs the universe through natural physics. It is the force behind evolution - it did not do it in 6 days. It is an 'It', not a 'He'. And I do not know whether it exists or not.
On the other hand, as regards the God of the Bible my atheism is more proactive, based on my assessment of the evidence. But even if I wasn't sure, I would still be an atheist if I didn't know that it existed, or didn't see enough evidence to persuade me that it was more likely to be real than not. As it I DO believe that it does not exist.
Now, if your position is along those lines, then agnostic atheist is what you actually are whether you accept the term or not. If you are unwilling to call yourself atheist (many are) it is not because that is a logical position, but because you regard atheism with suspicion or perhaps have an incorrect idea about what atheism says and claims, or both.
I know this point is often misunderstood but, as an atheist, I hold exactly the same view as you in that I have no knowledge (and therefore no beliefs) about a god. This 'No god- belief' position is all that I need to be an atheist. A - theism, is not having a god - belief.
I know that atheists don't claim to know for a fact that god doesn't exist and I've actually tried to explain this to fellow agnostics and theists who were under this impression. However, I do not think we share the same view on the (dis)belief in the existence of god (see below).
Quote:
I do not believe that no god exists. This is not the position of atheism.
Yes, that is the position of atheism. According to the definition of the Oxford dictionary (source):
Quote:
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or god.
Origin: late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'
This is where you and I differ. For me, there is no reason why a lack of knowledge about god should lead to a lack of belief in god, no more than it should lead to a belief in god (I think we've had this debate before). The two are not related. You may say that it is "logical" to not believe in something we don't know about but I disagree with you on that.
Quote:
That is about the sort of cosmic being that I think you are talking about here. It is the god of all peoples and none, it runs the universe through natural physics. It is the force behind evolution - it did not do it in 6 days. It is an 'It', not a 'He'. And I do not know whether it exists or not.
No, that's actually the opposite of what I am talking about. If you read my first post in this thread (#8) you'll see that I say "[i]t is categorically impossible to conceptualise this Being (if you believe It exists)." If you assume that this cosmic being is the force behind evolution, it runs the Universe through natural physics, etc. you attribute characteristics to this Being that are entirely baseless. This is incompatible with the agnostic position.
Quote:
On the other hand, as regards the God of the Bible my atheism is more proactive, based on my assessment of the evidence. But even if I wasn't sure, I would still be an atheist if I didn't know that it existed, or didn't see enough evidence to persuade me that it was more likely to be real than not. As it I DO believe that it does not exist.
Yes, I agree with you on this. With regard to the God of established religions, I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist because there is sufficient evidence to assume that the description of God provided by these religions is inaccurate. The purpose of religion is to conceptualise god and as an agnostic, I believe this is impossible.
Quote:
Now, if your position is along those lines, then agnostic atheist is what you actually are whether you accept the term or not. If you are unwilling to call yourself atheist (many are) it is not because that is a logical position, but because you regard atheism with suspicion or perhaps have an incorrect idea about what atheism says and claims, or both.
Very happy to discuss.
I do not regard atheism with suspicion and my post history is evidence of that (e.g. the "is atheism a religious cult?" thread). I'm not willing to call myself an atheist because I don't identify with this position, that is all. I am no more an agnostic atheist than I am an agnostic theist (provided the latter doesn't conceptualise god). I don't have a belief or disbelief in god, no matter how hard that may be for people to understand. I just do not have an opinion on it, just like I don't have an opinion about other things that are beyond my comprehension.
I know that atheists don't claim to know for a fact that god doesn't exist and I've actually tried to explain this to fellow agnostics and theists who were under this impression. However, I do not think we share the same view on the (dis)belief in the existence of god (see below).
Quote:
I do not believe that no god exists. This is not the position of atheism.
Yes, that is the position of atheism. According to the definition of the Oxford dictionary (source):
Quote:
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or god.
Origin: late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'
This is where you and I differ. For me, there is no reason why a lack of knowledge about god should lead to a lack of belief in god, no more than it should lead to a belief in god (I think we've had this debate before). The two are not related. You may say that it is "logical" to not believe in something we don't know about but I disagree with you on that.
The definition you gave for atheism above is correct. Are you suggesting that it is logical to believe in something that you don't know about? How would you know to believe in it if you didn't even know about it?
Look at the following 2 claims:
Claim A: God exists
Claim B: God does not exist
Most atheists do not hold the belief that God does not exist (Claim B). They simply have not been convinced tobelieve Claim A (that God does exist). Not believing Claim A, does not mean that one has to therefore believe claim B. Atheism, overall, is the lack of belief in god (lack of belief in Claim A). It is not(necessarily) the positive belief that god does not exist (Claim B).
Actually, the definition of atheism can encompass both definitions of one who has no belief in/lacks belief in (the existence of) god (Claim A) as well as those who take it a step further and hold the additional belief that gods do not exist (Claim B.). However, this belief in Claim B is above and beyond the base "lowest common denominator" definition which applies to all atheists: simply lacking belief in Claim A.
Even though I may not believe some people's crazy claims about their gods, their "flawed" description of their god does not necessarily mean that it does not exist. We may never know. I actually find it "believable" that there could be an impersonal, creator type deistic god out there that we cannot perceive and has no interaction with us. I have not yet found any evidence to convince me to believe that such a god does in fact exist, but I cannot claim that such a god does NOT exist. I don't think we can have knowledge either way (which is why I am an agnostic). But I am also an atheist since I do not have a belief in any god. It is this lack of belief in god/s which makes me an atheist, not the positive belief that gods do not exist.
I know this point is often misunderstood but, as an atheist, I hold exactly the same view as you in that I have no knowledge (and therefore no beliefs) about a god. This 'No god- belief' position is all that I need to be an atheist. A - theism, is not having a god - belief.
I do not believe that no god exists. This is not the position of atheism.
That is about the sort of cosmic being that I think you are talking about here. It is the god of all peoples and none, it runs the universe through natural physics. It is the force behind evolution - it did not do it in 6 days. It is an 'It', not a 'He'. And I do not know whether it exists or not.
On the other hand, as regards the God of the Bible my atheism is more proactive, based on my assessment of the evidence. But even if I wasn't sure, I would still be an atheist if I didn't know that it existed, or didn't see enough evidence to persuade me that it was more likely to be real than not. As it I DO believe that it does not exist.
Now, if your position is along those lines, then agnostic atheist is what you actually are whether you accept the term or not. If you are unwilling to call yourself atheist (many are) it is not because that is a logical position, but because you regard atheism with suspicion or perhaps have an incorrect idea about what atheism says and claims, or both.
Very happy to discuss.
It is amazing that so many people who meet the definition of atheist, refuse to admit it (or do not even realized that they are one). I guess there are people who lack hair but refuse to accept the label of "bald." It doesn't change the fact that they lack hair.
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.
