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.
This completely negates the necessity for the use of 'atheist' in the term 'agnostic atheist'. An agnostic by this definition is an agnostic atheist, and there are no other regions excluded in their overlap. In logical terms: All agnostics are agnostic atheists, and all agnostic atheists are agnostics. Because of this, I see no point even referring to agnosticism with any other terms. All we've done is added the term 'atheist' to the term 'agnostic' as if it adds something, which it does not.
Here is where I differ....and to be clear....there are others who take your position on agnosticism such Dr. Kaku (if I recall correctly) among many philosophers in history. So I'm not saying it's irrational but I do believe it to be unlikely and impractical in today's world. Especially if you are interested in the subject enough to discuss it on a forum.
I agree I am not obligated to have a belief position to a claim that is not my own. That is rational to me. But given the overwhelming presence of theism in most cultures throughout history, it is a matter of practicality for a person who has heard the claims of theism to either (a) believe the specific claims or (b) not believe the specific claims. They need not believe the specific claims to be false or wrong for clarity's sake...but they could.
By simply not believing the specific claims you've heard, you are by definition acting as one who is "without theism", "without god"....or a-theist. Or as Geddy Lee once said....if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
But that belief position, whether you fall on one side or the other, is not necessarily a proclamation of knowledge. It could be...but it does not have to be. And there is a worthy distinction there. I am agnostic to many things in my life for which I don't have justified beliefs about. But that doesn't stop me from having beliefs about them.
To give a better example of why calling oneself agnostic (in my view) is not descriptive enough....I can believe the theistic claim without asserting to know whether it is true. I can be every bit convinced of my god-concept, have justified beliefs (to me), but acknowledge them to be unfalsifiable....therefore they may not be true. That would make me an agnostic theist. So in that example....saying I'm agnostic doesn't convey the same information as your own claim of being agnostic. We would agree that the concept of a god may be unfalsifiable but have dramatically different beliefs about it which influences how we live our lives.
Conversely, I could hear theistic claims, summarily dismiss them all, but also be convinced that I have justified reasons for these beliefs....and be convinced that I can falsify each and every one of them with sufficient logical or empirical arguments. That would make me a gnostic atheist. For brevity's sake....I'll assume you have seen examples of gnostic theists as well.
In the real world, we don't tend to see the gnostic atheist as much as we see the agnostic theist, the agnostic atheist, or the gnostic theist. But they do exist....I've seen a few post here.
Quote:
Also, anyone about to say that I am getting in way too deep in concern to the use of language needs to study some philosophy. Language is a huge barrier in philosophical arguments, best overcome by deep discussion to establish a specific definition of all terms that leaves meaning unquestionable.
I wouldn't argue that personally. I think language and terms do matter. It's how we convey concepts. And the more complicated and convoluted a subject is....the more necessary it is to insist on mutually clear definitons and terms.
The point I've been trying to get at is that agnosticism is not inclusive of any kind of claim. So when someone says that they lack belief in god, they assume that they share the position of the agnostic, but they betray the agnostic position when they say that they believe that no god exists. Agnosticism is not simply the denial of knowledge claims, it is the position that no claims, knowledge or belief, are justified. Agnosticism is a category of its own, occupied only by those that make no claim and refuse to justify a belief, in respect to god or the facts about the origin of the universe. Agnostics are the unconvinced.
This is where we differ. Agnostic refers to knowledge. I have no complete knowledge, therefore I cannot claim to be gnostic. Thus, a-gnostic.
However, even without complete knowledge, I have a belief. That belief is that there is no God, this atheist.
Both words apply.
Practically speaking, I commonly refer to myself simply as an atheist. I only haul out the joint usage when participating in pedantic discussions.
I identified by "agnostic" for many years, and as much as I'd like to say that my reason for embracing the term "atheist" 15 or so years back had more to do with the understanding of the root "gnostic" and "theist" terms ...in all honesty, it had more to do with the fact that "agnostic" to many Christians in these parts' simply means you haven't been convinced and obviously haven't heard their own personal testimonial, Pascal's wager, or that "absolutely original" apologetic argument from CS Lewis.
It was as much to do with self-defense as semantic correctness in my own personal case, but that still doesn't make it incorrect usage.
I identified by "agnostic" for many years, and as much as I'd like to say that my reason for embracing the term "atheist" 15 or so years back had more to do with the understanding of the root "gnostic" and "theist" terms ...in all honesty, it had more to do with the fact that "agnostic" to many Christians in these parts' simply means you haven't been convinced and obviously haven't heard their own personal testimonial, Pascal's wager, or that "absolutely original" apologetic argument from CS Lewis.
It was as much to do with self-defense as semantic correctness in my own personal case, but that still doesn't make it incorrect usage.
That's a good example of the real world practicality I was trying to get at as well. The old "oh so you aren't sure? Well let me tell you about my lord and savior" opening.
If someone is truly unsure about whether they believe in a particular flavor of theism (or even deism, pantheism, etc.) and perhaps has never considered the concept at all, then calling oneself agnostic....period, full stop.....might be the best description. Or describing a person who has never heard a theistic claim before (perhaps from a non-ritualistic tribal culture in theory) could possibly be most appropriate.
But it really is a corner case in reality because most people are aware of the theism claims and have a belief about their validity, justified or otherwise. I think most people who are reluctant to apply the term atheist to themselves are just uncomfortable with the word because of what it means within the bubble of religious dogma which permeates their (sometimes former) social circles. That's unfortunate because it is just another dissonance from reality which is all too prevalent in religious society, in my view. No different than thinking the world is 6000 years old or that there must be an objective morality.
This is where we differ. Agnostic refers to knowledge. I have no complete knowledge, therefore I cannot claim to be gnostic. Thus, a-gnostic.
However, even without complete knowledge, I have a belief. That belief is that there is no God, this atheist.
Both words apply.
But logically, nothing of the 'a posteriori' category is knowable, so all are beliefs. To say that your belief in no god is any different than a claim that god doesn't exist that is stated as fact, is a false distinction.
The only difference is that your position is based less on pretense. As far as the agnostic position is concerned, they're the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
Not necessarily. Choices are made as a result of a decision-making process. The choice to delay the process is not a choice that is relevant to the issue at hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
I am agnostic to many things in my life for which I don't have justified beliefs about. But that doesn't stop me from having beliefs about them.
The term agnostic is not applicable to those things. Agnosticism only applies to claims/beliefs concerning god/universal origin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
That would make me an agnostic theist.
That's an oxymoron
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
That would make me a gnostic atheist. For brevity's sake....I'll assume you have seen examples of gnostic theists as well.
Yes, nothing is more humorous than observing someone faithfully denying the validity of faith. The gnostic atheist and theist might as well be arguing about whose faith is stronger, and leave the logic at the door.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
In the real world, we don't tend to see the gnostic atheist as much as we see the agnostic theist, the agnostic atheist, or the gnostic theist. But they do exist....I've seen a few post here.
I've met plenty of gnostic atheists. While the term itself isn't contradictory, it sheds light on some strong hypocrisy. And as I said before, the term 'agnostic theist' implies the existence of black whiteness, wet dryness, warm coldness, etc. It is poetic sure, but sense it does not make.
No worse than Atheists being so sure that there isn't a God. But, at least Christians being so sure of their beliefs shows commitment. Nothing sexier than a man who is confident in his choices and can commit to them without doubt.
Atheists, does it irk you that Christians are so sure of their beliefs?
I'm not an atheist and it doesn't irk me. It confuses me. I don't see how anyone in their right mind with five minutes of education could buy this stuff. Baffling.
But that's their business and I am not irked by people's religious beliefs as long as they keep it to themselves.
No worse than Atheists being so sure that there isn't a God. But, at least Christians being so sure of their beliefs shows commitment. Nothing sexier than a man who is confident in his choices and can commit to them without doubt.
No worse than Atheists being so sure that there isn't a God. But, at least Christians being so sure of their beliefs shows commitment. Nothing sexier than a man who is confident in his choices and can commit to them without doubt.
That has been my main point since I have been here!!!! and why militants and ex-fundies ignore me here. They do not understand, because they can't, that some of us act exactly like "them". They do not understand its people acting like people and the beliefs expression is based on the mixture of personality each of us has. Its basically a brain state. Or course, it's us that are wrong right, because we are the one that hold to a notion of flexibility based on limited knowledge.
There is no Omni dude. I know why they claim more than that, They are at war. There are sects in atheists because of how we act.
I like the idea of pounding the definition over and over. We don't make claims with what we don't know. "Your belief in god" is not a reason I have to do anything!. Apologetics is the only rational position to hold most times or normal people..
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.
