Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Normal · 06-03-2003, 08:23 AM

Thank you diana, that was just what I was going to say.

But I disagree that belief isn't testable. If I believe the car is blue, then see that the car is green, I now have knowledge of the car being green.

Hans · 06-03-2003, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by diana
Disagree. The person is stating he doesn't know and he doesn't believe. Knowledge and belief aren't the same thing. The person is an agnostic atheist.

(In the literal senses of the words, I mean. Just to save everybody from jumping down my throat with their personal understanding of each term along with its myriad connotations.)

I hope you will forgive me if I was too ambiguous with the term agnostic. By stating that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable it was my intention to convey that the agnostic does not make a judgement regarding God's existence other than it is unknown or unknowable. The agnostic's conviction is that he does not know, or in other words believe, either way. I agree that from the perspective you offer, and what I believe is Normal's perspective as well, there is not necessarily a contradiction in the statement.

To re-address Normal's question (as best I can):

Quote:

"The existance of god is unknowable, but I do not believe there is a god."

Is this person agnostic or atheist?

If it his position that God does not exist then that person is an atheist. Whether his position is deduced from empirical information is irrelevent, IMO.

Hans · 06-03-2003, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by diana
How do you figure that it must be someone's conviction that something is known or not?

If you know something, you should be able to provide evidence and reason. If you cannot do this, but you accept it as truth anyway, you believe--but you don't know.

I never said it must be their conviction. I said:

Quote:

...if it is one's conviction

I was outlining that if one defines atheism as a lack of belief then all agnostics are necessarily atheists as they too necessarily lack the belief that God exists. The agnostic does not believe either way. If one believes either way then, IMO, that person is either theistic or atheistic.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Nowhere357 · 06-03-2003, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by starling
[B]Will clarify this in another thread, but a better question might be "Is there God?"

When someone answers "yes" to that question, then they are some form of theist, organized religion or something else. When someone answers "no" to that question, they are an atheist. Then there's people like me, who look at that question and can't answer yes, or no. I call that agnostic.

I think this captures the distinction at a basic level very well.

"Is there god?" refers to knowledge, and I agnostically answer "I don't know".

"Do you believe in god" refers to belief, and I atheistically answer "no".

Really, in what way is this inappropriate?

Hans · 06-03-2003, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowhere357
"Is there god?" refers to knowledge, and I agnostically answer "I don't know".

"Do you believe in god" refers to belief, and I atheistically answer "no".

Really, in what way is this inappropriate?

And if a person was to say, "It is not my belief that God exists nor is it my belief that God does not exist," would they be agnostic, atheistic, or theistic? If you would answer agnostic, and I see little choice, then the appropriate connotation is that agnosticism speaks as much to belief as does atheism and theism.

An agnostic does not "believe in" God any more than or any less than an atheist. So the question is, what is it that destinguishes an atheist and an agnostic? Your answer is?

Normal · 06-03-2003, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hans
And if a person was to say, "It is not my belief that God exists nor is it my belief that God does not exist," would they be agnostic, atheistic, or theistic? If you would answer agnostic, and I see little choice, then the appropriate connotation is that agnosticism speaks as much to belief as does atheism and theism.

An agnostic does not "believe in" God any more than or any less than an atheist. So the question is, what is it that destinguishes an atheist and an agnostic? Your answer is?

That is only if you extrapolate "agnostic" to include belief in it's definition.

Traditionally, a person who says "It is not my belief that God exists nor is it my belief that God does not exist", would be considered a soft atheist.

To me, an agnostic's beliefs are entirely irrelevant due to the fact that they are agnostic.

Hans · 06-03-2003, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Normal
Traditionally, a person who says "It is not my belief that God exists nor is it my belief that God does not exist", would be considered a soft atheist.

I'm not familiar with soft atheism so I can't comment. But if it is the same as weak atheism as defined here, I find that it fails to destiguish itself from agnosticism regarding their respective positions on the existence of God.

Normal · 06-03-2003, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hans
I'm not familiar with soft atheism so I can't comment. But if it is the same as weak atheism as defined here, I find that it fails to destiguish itself from agnosticism regarding their respective positions on the existence of God.

Yes, weak atheism is what I meant, sorry for the confusion.

The only answer I can give you towards the difference in regards to the existence of God is that the question of belief is irrelevent to agnostics.

Jayhawker Soule · 06-03-2003, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hans
An agnostic does not "believe in" God any more than or any less than an atheist.

Unless, of course, she does. A person, perhaps drivien by 'First Cause' arguments, may presume a Supernatural Diety simply because nothing else seems to make sense. At the same time, this person may simultaneously acknowledge that this Diety is unknowable, and accessible, if at, only through revelation: ... "The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name."

Quote:

Originally posted by Hans
So the question is, what is it that destinguishes an atheist and an agnostic?

The same thing that distinguishes turnips and Tuesdays. They belong to different domains, although it is clearly possible to eat turnips on Tuesday.

Nowhere357 · 06-03-2003, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hans
And if a person was to say, "It is not my belief that God exists nor is it my belief that God does not exist," would they be agnostic, atheistic, or theistic?

Agnostic atheist.

Quote:

If you would answer agnostic, and I see little choice, then the appropriate connotation is that agnosticism speaks as much to belief as does atheism and theism.

Do we believe we know, or do we know we believe? I'd say both. So everything we know speaks to belief - and everything we believe must involve knowing.

Quote:

An agnostic does not "believe in" God any more than or any less than an atheist.

Correct.

Quote:

So the question is, what is it that destinguishes an atheist and an agnostic?

All agnostics are atheists. Not all atheists are agnostics.

Since it's all belief to you, try this:

Do you believe there is a god?
Do you believe there is no god?

The agnostic atheist answers no, no.
The (non-agnostic) atheist answers no, yes.

Other possible answers are: yes, no (theist) and yes, yes (someone either too smart or too stupid for me to talk to).

Quote:

Your answer is?

Sound and consistent, and my question is:

Really, in what way is this inappropriate?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-03-2003, 08:23 AM	#41
Normal Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 639	Thank you diana, that was just what I was going to say. But I disagree that belief isn't testable. If I believe the car is blue, then see that the car is green, I now have knowledge of the car being green.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.