BioBeing

I somtimes like to skip the atheist/agnostic tag and just call myself a skeptic. I do not believe in something until I have been presented with a preponderance of evidence (or, at least, convinced that the pile of evidence does in fact exist).

I am skeptical of ghosts, psychics, gods, water diviners, leprechauns, remote viewers and unicorns (other than, of course, the IPU, may she never be shod), UFOs, bigfoot etc etc etc...

Show me the evidence, and you might convince me that one of the above exists. But I will still be s skeptic regarding the rest of the pile.

Conchobar

Atheism and Theism are both philosophical. Both have concept of God. One says that he doesn't believe that his concept of god exists and the theists does believe.

Agnostics are a few degrees more rational. We or at least, I, have no clear concept of God or definition of God. If I can't define it how can I be sure it does or doesn't exist. If there is no evidence to either define any kind of God, and god is not defined, to make any firm committment on existence or non-existence of an undefinable entity who has no appearance and no evidence is irrational.

God could be defined as the Anthropomorphic God of the Bible and therefore the Bible is defining that god and also providing most of the evidence disproving it.

God could be a non-humanoid being who choses to remain invisible and unmeasurable to humans. He is literally hiding and appears to not want to be found. That whole idea doesn't make much sense to me. If he is hiding, then why did some humans try to invent him? My opinion is that humans want a god to explain their gaps in knowledge of the Natural world. But almost all gaps have been explained by thinking humans and a god hypothesis is unnecessary.

God could be an inanimate, unconscious, and non-cognitive entity and is therefore purely natural and just a phenomenon that is part of physics that we have not explained yet. And perhaps it is silly to call this natural force god a god at all.

Conchobar

Totalitarianist

Even by your definition, agnostics are atheists. Therefore, agnostics are not "a few degrees more rational".

Jobar

Conchobar, this may be further muddying already somewhat turbid waters- but your statement

I have no clear concept of God or definition of God. If I can't define it how can I be sure it does or doesn't exist. If there is no evidence to either define any kind of God, and god is not defined, to make any firm committment on existence or non-existence of an undefinable entity who has no appearance and no evidence is irrational.

is what philosopher and Humanist Paul Kurtz calls igtheism- that is, ignorance of what the word god means.

I think that all the believers who come here, and indeed all the ones who don't, believe in their own unique and individual god. Ask the right questions and no two will give the same answers. This indeterminacy is, to me, a powerful argument for unbelief, by whatever name we care to call it.

My own theory on this is that agnostics just don't want to get quite as directly in the believers' faces, as the ones who call themselves atheists. Otherwise there's precious little difference.

pescifish

I had intended to answer your question, but it appears you aren't debating belief systems.

Using the generally accepted definitions of agnostic and theist, it is entirely possible to be either a theist agnostic or a nontheist agnostic. However, since I cannot know what your personal definition of each and every word is, I see no point (except in frustration) in trying to discuss this with you.

If you are going to choose your own definition of words in any given language, you will need to find other people who use your head for a dictionary in order to have any meaningful communication.

Totalitarianist

I will say it again....

"A", as in the words "atheism" and "amoral", means "without" or "lacking". "Gnostic" comes from the Greek word "gnosis", which means "knowledge". An agnostic, therefore, is someone without knowledge of God. If someone can say that God exists, and that that is the only knowledge which he has of Him, it is knowledge nonetheless. The agnostic has [no knowledge whatsoever of Deity, and cannot even apply the concept "existence" to it. Atheism is a lack of belief in Deity, i.e. a lack of belief in the existence of Deity. To believe in something one must have knowledge of it. The agnostic has no knowledge of Deity; therefore, all agnostics are atheists, most atheists are agnostics.

It is impossible by definition for agnostics to believe in God. Agnostics absolutely lack knowledge of Deity. If you believe in Deity, you must also necessarily believe that you have knowledge of Deity. To be able to say that something "exists" is knowledge. The agnostic cannot even apply the concept "existence" to Deity, for that would be knowledge. Ignorance is total ignorance; that is, ignorance is ignorance of ignorance. One cannot even know that there is a "thing" of which to be ignorant. If the agnostic has any knowledge whatsoever of Deity -- he is on the contrary no agnostic at all, even if all he can say about Deity is that he "exists".

Therefore, all agnostics are atheists, and no theists are agnostics; for if you have knowledge of Deity, you necessarily believe in him. Agnostics cannot have knowledge of Deity. They necessarily do not believe in him. They are necessarily atheists.

This is why it is wrong to say, "I am not an atheist; I am an agnostic." For you cannot be an agnostic and at the same time be a non-atheist.

dbporter

I'm new to the discussion. I have read the thread. I wonder: why is this definition so important? Why is your first question so important? Where does that lead us in your way of thinking?

Totalitarianist

In other words you are asking: Why are definitions of words so important?

HelenM

He might be asking: why is it important for you to assert that your definition is right and the dictionary's one is wrong?

Helen

RichardMorey

If only people were that rational. There are many people who would admit that they have no knowledge (or, as I would prefer to say, evidence) of a deity but choose to believe that one exists. This is why I think belief and evidence (or knowledge) whould be separated - they are not contingent on one another. In your definition they are.