Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bumble Bee Tuna · 07-30-2003, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by asgardhaven
How for example does one prove/disprove for example the First Cause type diety...But acknowledging a high level of improbability is not the same as calling it impossible...but I can't bring myself to declare an impossibility if I can't at least theorize a way to test it either empirically or hell even in a mathmatical model. Can I not hold the position that since I've no way of testing this First Cause/No First Cause that I cannot state emphaticatically that there is no god. Honestly and with no jest here, am I missing something?

The segments I quoted demonstrate to me that yes, you are missing something here- the definitions of atheist and agnostic.

being an atheist doesn't mean declaring God to be impossible. All it requires is that you don't believe in god(s). And since you have declared gods to be "highly improbable" I am assuming that you do in fact not believe in god(s). Thus, you're an atheist, and maybe you didn't even know it.

Agnosticism is really an unnecessary position except when dealing with undefined, completely irrelevant gods, at which point it becomes mandatory, IMO.

-B

Magus55 · 07-30-2003, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by goat37
Hmm... I rarely see posts that say that there is NO God, but rather that YOUR God does not exist.

We have as much proof as to the existance of any God, as we do yours... none.

Theists don't have to say 'there is a God', it comes with the territory of being a theist. So one could say that just by the nature of being a theist, you are in fact saying 'there is a God'.

Look harder - i could pull up probably tons of claims that there is no God period, not just the Christian God.

sodium · 07-30-2003, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC

But I must warn you----the first thing any atheist will say is they will never say emphatically that there is no God.

THERE IS NO GOD!!!!

Is that emphatic enough?

Nowhere357 · 07-30-2003, 11:37 PM

Quote:

asgardhaven
I know that the Belive/ Don't Belive dichotomy is very attractive position and arguably for any one particular god highly applicable. But as an absolute to cover all types and forms of dieties I think it ignores the question of evidence, our confidence in it, and even our ability to gather it.

Great post, imo you have spelled it out very well and have missed nothing.

Agnostics are atheists of course, but so what? The second term often implies a bit more than just non-belief, and the first term makes clear that one is not sure one way or the other.

In my case, when it comes to the Christian God of mythology, I am an atheist - their world view is worse than non-sensical, it is illogical, unreasonable, contradictory, ridiculus, and just impossible, imo. However, I am agnostic about spiritual reality in general.

To those who think this is a cowardly dishonest stance, I've asked to be buried face down. (Making it easier for them to kiss my ass. Thx Red from that '70's show!)

edited to get the terms to match with the descriptions. sheesh

pariah · 07-30-2003, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
I admit that I find the agnostic position to be a much more tenable one than atheism.

But I must warn you----the first thing any atheist will say is they will never say emphatically that there is no God.

To me that just means agnosticism. But the atheists always deny that description in very long and very detailed posts. Very good at it too. I almost end up agreeing with them. But then I realize I am being taken for a sucker--------Hey if you don't know for sure, then you are an agnostic--right?

theism=belief in god or gods

atheism=lack of belief in god or gods

I do not beleive in God

does NOT mean

I beleive God does not exist

so rational bac...are you agnostic towards leprechauns? i mean you cant know for sure right?

someone else said that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. damn straight. an agnostic is always an atheist, an atheist is not always an agnostic.

Rational BAC · 07-31-2003, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sodium
THERE IS NO GOD!!!!

Is that emphatic enough?

WOW. Neato.

Now sodium is what I would call a true atheist as against all the rest of the pseudo-atheists who admit the possibility (no matter how slight) that there is a God. ---------and are in effect agnostics. Or maybe agnostic atheists. Or to emphasize the atheist part of it maybe agnostic-ATHEIST.

Sodium----I respect you for your very strong belief system (or knowledge)---depending on how you want to argue it----in this matter.

Funny though. I am a theist. But if you asked me if I am absolutely positively 100% certain that there is a God, I would have to say no. I admit the possibility, no matter how slight, that there is no God.

Makes me an agnostic theist, I guess. Or maybe an agnostic-THEIST.

Maybe we should do it by the numbers. I am 99% theist and 1% agnostic. I think a relative numbering system defining each persons belief/knowledge in this matter would work quite well.

07-31-2003, 08:19 AM

I think a lot of the problem of nomenclature and definition stems from the relative rarity of agnostic theists. Most theists (obviously not Rational BAC) seem uncomfortable with the answer "I (or we) don't know" and many of them think that the provision of any answer, however stupid or unsatisfactory, to a difficult question confirms religion as in some way superior to ackowledged ignorance or doubt.

OTOH, most of the non-theists you will find here have absorbed at least a fair helping of science and a scientific outlook and so are quite comfortable with the lack of an answer and feel it is preferable to confident assertion of rubbish.

I would suggest that, for all except the brainwashed, the honest answer to the question of the existence of a creator or creators is, "We don't know". We can advance views about the probability of such an entity or entities, but that is mere speculation. (I don't want to complicate this with whether any gods of particular religions exist.)

In that sense then, we should all be agnostic. So why would we call ourselves atheists? Well, as has often been pointed out, with regard to most gods, even the theists are atheists. But in my view belief isn't the only thing that defines theism or atheism. There's also the question of what looms large in your life. Do you go to church, mosque, temple, synagogue, or whatever? Do you read holy writings. Do you pray or meditate as laid down by some religious figure, do you expect to be rewarded or punished in life if you depart from religious precepts? IOW do you go on as though religion is true?

I long ago decided that although I really couldn't say whether or not there were god(s), I didn't let religion play any part in my life. I lived without god(s). So I decided that taking the root meaning of the word, I was an "atheist". That's how I use the word and what it means to me.

But call me an agnostic atheist if you prefer.

Shadowy Man · 07-31-2003, 08:29 AM

Aren't semantics fun?

Rusting Car Bumper · 07-31-2003, 09:22 AM

Most agnostics are atheists by definition.

There simply is not a dichotomy between atheism and agnosticism because they are about different things.

Claims like "The agnostic position is more tenable than the atheist one" is either nonsensical or horribly ambigious.

DC

callmejay · 07-31-2003, 12:50 PM

Acknowledging that it's possible I'm wrong does not turn me (an atheist) into an agnostic. I believe that there is no God, but it's possible I'm wrong. Since I could be wrong about every belief I have I don't feel like I need a separate label to acknowledge that. I.e. I believe that the people who claim to be my parents are my parents, although I understand that there is a very small possibility it's all a sham. I don't go around qualifying myself every time I talk about them by calling them "the parents I'm pretty sure are mine," or more agnostic, "the parents who might be mine."

I personally believe that most agnostics are tricked by the fact that there are so many theists out there; that the theists can't all be completely wrong. The fact (as I see it) remains, though, that there is no reason to believe in god(s.) Do you (agnostics) consider yourselves agnostic about the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, or about (US tv psychic quack) John Edwards?

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

07-31-2003, 08:19 AM	#17
DMB Guest Posts: n/a	I think a lot of the problem of nomenclature and definition stems from the relative rarity of agnostic theists. Most theists (obviously not Rational BAC) seem uncomfortable with the answer "I (or we) don't know" and many of them think that the provision of any answer, however stupid or unsatisfactory, to a difficult question confirms religion as in some way superior to ackowledged ignorance or doubt. OTOH, most of the non-theists you will find here have absorbed at least a fair helping of science and a scientific outlook and so are quite comfortable with the lack of an answer and feel it is preferable to confident assertion of rubbish. I would suggest that, for all except the brainwashed, the honest answer to the question of the existence of a creator or creators is, "We don't know". We can advance views about the probability of such an entity or entities, but that is mere speculation. (I don't want to complicate this with whether any gods of particular religions exist.) In that sense then, we should all be agnostic. So why would we call ourselves atheists? Well, as has often been pointed out, with regard to most gods, even the theists are atheists. But in my view belief isn't the only thing that defines theism or atheism. There's also the question of what looms large in your life. Do you go to church, mosque, temple, synagogue, or whatever? Do you read holy writings. Do you pray or meditate as laid down by some religious figure, do you expect to be rewarded or punished in life if you depart from religious precepts? IOW do you go on as though religion is true? I long ago decided that although I really couldn't say whether or not there were god(s), I didn't let religion play any part in my life. I lived without god(s). So I decided that taking the root meaning of the word, I was an "atheist". That's how I use the word and what it means to me. But call me an agnostic atheist if you prefer.

07-31-2003, 08:29 AM	#18
Shadowy Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Shadowy Planet Posts: 7,585	Aren't semantics fun?

07-31-2003, 09:22 AM	#19
Rusting Car Bumper Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: U.S. Posts: 4,171	Most agnostics are atheists by definition. There simply is not a dichotomy between atheism and agnosticism because they are about different things. Claims like "The agnostic position is more tenable than the atheist one" is either nonsensical or horribly ambigious. DC

07-31-2003, 12:50 PM	#20
callmejay Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 466	Acknowledging that it's possible I'm wrong does not turn me (an atheist) into an agnostic. I believe that there is no God, but it's possible I'm wrong. Since I could be wrong about every belief I have I don't feel like I need a separate label to acknowledge that. I.e. I believe that the people who claim to be my parents are my parents, although I understand that there is a very small possibility it's all a sham. I don't go around qualifying myself every time I talk about them by calling them "the parents I'm pretty sure are mine," or more agnostic, "the parents who might be mine." I personally believe that most agnostics are tricked by the fact that there are so many theists out there; that the theists can't all be completely wrong. The fact (as I see it) remains, though, that there is no reason to believe in god(s.) Do you (agnostics) consider yourselves agnostic about the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, or about (US tv psychic quack) John Edwards?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.