Jobar

Welcome back, Tricia! Good to see you here again. (I hope you don't get in trouble because of us... )

Although I name myself atheist, or more precisely atheist/pantheist, I can well understand why someone might call themself agnostic. Technically, since no one can absolutely prove or disprove the existence of God, all of us qualify as agnostics, even the believers who claim to know 'by faith', whatever that means. And it's very understandable to consider yourself insufficiently informed to make a decision about what you believe on so vast a subject. As long as you are trying to educate yourself so that you *can* decide, your agnosticism is honest.

HelenM

Hi Tricia!!!

Helen

LadyTricia

Naw, you guys didn't. I should've kept my mouth shut, but....:boohoo:

Oh well.

Hey Helen!

~Tricia

HelenM

Hey Tricia!

Welcome back to IIDB! Are you just passing through?

Helen

diana

Hey all. As much as I like reunions (and as much as I like to know Tricia is still around and kicking), please keep it to PMs or the Lounge.

I hereby rerail this thread.

Thank you.

d

Hans

To believe in God is theism, not agnostism. It is still theism regardless if that belief is taken on faith. It is still a conviction that God exists. Agnostism, theism, and atheism all refer to convictions. Furthermore, those convictions are, IMO, necessarily contrary to one another.

Atheism: God does not exist.

Agnostism: The existence of God is unknown or unknowable.

Theism: God does exist.

I disagree that a person can be both a theist and an agnostic, an atheist or an agnostic, or even a theist and an atheist with regard to the same God. It is, IMO, nonsensical to suggest such. As I pointed out in my earlier post I also find it problematic to define atheism as a "lack of belief." Quite obviously if it is one's conviction that the existence of God is unknown (agnostic) then that person also lacks the conviction that God does exist (atheist). Using this definition for atheism prevents any real destinction between the atheist and the agnostic as all agnostics would necessarily be atheists.

On the other hand, my disdane for theism leads me to enjoy the thought that any rational philosophy is necessarily atheistic. So the lack of belief version does have its personal appeal (even applying the label of atheist to babies). But when I'm realistic about it, I think a distinction must be made to preserve the integrity of each.

Normal

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

Is this person agnostic or atheist?

I really don't believe huxley was being very clever when he coined the term.

Hans

The person is contradicting himself. First he states that he doesn't know, then that he does.

"The car is blue, but I believe it is green."

Does this person believe the car is blue or green?

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.)

So that would be, Hans, "I don't know what color the car is but I believe it's green."

d

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.

Or maybe this is just the way it is in diana's simple little world. I've been told as much quite a bit here lately.

I might add that knowledge is testable. It's falsifiable. Belief seems to be exempt from this.

d