Well it depends if you want to use the correct definition or the incorrect one that theists use so they feel a little bit better about their position.
If you use the correct definitions the two are not mutually exclusive.
Are You Atheist or Agnostic
- Thread starter Schizo
- Start date
If you use the correct definitions the two are not mutually exclusive.
Nice to see you back.
The most obvious difference is that an Agnostic acknowledges the possibility of extra natural forces in the natural world. Beyond what we surmise to be natural forces or known occurrences.
By definition an Atheist cannot do this. The fact that this is being argued supports my hypothesis, made here first a few years ago, is true.
There is the real possibility that Atheism is not possible for a human. They would be classified as Agnostic's.
Norsefire,
It is illogical to suppose there is a creator. We don't look for a creator to explain glaciation, or plate techtonics. The reason we look to creation as an explanation for things is due to the existence of complex life forms. The cause of this complexity is now understood to be evolution, which is not an intelligent process. Therefore, intelligence is not a logical explanation for complexity. Furthermore, complexity wherever we see it arises as the end result of a process of evolution, not spontaneously.
Some kind of universe would have to have existed for a God to have the complexity required to make the choices involved in creation, so what created that? Basically, an intelligent designer is both illogical and unnecessary.
It is illogical to suppose there is a creator. We don't look for a creator to explain glaciation, or plate techtonics. The reason we look to creation as an explanation for things is due to the existence of complex life forms. The cause of this complexity is now understood to be evolution, which is not an intelligent process. Therefore, intelligence is not a logical explanation for complexity. Furthermore, complexity wherever we see it arises as the end result of a process of evolution, not spontaneously.
Some kind of universe would have to have existed for a God to have the complexity required to make the choices involved in creation, so what created that? Basically, an intelligent designer is both illogical and unnecessary.
This statement doesn't make any real sense. No atheist that I have ever met or that you will ever meet will typically assert absolutes and as such will recognise that such and such is possible - in fact they will typically recognise it better than the theist. Where you will undoubtedtly assert a universal positive that allah does not exist, the atheist will simply not believe in that entity but understand - as far as absolutes go - that allah might exist.
An agnostic, (from without - knowledge, from gnostic), asserts that one does not and cannot know of the existence of gods. I am aware that the general populous - vastly uneducated on such matters unless they have specific interest in it will be under the impression that agnostic relates to some form of uncertainty but it does not - not to any educated individual.
Theist has a belief in god/s
An atheist is without that belief
An agnostic believes that it is impossible to know.
This is one of the reasons I have not been on this forum - the theists here are not typically very clued up. I needed a proper challenge.
The last sentence is purely nonsensical. "If anyone argues against my definition it is support that my definition is true". Only the most naive would even think of making such a statement. Consider for a moment the belief you have, (some god or gods). An atheist is without that belief. An "agnostic" has nothing to do with that state of belief or no belief, it is a completely different issue.
Everyone is without a belief in gods until someone mentions them. You simply cannot dispute that fact of life, (unless you were to assert that belief gods is innate - which is simply unfounded).
To the uneducated, certainly.
The problem with the theist is that the "atheist" must be an enemy and hence the theist must distort the meaning of the word to be able to actively see the atheist as an enemy. It has further benefit in that if you can persuade an atheist that he is an "agnostic", (uneducated version), then you are half way closer to dragging him into your religion. The thing is that this is basic level idiocy - that's why I have spent time elsewhere, debating decent theistic issues with people that have a slightly better grasp of them. That you want to sit here under the delusion that "there can't be any such thing as an atheist" merely shows the level you are at and why I have been trying to avoid it.
Now, once again: perhaps it would be beneficial if you explain exactly why you think the above instead of just thinking bolded caps makes it so. Heh?
Regards,
I don't want to toss a fly into the ointment, but...
I was going through a number of definitions on the web and in my dictionaries that all had this little extra line:
Agnosticism: someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
Sarkus: A natural language like English is not well suited to logic, mathematics, physics, et cetera.
I still claim that some agnostics are atheists not willing to admit their opinion to others and perhaps afraid to admit it to themselves.
The agnostic postion seems wishy-washy to me. I think that most fall into one of the following two camps.
In English, some people might think that the following two phrases express different concepts.
- Not believing X.
- Believng Not-X
- X: Eg: God Exists
- X is true.
- X is false
- Theist: X is true or valid. Id est: the theist believes that God exists (Note God with a capital "G").
- Atheist: X is false or invalid. Ed est: The atheist believs that god does not exist. Note: I usually do not capitalize the "G"
- Agnostic: I do not which value to assign to X. Id est:[/] The agnositic does know whether God exists or god does not exist.
I still claim that some agnostics are atheists not willing to admit their opinion to others and perhaps afraid to admit it to themselves.
The agnostic postion seems wishy-washy to me. I think that most fall into one of the following two camps.
- I am an atheist. However, in my culture, this view is unpopular and perhaps dangerous, so I will claim to not know.
- I am a theist, but my belief is not very strong. I will not admit (even to myself) that I have serious doubts about the existence of God: He might strike me dead or send me to Hell.
How many times do you need to be corrected on this?
Stop attaching baggage to the term atheist. Quite simply, we don't believe in your god, just like you do not believe in every god ever conceived.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Atheism is an extreme reaction to theism; it is a more acute response to the structure of theism.
Agnosticism takes a less extreme stance and more logical view of theism.
Now this could only apply to a small percentage of non-theistic people. Meaning that a majority of people who fall under non-theistic classification are doing it because of the masses.
So as a whole there may be more intelligent atheists because it is in humans' nature to react quickly to threats. However; you have distinguish varying types of intelligence. At the top hierarchy of intelligence what are the percentages? Also is it in the characteristics of persons in question to react passionately to a situation without logic, react to a situation with logic and passion, or react with only logic. Factor in everything.
= )
Agnosticism takes a less extreme stance and more logical view of theism.
Now this could only apply to a small percentage of non-theistic people. Meaning that a majority of people who fall under non-theistic classification are doing it because of the masses.
So as a whole there may be more intelligent atheists because it is in humans' nature to react quickly to threats. However; you have distinguish varying types of intelligence. At the top hierarchy of intelligence what are the percentages? Also is it in the characteristics of persons in question to react passionately to a situation without logic, react to a situation with logic and passion, or react with only logic. Factor in everything.
= )
This is true - dictionaries provide not only actual meanings of words but common usage as well. (Such as 'gay' - meaning happy but commonly used to point out a homosexual). A dictionary has to add and include these things because that is the very function of a dictionary.
The problem with using 'agnostic' as "doubtful" and outside of theistic matters is that it makes us all agnostics - a trillion times over. The word loses any worthwhile meaning.
There are two positions: belief in/no belief in. You either do or you don't. (theist/atheist)
"But I'm unsure!" <-- certainly, I would submit that the majority of us have days, weeks or brief moments where that uncertainty increases, decreases or ceases to exist. One day you have an uncertainty factor of 1%, the next 23%, the next 16.275% - and this is with regards to theists as well who will tell you themselves that they have times of 'doubt'. In saying, if we view 'agnostic' as being doubtful then everyone is an agnostic, atheists and theists alike and hence the word becomes ultimately meaningless and will change on a day to day basis. "I'm not an agnostic today but I was yesterday".
The only aside to that is someone that never doubts, (to which many try to apply the terms atheist and theist - even though we've just established that atheists and theists do have doubts). We can't suggest that on the day when a person has no doubts that he is a theist but by having doubts the next day he is no longer a theist but is now an agnostic. Such a notion would be silly. Hence, even if we accept agnostic as meaning doubtful then people are still always either a theist or an atheist and agnostic comes and goes depending upon what kind of day they're having.
So then we come to people that are always doubtful of a proposition. As with the above, they are still either an atheist or a theist - but it would be claimed that their doubt doesn't come and go like our above examples so they would be permanently agnostic atheists/theists.
What all of this does, if we accept agnosticism as "doubtful", is render the word entirely meaningless.
Regards,
All well and good, but "Believing God Exists" is a 2-dimensional statement compared to the 1-dimensional "God Exists".
And logic of a 2-dimensional array leads to more outputs than simply X / Not-X.
"Belief that God exists" is an XY statement (X related to "belief" and Y related to "exists")
There are 4 logical outputs:
XY - theism (belief that God exists)
X Y' - atheism (belief that God does not exist)
X' Y - atheism (no belief that God exists)
X' Y' - theism (no belief that God does not exist)
[X Y'] is very different to [X' Y].
You obviously fail to grasp this, probably because you simplified the atheistic and theistic position to a simple 1-dimensional statement.
Other way round: It is NOT meaningless, but might be seen (by you, for example) as such due to confusion and inability to grasp language correctly.
I reiterate what Enmos has said: If you can say "I believe God exists" then you are theist.
All others are atheist (whether you are also agnostic or not).
Firstly, why should something be wrong merely because an explanation is philosophical (as implied by your first statement)?
Secondly, why should we "dumb down" just because people don't use the terms correctly?
Also - did you happen to note which Forum we are currently in? Wouldn't be a sub-forum of "PHILOSOPHY" would it?
Why?
That is because plate tectonics and glaciation are products of nature.
I am not speaking about creationism. I am also not speaking about creation of complex life forms.
I am speaking about the origin of the universe itself. I do not deny that nature is the driving force of our universe; however, I wonder how nature itself came to be. At least, the nature of our universe.
I could say the same thing about if the universe came to be naturally. It's equally illogical and unnecessary.
That would be an agnostic.
I agree with this definition
An understanding of nature is also not innate.
Dealing with absolutes is fruitless. The only thing we know for certain is that we know nothing for certain.
The 'possibility' of something existing is absolutely worthless. We gauge the probabilities. There is no 100% or 0%. If you continue to think in that way you are fooling yourself.
The 'possibility' of something existing is absolutely worthless. We gauge the probabilities. There is no 100% or 0%. If you continue to think in that way you are fooling yourself.
Which is the manner that theists and atheists think.
Norse,
You are using labels in a manner that is confusing and not necessary. As evidenced by this thread, simply defining the terms is not easy. I would say avoiding using the terms "theists, atheists, and agnostics" altogether in discussions such as this may help with communication.
You are using labels in a manner that is confusing and not necessary. As evidenced by this thread, simply defining the terms is not easy. I would say avoiding using the terms "theists, atheists, and agnostics" altogether in discussions such as this may help with communication.
Nonetheless, the terms exist to describe a mindset in which there is one absolute truth (atheism and theism) and the mindset of agnosticism in which they acknowledge that the subject is unknowable.