|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 11/19/2006 : 16:49:30 [Permalink]
|
| Sure. If you use the definition of agnostic that has to do with knowing god. That is, they believe a god exists, but believe also that god is not knowable. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2006 : 16:57:38 [Permalink]
|
In my case, being an atheist is a side effect of my agnosticism. Since I have no theistic beliefs, I am by definition a-theistic.
I'm not placing odds because I don't see a point to doing that. I doubt all supernatural claims and I require some pretty strong evidence to not continue to doubt that there is anything beyond nature. I stop short of certainty because that is not a defensible position.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2006 : 19:12:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
In my case, being an atheist is a side effect of my agnosticism. Since I have no theistic beliefs, I am by definition a-theistic.
But, traditionally, at least in the context of religion, an agnostic is one who claims to not know if gods exist or not. An atheist is one who does not believe gods exist. It seems by definition, one could not be both. Or are you using the terms differently?
quote:
I'm not placing odds because I don't see a point to doing that.
It's not a matter of placing odds. It's more a matter of acknowledging that there are many things we do not "believe in" and never think twice about--like unicorns, the tooth fairy, Thor, FSM and so on. When we hear of these things, we cannot prove they do not exist--but we still know they do not.
quote:
I doubt all supernatural claims and I require some pretty strong evidence to not continue to doubt that there is anything beyond nature. I stop short of certainty because that is not a defensible position.
Yes--this is what I was trying to convey about myself.
But I still don't see how one can not believe gods exist and , at the same time, be uncertain about whether gods exist. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2006 : 20:14:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo123:
But I still don't see how one can not believe gods exist and , at the same time, be uncertain about whether gods exist.
Do you think a belief implies a certainty? And lets not quibble over semantics. When I say certainty, I mean without any room for doubt.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2006 : 20:24:27 [Permalink]
|
The "traditional" meanings of the terms are actually just the popular meanings given them in modern society (and not very old, as the word "traditional" would have one believe - sort of like the tradition of Mothers' Day), and not the meanings they originally had. This confusion has led some people, like several here, to try to educate the public and shift the meanings back, while others have given up on that and attempted to create new labels (for example, the poorly-chosen "Brights") which don't carry the popular meanings' emotional baggage. Huxley coined the term "agnostic" in opposition to the gnostics of the Church (people who claimed to know God), and so the word itself is about knowledge, not certainty.
In other words, agnosticism isn't some wishy-washy uncertainty about the existence of god(s), it is instead the assertion that actual knowledge of the metaphysical is not currently possible. And, since faith is often defined as a belief in something without evidence, there are plenty of agnostic theists walking the Earth, like those who fall for Pascal's Wager and state, "before I die, I will never know if God exists, but I'll believe that He does, just in case." Just like there are plenty of people here who say, "I can't know if any god exists, but there isn't any evidence for it, so my tentative conclusion right now is that no gods exist," who are agnostic atheists.
Of course, examples of "gnostic" theists and "gnostic" atheists abound. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2006 : 20:45:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
ergo123:
But I still don't see how one can not believe gods exist and , at the same time, be uncertain about whether gods exist.
Do you think a belief implies a certainty? And lets not quibble over semantics. When I say certainty, I mean without any room for doubt.
I'm not quibbling over semantics, kil. I'm trying to understand how you can be an agnostic and atheist at the same time.
And I think I understand your point on 'certainty.' So are you saying that because you are not certain there is no god, that makes you an agnostic? If so, how are then also an atheist? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2006 : 20:53:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The "traditional" meanings of the terms are actually just the popular meanings given them in modern society (and not very old, as the word "traditional" would have one believe - sort of like the tradition of Mothers' Day), and not the meanings they originally had. This confusion has led some people, like several here, to try to educate the public and shift the meanings back, while others have given up on that and attempted to create new labels (for example, the poorly-chosen "Brights") which don't carry the popular meanings' emotional baggage. Huxley coined the term "agnostic" in opposition to the gnostics of the Church (people who claimed to know God), and so the word itself is about knowledge, not certainty.
In other words, agnosticism isn't some wishy-washy uncertainty about the existence of god(s), it is instead the assertion that actual knowledge of the metaphysical is not currently possible. And, since faith is often defined as a belief in something without evidence, there are plenty of agnostic theists walking the Earth, like those who fall for Pascal's Wager and state, "before I die, I will never know if God exists, but I'll believe that He does, just in case." Just like there are plenty of people here who say, "I can't know if any god exists, but there isn't any evidence for it, so my tentative conclusion right now is that no gods exist," who are agnostic atheists.
Of course, examples of "gnostic" theists and "gnostic" atheists abound.
Now that explanation sounds like quibbling over semantics... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
| Edited by - ergo123 on 11/19/2006 23:17:43 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2006 : 20:57:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Sure. If you use the definition of agnostic that has to do with knowing god. That is, they believe a god exists, but believe also that god is not knowable.
But in kil's and liar's case, they would be saying that god doesn't exist but this non-existant thing is not knowable. That's completely redundant. If that's what they meant, I guess my next question for them would be why define your stance in redundant terms? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2006 : 21:08:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
ergo123:
But I still don't see how one can not believe gods exist and , at the same time, be uncertain about whether gods exist.
Do you think a belief implies a certainty? And lets not quibble over semantics. When I say certainty, I mean without any room for doubt.
I'm not quibbling over semantics, kil. I'm trying to understand how you can be an agnostic and atheist at the same time.
And I think I understand your point on 'certainty.' So are you saying that because you are not certain there is no god, that makes you an agnostic? If so, how are then also an atheist?
Actually, there are two forms of agnosticism.
Atheistic agnosticism, such a Kil is, does not assume the existance of a supreme being(s).
Theistic agnosticism assumes the existance of a supreme being.
Agnosticism merely states that proof does not exist pro or con for the existance or non-existance of a supreme being. The assumption or lack thereof of existance for it delineates between atheistic or theistic agnosticism.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2006 : 21:24:27 [Permalink]
|
ergo asked:
quote:
I'm having trouble understanding how you can be an agnostic atheist. Could either of you explain that further? Do you believe the odds of gods existance are 50/50? Can one be an agnostic theist?
God exists or god does not exist. It is a binary question. Do not make the common mistake of assuming that both answers have the same probability of being correct.
Anyone who tells you that agnosticism means you think there is a 50/50 chance of a god simply doesn't understand agnosticism.
quote:
But, traditionally, at least in the context of religion, an agnostic is one who claims to not know if gods exist or not. An atheist is one who does not believe gods exist. It seems by definition, one could not be both. Or are you using the terms differently?
An atheist is one who does not have a god belief. Nothing more.
An agnostic, in the context Huxley (imo) meant it, is a person who does not think the idea of a god has any legitimate merit. It is a speculation without evidence, rendering the entire topic meaningless. You cannot prove god, nor can you disprove god. Therefore its a pointless conversation.
I see no conflict with thinking myself both agnostic and atheist. In fact I think atheism is a logical consequence of agnosticism.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2006 : 21:29:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Not that explanation sounds like quibbling over semantics...
I'm not quibbling about anything, I'm actively trying to change the meaning of the words back to what they originally meant. "Agnostic" was not intended to indicate uncertainty about the existence of God, as you clearly understand the "traditional" meaning. That meaning was, instead, largely the result of the Church's attempts to discredit self-professed agnostics as indecisive wimps. By continuing that use, ergo, you further the fundamentalist agenda today in the USA. And by dismissing my whole post as "quibbling," you show beyond any reasonable doubt that you don't care about any answer given you, you're still just trolling. Kil fell for the bait, as did I. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2006 : 22:39:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
ergo asked:
quote:
I'm having trouble understanding how you can be an agnostic atheist. Could either of you explain that further? Do you believe the odds of gods existance are 50/50? Can one be an agnostic theist?
God exists or god does not exist. It is a binary question. Do not make the common mistake of assuming that both answers have the same probability of being correct.
Anyone who tells you that agnosticism means you think there is a 50/50 chance of a god simply doesn't understand agnosticism.
Should I take that as a "no" to my question of Do you believe the odds of gods existance are 50/50?
quote:
quote:
But, traditionally, at least in the context of religion, an agnostic is one who claims to not know if gods exist or not. An atheist is one who does not believe gods exist. It seems by definition, one could not be both. Or are you using the terms differently?
An atheist is one who does not have a god belief. Nothing more.
How is that different from what I said? (I said "An atheist is one who does not believe gods exist.")
quote:
quote:
An agnostic, in the context Huxley (imo) meant it, is a person who does not think the idea of a god has any legitimate merit. It is a speculation without evidence, rendering the entire topic meaningless. You cannot prove god, nor can you disprove god. Therefore its a pointless conversation.
Hmm. That seems to be a different take on the issue than anyone else (including myself) has had. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, "An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist." This seems in direct contradiction to your definition of an Atheist--which you define as a person with no god belief--as it seems (at least to me) that a person with no god belief would deny the existance of god.
quote:
quote:
I see no conflict with thinking myself both agnostic and atheist. In fact I think atheism is a logical consequence of agnosticism.
How do you get around the contradiction noted above? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2006 : 23:05:55 [Permalink]
|
From Wiki:
Agnostic atheism
quote:
One of the earliest explanations of agnostic atheism is that of Robert Flint, in his Croall Lecture of 1887-1888 (published in 1903 under the title Agnosticism):
"The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one." (p.49)
"If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist - an agnostic-atheist - an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other..." (p.50-51)
Now ergo, if you still don't get it, I can't help you. Oh well…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2006 : 23:08:47 [Permalink]
|
Ergo, you aren't going to get anything more out of a dictionary except how the word is commonly used, even if it is commonly used incorrectly.
Look up agnosticm in Wikipedia or some other encyclopedia. That should clear up much of your confusion.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
