Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Atheism & Agnosticism are not the same thing!

13

Comments

  • #102
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    SeanW wrote: »
    The odds you'd pick that card out of a 52 card deck are still 1:52.
    But "that" card is only specified after the card has been picked.

    The odds of picking any specific card out of a deck are 1:52.

    The odds of picking any card out of a deck and retroactively assigning it importance is 1:1.

    Which is what's being done here.
    But if there is nothing outside the spiritual realm, then luck had to play a very large part.
    1. Whether or not your an atheist has nothing to do with other spiritual beliefs.
    2. An atheist can just as likely be a determinist which removes luck entirely.
    3. As there would be no one to ask the question if we did not exist an atheist might see your point as irrelevant.


  • #103
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    SeanW wrote: »
    It would also help your argument if you stopped ignoring the information and the realities. The 2 dimensional theist-atheist and gnostic-agnostic chart
    http://m.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=196111&d=1331554433
    is a good description of religious views, but requires options just off the graph along each axis for people who self identify as one thing. For example, if you believe what is written in the Koran, you are a Muslim and you don't have to qualify that with (a)gnostic or (a)theist. One word sums up your view.

    Allah features pretty heavily in the Qur'an, so I think if you believe all of what the Qur'an says then you must be a theist.

    If you only believe a bit of the Qur'an are you still a Muslim? In which case, I must be a Muslim.
    SeanW wrote: »
    Or if you actively assert the negative, you can call yourself an Atheist or a Gnostic Atheist or a Negative Theist or whatever you like, your self-identification is valid.

    Likewise my belief is guided by the evidence, which tells me that all claims to supernatural knowledge including the negative are equally laughable. That makes me an Agnostic and I feel no need to further qualify that.

    To be an atheist you don't have to assert a negative. You simply must be without a positive assertion. Believing there is no god is not the same as having no belief in a god. That's why you're an atheist.


  • #104
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    pickarooney wrote: »
    Suppose you have one stamp that you like. You haven't exactly got a collection but you could well find another one you liked in the future and keep that as well.
    Indeed, there's nothing stopping someone from jumping the gap and changing their mind. Someone's belief status is not an indelible mark. It can be changed as often as one likes, but at any specific moment in time they do or they don't.
    But if there is nothing outside the spiritual realm, then luck had to play a very large part.
    This is the problem with assigning value or purpose to an event after the event.

    Equally we could be hit with another asteroid tomorrow, 99% of life is wiped out, and when another sentient self-aware species evolves in 100 million years, they start to remark on how incredibly lucky that it was an asteroid just happened to hit the planet 100 million years ago, otherwise they would never have existed.

    You seem to be assigning some specific value to our being right here at this moment in time - rather consider that we just happen to be here as the natural consequence of a series of natural and unconnected events. There is no "Why did the asteroid hit the earth?". It just did, for no reason.

    Or to look at it another way - think about where you are right now, in your life. And all of the things which happened to you in your life in order to get you to where you are right now. Think about how unlikely it was that all of those exact things happened in exactly that order. If you calculated it out, the odds would be extraordinary. But you can't calculate odds like that, that's not how probability works.
    Every outcome of your life was equally unlikely. But there had be one, and you're in it.

    In other words, no matter what the universe looked like at any point in time, you could look back at the events which caused it to reach that configuration and say, "Wow, that was extremely unlikely".


  • #105
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    seamus wrote: »
    Indeed, there's nothing stopping someone from jumping the gap and changing their mind. Someone's belief status is not an indelible mark. It can be changed as often as one likes, but at any specific moment in time they do or they don't.
    You missed the whole point. The fictitious person is not a stamp collector, but they're not disinterested in stamps either. They keep a single stamp because they like it, too many to be not a stamp collector, to few to be a stamp collector.
    Equally we could be hit with another asteroid tomorrow, 99% of life is wiped out, and when another sentient self-aware species evolves in 100 million years, they start to remark on how incredibly lucky that it was an asteroid just happened to hit the planet 100 million years ago, otherwise they would never have existed.
    You're right. They would be incredibly lucky. Ridiculously so.
    You seem to be assigning some specific value to our being right here at this moment in time - rather consider that we just happen to be here as the natural consequence of a series of natural and unconnected events. There is no "Why did the asteroid hit the earth?". It just did, for no reason.
    Thank you for making my point for me. Because what you're basically saying is, we just got extraordinarily lucky!

    Thanks for the clarification.


  • #106
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    SeanW wrote: »
    Thank you for making my point for me. Because what you're basically saying is, we just got extraordinarily lucky!

    Thanks for the clarification.

    That's not what he's saying but anyway I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on how we got here.


  • #107
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Seachmall wrote: »
    That's not what he's saying but anyway I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on how we got here.
    :Facepalm again:

    Did the term "Agnostic" and the repeated statements that "I reject all explanations" not give you a hint, Sherlock?


  • #108
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    SeanW wrote: »
    :Facepalm again:

    Did the term "Agnostic" and the repeated statements that "I reject all explanations" not give you a hint, Sherlock?

    So, Watson, one can deduce your explanation as to how we got here is "I don't know".

    Congratulations, a typical atheist response.


  • #109
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    SeanW wrote: »
    You missed the whole point. The fictitious person is not a stamp collector, but they're not disinterested in stamps either. They keep a single stamp because they like it, too many to be not a stamp collector, to few to be a stamp collector.
    I didn't miss the point. The point is that it's self-determinism. Someone considers themself to be a stamp collector or not. There is no "I don't know" answer to the question.
    Thank you for making my point for me. Because what you're basically saying is, we just got extraordinarily lucky!

    Thanks for the clarification.
    I guess it depends on the individual's definition of the word "lucky". If you consider it to be the result of a predetermined set of a events resulting in a positive outcome for you, then that's not really luck at all.

    If you prefer to label "**** happens" as "lucky" when **** has happened in your favour, then you'd be perfectly justified in considering your existence to be "lucky".


  • #110
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Seachmall wrote: »
    I want to hear those words, Watson.
    Ok. I'll try this one more time. Science can probably explains HOW we got here, i.e. the big bang, the formation of the planets, the events surrounding the development of Earth. It doesn't explain why. That comes back to belief.

    Why we're here? I have no clue: and that's where I differ from the religious and fundamaterialist-atheists.

    The fundamentalists put it down to their specific god via Creationism, or more reasonably, Intelligent Design.
    The fundamaterialists put it down to their god, i.e. incredibly good fortune.


  • #111
    desertcircus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    SeanW wrote: »
    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Nonsense, atheists simply have no belief in a god, that's all. They can still believe in an afterlife, a soul, ghosts, or fairies if they so wish.
    Only if the term atheist is defined in a ridiculously broad fashion. By any sensible definition, Atheism should be regarded as a belief in the negative.

    Any sensible definition of atheism would take into account that the core argument of atheism is that belief in anything without evidence doesn't make sense. Defining atheism as a belief in the negative is nonsensical, since even Dawkins is at pains to point out that his lack of belief is based purely on appraisal of the evidence and that not only does he not know for sure, he regards it as impossible to know more or less anything for sure.

    A definition of atheism which would exclude Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris is a pretty poor definition.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    SeanW wrote: »
    It doesn't explain why.

    Why we're here? I have no clue: and that's where I differ from the religious and fundamaterialist-atheists.

    The fundamentalists put it down to their specific god via Creationism, or more reasonably, Intelligent Design.
    The fundamaterialists put it down to their god, i.e. incredibly good fortune.

    Why do you continue to assign defining attributes to atheists that simply don't exist?


  • #113
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    It would appear SeanW, the atheist, doesn't like atheists.


  • #114
    starlit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,344 ✭✭✭✭starlit


    Can we get a proper definition before this thread gets closed as this plethora is an ongoing debate which will go on forever...


  • #115
    Paola Short Jacket
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Paola Short Jacket


    this is just like the non-catholics trying to insist they're catholic


  • #116
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    doovdela wrote: »
    Can we get a proper definition before this thread gets closed as this plethora is an ongoing debate which will go on forever...

    Atheist;
    (noun)
    1. Someone who is not a Theist.


  • #117
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    It would appear SeanW, the atheist, doesn't like atheists.
    Well considering that in good old Catholic Ireland, being atheist has always been a step below being a homosexual, it's not surprising that people would invent new ways of defining themselves without having to come out and admit to themselves that they're an actual atheist.

    That involves eating babies and burning churches and murdering sprees, doesn't it?


  • #118
    starlit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,344 ✭✭✭✭starlit


    Seachmall wrote: »
    Atheist;
    (noun)
    1. Someone who is not a Theist.

    I still don't get it!?

    So basically one doesn't believe in anything while the other believes there is a God but doesn't believe in a religion? Which is which? Different concept yes....I get confused on this.

    I get confused which is which...


  • #119
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    You may have noticed that I've started using the term fundamaterialist instead, it's the closest word I can think of, other than Atheist, for someone who asserts the negative.

    It has always been my understanding that those who assert the negative would describe themselves as atheists. I have always, up until now at least considered Atheism = Certainty of no god, i.e. the opposite of Theism = Certainty of god.

    Even if that does not hold, I still self-identify as agnostic because I consider the impossibility of knowledge to be the defining feature of my beliefs.


  • #120
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    doovdela wrote: »
    I still don't get it!?

    So basically one doesn't believe in anything while the other believes there is a God but doesn't believe in a religion? Which is which? Different concept yes....

    Theist;
    (noun)
    1. Someone who believes in the existence of God(s).


    Atheist;
    (noun)
    1. Someone who is not a theist.


    Therefore, an atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of God(s).

    That is the only characteristic of an atheist. It is the literal one and the most widely used among those who refer to themselves as atheists.

    Being atheist does not mean you do not believe in other supernatural things, it does not mean you don't believe in fate, it does not mean you do not believe in a balancing force such as Karma, etc.

    While these things may be common among some atheists it is not what makes them atheists.
    SeanW wrote:
    You may have noticed that I've started using the term fundamaterialist instead, it's the closest word I can think of, other than Atheist, for someone who asserts the negative.
    They're called Gnostic Atheists, or Strong Atheists ("Gnostic Atheists" is more descriptive though).


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    doovdela wrote: »
    I still don't get it!?

    So basically one doesn't believe in anything while the other believes there is a God but doesn't believe in a religion? Which is which? Different concept yes....I get confused on this.

    "Theist" is a blanket term for someone who believes in at least one God, creator(s) of existence.

    It includes religious and non-religious people alike. Equally "Atheist" is the opposite and is a blanket term for someone who does not believe in any God(s). It too includes religious and non-religous people. Yes, there are religions which are atheist.

    These are very blanket terms in the same way that "Human" is a very blanket term. Some people have difficulty with this (or more specifically with the "atheist" label) and seek to define themselves as something else, despite still being under the umbrella term.

    It's a little bit like a Catholic trying to argue that they're not a Christian.


  • #122
    desertcircus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    SeanW wrote: »
    You may have noticed that I've started using the term fundamaterialist instead, it's the closest word I can think of, other than Atheist, for someone who asserts the negative.

    It has always been my understanding that those who assert the negative would describe themselves as atheists. I have always, up until now at least considered Atheism = Certainty of no god, i.e. the opposite of Theism = Certainty of god.

    Even if that does not hold, I still self-identify as agnostic because I consider the impossibility of knowledge to be the defining feature of my beliefs.

    I don't know of a single serious atheist who would claim total certainty in the lack of a god; it simply wouldn't make any sense. By your operational definition, there's no such thing as an atheist - because who would claim divine certainty of the non-existence of the divine?


  • #123
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    desertcircus wrote: »
    I don't know of a single serious atheist who would claim total certainty in the lack of a god; it simply wouldn't make any sense.
    No different to people claiming absolute certainty of the existance of their own religious god(s). Doesn't stop them from doing it.
    By your operational definition, there's no such thing as an atheist - because who would claim divine certainty of the non-existence of the divine?
    You would not have to have absolute certainty of the non-existence of the diving to be a Gnostic/Strong Atheist. Reasonable certainty - i.e. being reasonably confident of the negative, would be acceptable.


  • #124
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    doovdela wrote: »
    Can we get a proper definition before this thread gets closed as this plethora is an ongoing debate which will go on forever...

    How about this?


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk



    I've always thought that it explains things quite clearly.


  • #125
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    token56 wrote: »
    How exactly are you calculating those odds? I dont even think the greatest minds in the world would claim to be able to work out the probability of us existing in a purely materialistic world because we simply dont know enough about the world yet to make such a calculation. So I'm curious as to how you are calculated the odds of bazillion, quadrillon, gazillon to 1, or even how it is you think everything came to be, i.e. matter, planets, stars, the earth, life, etc.
    Very true; for all we know the universe could be lousy with life; there's even speculation that there's life on one of Jupiter's moons. On the other hand maybe we are the only planet with life in the universe. Neither of these things is impossible based on what we currently know about the universe.


  • #126
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Don't get me started on those pansy fence sitting Agnostics!1 :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    SeanW wrote: »
    No different to people claiming absolute certainty of the existance of their own religious god(s). Doesn't stop them from doing it.
    True, but if you go over to the A&A forum I suspect you'd be hard pushed to find an atheist who claims certainty of God's nonexistence.
    You would not have to have absolute certainty of the non-existence of the diving to be a Gnostic/Strong Atheist. Reasonable certainty - i.e. being reasonably confident of the negative, would be acceptable.
    Confidence and certainty are two completely separate things.

    I'm confident that Unicorns don't exist, but I'm not certain of it.

    As such I will not argue to claim to know either way, but I will reject your claims of it existing unless you provide sufficient evidence.

    Should you argue it does not exist I will be at a loss to request evidence and as your claim does not disrupt what I know to be true about the world your claims of it not existing don't interest me in the slightest.

    However, while I maintain scepticism I will also maintain confidence that them not existing is more reasonable.


    In short, you can't substitute "Reasonable Certainty" for "Reasonable Confidence" just because it fits your point better.


  • #128
    starlit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,344 ✭✭✭✭starlit


    Seachmall wrote: »
    Theist;
    (noun)
    1. Someone who believes in the existence of God(s).


    Atheist;
    (noun)
    1. Someone who is not a theist.


    Therefore, an atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of God(s).

    That is the only characteristic of an atheist. It is the literal one and the most widely used among those who refer to themselves as atheists.

    Being atheist does not mean you do not believe in other supernatural things, it does not mean you don't believe in fate, it does not mean you do not believe in a balancing force such as Karma, etc.

    While these things may be common among some atheists it is not what makes them atheists.

    They're called Gnostic Atheists, or Strong Atheists ("Gnostic Atheists" is more descriptive though).

    Ok I think I get it now. Theist believes but an Atheist does not?

    What's the difference between Agnostic and Atheist then?

    So basically give myself as an example:

    I go to Mass regularly not of my benefit, but to keep others happy to be seen that I go, I would say that I am Christian rather than a Catholic though describe myself as a Catholic to keep the elders happy.

    I doubt the Catholic teachings and religious beliefs I don't believe everything they say is true. Its nonsense/cult religion kind of thing. Goes over my head as I understand some of it but not all of it. It confuses me sometimes and I get lost as to what they are trying to say though can pick up morals of stories yes but the whole bible thing just bores me. I be more kind of spiritual type of person than pray. I pray but only when I have to. I believe God exists but I don't believe he is real or that he may have existed but not now....I doubt him.

    I don't go to confession but still attend all the sacraments. I don't believe in Scientology by any means but I would believe that the big bang happened, that we started off as micro-organisms, humans descended from the apes and so on and don't' believe that the whole adam and eve thing happened I think there is more too it or else that they in fact were something else. Same applies to Jesus and Mary. I don't think the immaculate conception happened, I don't think Jesus was Jesus that It could have been a female person instead, church doesn't like this of course and its not proven either way. How Jesus lived the way he did if he did and did exist he may or may not have but if he did don't think many people could have lived like him its impossible. He teaches about life yes but there are other ways to live a life similar to him without having to believe in all that catholic teaching malarky.

    What am I then? Agnostic, Atheist, Spiritual, Scientologist, Catholic, or just a plain ould Christian? Or is it something too complex to define as you are either one or the other???


  • #129
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    You might be an Agnostic Theist.

    You appear to tend towards the view that there may be something out there, but you may have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to tell what, if anything that is. You consider scientific explanations for things to be valid. You've rejected all or part of Abrahamic dogma which is a strong sign of sanity.

    Have a look over this and see if any of it applies to you.


  • #130
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    doovdela wrote: »
    What's the difference between Agnostic and Atheist then?
    Agnostic is traditionally a fluffy term that people use when they don't want to admit they're atheist. Traditionally the idea is that "Agnostic" means "I don't know" and people call themselves "Agnostic" when they want to make a point that they're no longer a member of a religion, but don't want to upset their granny by saying they don't believe in God.

    But if you look at it more closely the statement of "I don't know" is in relation to the question of "Is there a God?", not "Do I believe in God?". You can quite rationally say that you believe in God, but you don't know if he/she exists. Likewise, you can say that you don't believe in God, but you also don't know if one exists.

    That's why there's reference in this thread to "Agnostic Atheist" and "Agnostic Theist".
    So basically give myself as an example:

    ...

    I believe God exists but I don't believe he is real or that he may have existed but not now....I doubt him.
    This is all that matters really. Catholic/non-catholic, etc is irrelevant when it comes to being theist or atheist.

    You say you believe God exists, but you don't believe he is real? Do you mean "real" as in "tangible"?
    I don't think the immaculate conception happened
    Aside, this also means that you're not Catholic. The immaculate conception is a fundamental part of catholic dogma. If you identify as Catholic, then you must accept that this occurred. If you do not believe it occurred, then you cannot be Catholic.


  • #131
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    doovdela wrote: »
    What's the difference between Agnostic and Atheist then?

    An Agnostic is someone who does not know if God exists.

    An Atheist is someone who does not believe God exists.

    They aren't rungs on the same ladder, so to speak.


    One could easily be

    Gnostic Theist
    - Believes God exists.
    - Knows* God exists.

    Gnostic Atheist
    - Believes God does not exist.
    - Knows* God does not exist.

    Agnostic Theist
    - Believes God exists.
    - Does not know if God exists.

    Agnostic Atheist
    - Does not believe God exists.
    - Does not know if God exists.

    They're 2 complementary concepts, not exclusive as some believe.

    Some people use "Theist" synonymously with "Gnostic Theist" and "Atheist" with "Gnostic Atheist", many atheists use "Atheist" synonmously with "Agnostic Atheist".

    Those uses are handy for general use but confuse the matter when a proper discussion breaks out.

    As for what you are, I have no idea :D

    *I say "know" here, but in reality it should be "claim to know".


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Riddle101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,441 ✭✭✭Riddle101


    Pompous wrote: »
    Are you that desperate to get your post count up, really?

    If anyone has an intelligent retort I'd be happy to hear it.

    Lol, you posted this on After Hours. Were you expecting an intelligent retort?

    Anyway my solution to the problem at hand. Give Agnostics their own forum, and pair the Atheist forum with After Hours instead. Ever try to start a thread about religon on this forum. Suddenly this place becomes an Atheist forum as well.


  • #133
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    seamus wrote: »
    Traditionally the idea is that "Agnostic" means "I don't know" and people call themselves "Agnostic" when they want to make a point that they're no longer a member of a religion, but don't want to upset their granny by saying they don't believe in God.
    Oh dear, I guess all these people (like Albert Einstein) were terrified of upsetting their grannies


  • #134
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    SeanW wrote: »
    Oh dear, I guess all these people (like Albert Einstein) were terrified of upsetting their grannies
    Now that's a strawman. Nicely done.

    Yes, even Albert Einstein can be wrong. He misunderstood atheism as the certain rejection of Gods.


  • #135
    marty1985
    Registered Users Posts: 788 ✭✭✭marty1985


    Seachmall wrote: »
    Atheist;
    (noun)
    1. Someone who is not a Theist.

    Most dictionaries I've ever checked define it as either the belief there is no god, or as an active disbelief. Atheism as a (passive) lack of belief is a relatively new idea, introduced by Anthony Flew in his book The Presumption of Atheism. It's a debating trick - a useful one.

    People are free to define it as they see fit. Or to concur with dictionaries, which exist to represent the common usage, which also reflect the intention of the person who coined the term agnostic.

    Sadly, people want to draw battle lines and not tolerate ambiguity, in a you're-either-with-us-or-against-us false dichotomy kinda way.


  • #136
    marty1985
    Registered Users Posts: 788 ✭✭✭marty1985


    marty1985 wrote: »
    Most dictionaries I've ever checked define it as either the belief there is no god, or as an active disbelief. Atheism as a (passive) lack of belief is a relatively new idea, introduced by Anthony Flew in his book The Presumption of Atheism. It's a debating trick - a useful one.

    People are free to define it as they see fit. Or to concur with dictionaries, which exist to represent the common usage, which also reflect the intention of the person who coined the term agnostic.

    Sadly, people want to draw battle lines and not tolerate ambiguity, in a you're-either-with-us-or-against-us false dichotomy kinda way.

    Further to this, I would just say I think people are free to define themselves as they see fit, whether that be atheist, agnostic, agnostic atheist, theist, deist, Bright. But for the sake of civility, let's avoid telling other people what they are, because that just pisses everyone off.


  • #137
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    marty1985 wrote: »
    Most dictionaries I've ever checked define it as either the belief there is no god, or as an active disbelief [...] Or to concur with dictionaries, which exist to represent the common usage, which also reflect the intention of the person who coined the term agnostic.
    How dictionaries define it is irrelevant.

    Labels, like atheist, are used to concisely explain the position of the person using it to describe themselves. Their understanding of the word is the only important one and right now Atheists typically mean the described definition.

    By refusing to accept what Atheists mean when they use the word you fail to adequately comprehend their true position.
    Sadly, people want to draw battle lines and not tolerate ambiguity, in a you're-either-with-us-or-against-us false dichotomy kinda way.
    It's not a false dichotomy at all.

    One is a theist or one is not a theist.

    The latter is the now common, and literal, understanding of what an atheist is.

    It's quite logical actually.
    Further to this, I would just say I think people are free to define themselves as they see fit, whether that be atheist, agnostic, agnostic atheist, theist, deist, Bright. But for the sake of civility, let's avoid telling other people what they are, because that just pisses everyone off.
    People can label themselves however they want, but the issue above arises if they incorrectly use an accepted term.

    You can call a cat a dog, but it's still a cat as we understand the word.


  • #138
    seraphimvc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,358 ✭✭✭seraphimvc


    ok this is probably the most informative thread in AH and i want to ask:

    1.I know and read all the religion books of islam/christianity/buddhism
    2.I believe more in science rather than god/s but i never deny the existence of god/s

    so am i an agnostic atheist?


  • #139
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    seraphimvc wrote: »
    ok this is probably the most informative thread in AH and i want to ask:

    1.I know and read all the religion books of islam/christianity/buddhism
    2.I believe more in science rather than god/s but i never deny the existence of god/s

    so am i an agnostic atheist?

    If you don't believe in God but don't claim to know there is no God then you are Agnostic Atheist.


  • #140
    desertcircus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    Seachmall wrote: »
    seraphimvc wrote: »
    ok this is probably the most informative thread in AH and i want to ask:

    1.I know and read all the religion books of islam/christianity/buddhism
    2.I believe more in science rather than god/s but i never deny the existence of god/s

    so am i an agnostic atheist?

    If you don't believe in God but don't claim to know there is no God then you are Agnostic Atheist.

    Do any gnostic atheists actually exist, outside non-deity-based religion?


  • #141
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    desertcircus wrote: »
    Do any gnostic atheists actually exist, outside non-deity-based religion?

    Yes, there are interesting arguments as well. The most popular, I imagine, being the "square-circle" argument.

    Essentially it states that an item cannot have two defining characteristics that are opposite. For example, a circle cannot simultaneously be a square. A circle, essentially by definition, is not a square and a square, essentially by definition, is not a circle. It is thus logical to conclude with certainty that square-circles do not exist.

    To extend this to God you would have to find two defining characteristics of God that are also opposing, or at least one defining characteristic that infers two opposing characteristics.

    For example, God is often characterised as being all knowing. all powerful, etc. So we can conclude that God is innovative, right? He, by some definitions, has the power to do everything and anything and thus he has the power to innovate. But innovation is defined as being the creation of new ideas or things, or improvements of new ideas or new things. However, God is also all knowing. If he knows everything already how can he come up with new ideas (i.e. innovate)? He is either not all knowing or all powerful, or he is logically impossible to exist.

    That's a simple example, but it extends to things like "Can he make an object so heavy even he can't move?" (if no or yes you must conclude he is not all powerful) and so on.

    This can be addressed in typically 2 ways:
    1. It only addresses more common definitions of God, not all definitions or possibilities of God.
    2. It utilises our understanding of logic, which God is not necessarily bound by.

    There are loads of arguments like this, interesting but limited in their application.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Davidius
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,893 ✭✭✭Davidius


    Seachmall wrote: »
    For example, a circle cannot simultaneously be a square.
    Unless dealing with a magical metric like Manhattan distance.

    Now to end this post with the notice that it was tongue-in-cheek.


  • #143
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    If not believing in gods/ lacking a belief in gods/ not giving a monkeys about gods is an 'ism' then is not wanting to go unicycling in a kilt dressed as Darth Vader playing the bag pipes an 'ism'


  • #144
    starlit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,344 ✭✭✭✭starlit


    SeanW wrote:
    You might be an Agnostic Theist.

    You appear to tend towards the view that there may be something out there, but you may have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to tell what, if anything that is. You consider scientific explanations for things to be valid. You've rejected all or part of Abrahamic dogma which is a strong sign of sanity.

    Have a look over this and see if any of it applies to you.
    seamus wrote:
    Agnostic is traditionally a fluffy term that people use when they don't want to admit they're atheist. Traditionally the idea is that "Agnostic" means "I don't know" and people call themselves "Agnostic" when they want to make a point that they're no longer a member of a religion, but don't want to upset their granny by saying they don't believe in God.

    But if you look at it more closely the statement of "I don't know" is in relation to the question of "Is there a God?", not "Do I believe in God?". You can quite rationally say that you believe in God, but you don't know if he/she exists. Likewise, you can say that you don't believe in God, but you also don't know if one exists.

    That's why there's reference in this thread to "Agnostic Atheist" and "Agnostic Theist".
    Seachmall wrote:
    An Agnostic is someone who does not know if God exists.

    An Atheist is someone who does not believe God exists.

    They aren't rungs on the same ladder, so to speak.


    One could easily be

    Gnostic Theist
    - Believes God exists.
    - Knows* God exists.

    Gnostic Atheist
    - Believes God does not exist.
    - Knows* God does not exist.

    Agnostic Theist
    - Believes God exists.
    - Does not know if God exists.

    Agnostic Atheist
    - Does not believe God exists.
    - Does not know if God exists.

    They're 2 complementary concepts, not exclusive as some believe.

    Some people use "Theist" synonymously with "Gnostic Theist" and "Atheist" with "Gnostic Atheist", many atheists use "Atheist" synonmously with "Agnostic Atheist".

    Those uses are handy for general use but confuse the matter when a proper discussion breaks out.

    As for what you are, I have no idea

    *I say "know" here, but in reality it should be "claim to know".

    So I’m an Agnostic Theist then but not a Catholic….mmm I could go with that, found It difficult to define what I really am in terms of religion/religious beliefs. Ah I get it now thanks for clearing that up.

    For me I suppose I won’t believe something until I see it happen like have to see it before believing it. Like wouldn’t have believed that the Holy Mary magically appeared in Knock or Lourdes that be utter cac to believe that it happened.

    Ya I see it to believe it and believe in the facts than just stories, I don’t mind fables and so on so forth if there is moral too it but its made up fact/fiction, fiction none fiction there is a difference.

    Even the whole thing regarding the holy-grail is a farce. Though St Patrick’s story its hard to know why did he become so religious when he was practically a pagan except that he prayed and tried to bring catholic belief into Ireland? If anything Ireland should have stayed as pagans but wonder will there have been any St Patrick if it weren’t for him there would be no St Paddys day!?

    Ya I see what you mean. I would need to be fully informed on things, things have had to happen, have to see it with my own eyes. Though I am quiet serious I believe anything anyone would tell me but I would know if they are codding me. Despite being serious whether taking a joke or not seriously.

    Yes I agree with scientific explanations more than religious ones that be about right.
    Been the case since I were very young, never really believed or got to terms with the teachings much. I always doubted the whole story behind Jesus and so on. Mary Madeline and so on is possible she could have been the real Jesus but the church didn’t condone it. While it being quiet discriminatory that women cannot be priests, nun’s cannot do the same things as priests, that priests and nuns cannot marry and have children. It was more or less down to money the reason why priests didn’t marry and have kids, a pope changed the law a few centuries ago as there was no such thing as pre-nups and the wife/kids could get inheritance if the marriage failed or when the priest die it go to them.

    I see God as an imaginary being in the Sky….may have power or not over what happens in this world but still think the universe, faith, destiny and all that sort of thing has more to do with what happens in this life though you can impact what happens yet you cannot control what happens in this world but you control yourself and your choices, you make it happen.


  • #145
    FoxT
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,204 ✭✭✭FoxT


    meh. People's liberation front of judea, vs Judean People's liberation front. Ye take this way too seriosly & then try to convert each other...I dont get it.


  • #146
    Irish Guitarist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,736 ✭✭✭Irish Guitarist


    There's also a hip hop section in the music forum. Hip and hop are totally different things. :mad:


  • #147
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    seamus wrote: »
    Now that's a strawman. Nicely done.

    Yes, even Albert Einstein can be wrong. He misunderstood atheism as the certain rejection of Gods.
    Yeah. One of the most intelligent people in history, couldn't even define his own religious stance without making a hames of it.

    Or, is it not more likely what marty1985 claims, that the 'weakening' of the definition of Atheism only occured in recent times and that Albert E. far from "getting it wrong" correctly identified himself as agnostic, during his day, only for militant atheists to hijack the terms atheist and agnostic in the years that followed.


  • #148
    smokedeels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,883 ✭✭✭smokedeels


    On the subject, Is anyone else bored talking about religious views?

    Why does every conversation about Secularism become a religious debate?

    I want us to get the point were we can say something akin to 'I support United, she supports City and he doesn't like football, thank f**k our government doesn't make decisions influenced by any one of our preferences'


  • #149
    Standman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    If there were a sole "Agnosticism" forum it would be full of tedious and pointless debates like this where everyone eventually realises that they all essentially believe the same thing.


  • #150
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭44leto


    Standman wrote: »
    If there were a sole "Agnosticism" forum it would be full of tedious and pointless debates like this where everyone eventually realises that they all essentially believe the same thing.

    Yeah we are all Christians in the end.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    SeanW wrote: »
    Yeah. One of the most intelligent people in history, couldn't even define his own religious stance without making a hames of it.

    Or, is it not more likely what marty1985 claims, that the 'weakening' of the definition of Atheism only occured in recent times and that Albert E. far from "getting it wrong" correctly identified himself as agnostic, during his day, only for militant atheists to hijack the terms atheist and agnostic in the years that followed.

    Perhaps, but then that invalidates your point of even mentioning them as they were using a different understanding of the word.

    "Militant atheist" is also a pretty stupid phrase.


Advertisement