Atheism & Agnosticism a subforum of Religion & Spritually...

runswithascript

Ironymuch?

Agnosticism could possibly be categorized as a religious outlook but Atheism certainly cannot. What genius came up with this? Please qualify your decision...

Thomas_S_Hunterson

We're all mature enough not to nit-pick largely irrelevant things.

Darts a sport? pfffft;)

seamus

Where else would you put it?

Beruthiel

Religion & Spirituality

Atheists can still be spiritual you know...

Dave!

The section Religion and Spirituality is surely for forums whose purpose is the discussion of religious and spiritual matters. This forum concerns itself quite blatantly with religious matters. You don't have to actually believe in something to discuss it -- as is the case here.

There's also a "Skeptics Corner" subforum under "Paranormal".

Dades

What everyone said.

Except the OP.

Zillah

And how the hell could Agnosticism be described as a religion?

Asiaprod

Beruthiel wrote: »

Atheists can still be spiritual you know...

+1:)

seamus

Besides, atheism cannot exist without theism.

There's one for the noggin

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

it's always confused me how atheists can be 'spiritual'. I would have assumed that atheists were by and large materialists.

seamus

Damn those materialistic Buddhists!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I can't wait until I'm reborn as argon.

Rev Hellfire

seamus wrote: »

Damn those materialistic Buddhists!

I've never quite understood how Buddhists are automatically lumped in with atheists.

With entities like Brahma and Sakka along with a host of other supernatural entities which feature in the religion, the idea that it is a atheist creed seems odd.

I would have placed it in the agnostic camp in that while they exist they don't seem to require absolute worship in the western sense.

Perhaps I've been misinformed.

pH

Dave! wrote: »

The section Religion and Spirituality is surely for forums whose purpose is the discussion of religious and spiritual matters. This forum concerns itself quite blatantly with religious matters. You don't have to actually believe in something to discuss it -- as is the case here.

There's also a "Skeptics Corner" subforum under "Paranormal".

How's getting the non-drinkers forum moved to be a sub-forum of "Beer & wine & Spirits" going?

Dave!

I have no interest in doing that, but it wouldn't bother me at all bud... As I said, Skeptics' Corner is a sub-forum of Paranormal; the outrage is conspicuously absent.

I don't think there's a science to where the admins decide to place forums.

runswithascript

Beruthiel wrote: »

Atheists can still be spiritual you know...

Mordeth wrote: »

it's always confused me how atheists can be 'spiritual'.

It confuses everyone who understands what the two words mean. The term spirtual atheist is just as ridiculous as christian scientist.

Zillah wrote: »

And how the hell could Agnosticism be described as a religion?

ag·nos·ti·cism (āg-nŏs'tĭ-sĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

I said possibly because agnostics are on the fence, it is not belief but it is not disbelief so it's closer to religion then atheism will ever be and for you or anyone reading this to whom the notion may occur please spare us the whole "technically we are all agnostics" / "well yes, I'm also a unicorn agnotic" debate.

Dave! wrote: »

The section Religion and Spirituality is surely for forums whose purpose is the discussion of religious and spiritual matters. This forum concerns itself quite blatantly with religious matters. You don't have to actually believe in something to discuss it -- as is the case here.

Acknowledged but...

pH wrote: »

How's getting the non-drinkers forum moved to be a sub-forum of "Beer & wine & Spirits" going?

Hear hear!

Dades

LA3G wrote: »

1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

I subscribe to both of the above.

I believe there can be no proof of gods existing or not existing, but I don't believe they do - which makes me an atheist.

Read this thread for a recent rant on the matter, if only the first post.

Zombrex

LA3G wrote: »

Ironymuch?

Agnosticism could possibly be categorized as a religious outlook but Atheism certainly cannot. What genius came up with this? Please qualify your decision...

welcome to 3 years ago ...

runswithascript

Dades wrote: »

I subscribe to both of the above.

I believe there can be no proof of gods existing or not existing, but I don't believe they do - which makes me an atheist.

Read this thread for a recent rant on the matter, if only the first post.

Of course something supernatural can never be proved to not exist because it is impossible to prove a negative so technically all atheists are really agnostic (as per your link). This does not mean the probability of a god's existence is 50% and oh, I did address this already in my last post already because I knew someone would bring this up...

LA3G wrote: »

I said possibly because agnostics are on the fence, it is not belief but it is not disbelief so it's closer to religion then atheism will ever be and for you or anyone reading this to whom the notion may occur please spare us the whole "technically we are all atheists" / "well yes I'm also a unicorn atheist" debate.

*I did had in unicorn atheist erroneously but hopefully people who frequent this forum would be familiar with the term unicorn agnostic and they would have spotted the mistake and taken my meaning.

Dades

LA3G wrote: »

technically all atheists are really agnostic

LA3G wrote: »

Agnosticism could possibly be categorized as a religious outlook

So what exactly is the problem with the forum sitting in the Religion & Spirituality category?

LA3G wrote: »

This does not mean the probability of a god's existence is 50% and oh, I did address this already in my last post already because I knew someone would bring this up...

Who brought what up now?

pH

LA3G wrote: »

Of course something supernatural can never be proved to not exist because it is impossible to prove a negative so technically all atheists are really agnostic (as per your link).

This is just not true, people trot out the "it is impossible to prove a negative" yet science does it all the time, theories are proposed and via experimentation they are proved to be wrong, good examples are Luminiferous Aether and Lamarckism. In fact in science exactly the opposite is true, you can't prove a positive, all you can say for any of our current theories is "no one has proved them wrong yet!".

When it comes down to it, the only things that you can't prove are things for which no tests exist, so "can't prove a negative" is just wrong, "can't prove things you can't prove" is better but then merely a tautology.

runswithascript

LA3G wrote: »

Of course something supernatural can never be proved to not exist because it is impossible to prove a negative so technically all atheists are really agnostic (as per your link).

Dades wrote: »

So what exactly is the problem with the forum sitting in the Religion & Spirituality category?

As stated previously, only agnostic insofar as we are about unicorns, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters and tooth fairies. I'm sure we've all read Dawkins and know about what it is I speak...

Dades wrote: »

Who brought what up now?

Unicorn, flying spaghetti monster and tooth fairy agnostics (atheists) - as per your link.

Dave!

I have no idea what's going on now.....

runswithascript

pH wrote: »

This is just not true, people trot out the "it is impossible to prove a negative" yet science does it all the time

Semantics.

I believe in absolute truths where they are viable. It is impossible to prove a negative regarding questions about all the supernatural (outside of nature and the universe (multiverse etc etc), i.e - nonexistent) gods.

"So go ahead, prove there's no god..."

pH

LA3G wrote: »

"So go ahead, prove there's no god..."

Fine, first tell me what's the difference between a universe with a God and a universe without one, then I'm sure science can work on it. It's definitely not semantics, you've basically rephrased it as "you can't prove what you can't prove", which is banal, whereas "you can't prove a negative" would be quite interesting, if only it was true.

Dades

Dave! wrote: »

I have no idea what's going on now.....

Phew! I thought it was just me...

The Mad Hatter

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I've never quite understood how Buddhists are automatically lumped in with atheists.

With entities like Brahma and Sakka along with a host of other supernatural entities which feature in the religion, the idea that it is a atheist creed seems odd.

I would have placed it in the agnostic camp in that while they exist they don't seem to require absolute worship in the western sense.

Perhaps I've been misinformed.

As I understand it...

First of all, there are many, many sects to Buddhism. Some believe in gods and worship them (a bit), some believe in gods but don't worship them, some don't believe in gods at all. The general consensus, if I recall correctly, is that it doesn't matter whether gods exist or not, because we should be more concerned with what happens in the physical world.

The Buddha said not to believe anything you have been told by anyone - even him (though I'm heavily paraphrasing here) - until you have tested it for yourself and found it to be true.

Some people just adopt the philosophies of Buddhism without the spiritual teachings, and as such there are atheist Buddhists and even (a limited number of) Christian Buddhists.

Asiaprod

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

As I understand it...

Very nice MH

The Buddha said not to believe anything you have been told by anyone - even him (though I'm heavily paraphrasing here) - until you have tested it for yourself and found it to be true.

I believe in this approach...

Some people just adopt the philosophies of Buddhism without the spiritual teachings, and as such there are atheist Buddhists and even (a limited number of) Christian Buddhists.

Buddhists are definitely an insane lot:D

Zillah

LA3G wrote: »

I said possibly because agnostics are on the fence, it is not belief but it is not disbelief so it's closer to religion then atheism will ever be

Agnosticism is closer to religion than atheism in the same way that a football is closer to planetdom than a golf ball.

runswithascript

LA3G wrote: »

I said possibly because agnostics are on the fence, it is not belief but it is not disbelief so it's closer to religion then atheism will ever be

Zillah wrote: »

Agnosticism is closer to religion than atheism in the same way that a football is closer to planetdom than a golf ball.

Agnosticism is closer to religion than atheism is.

Agnosticism is closer to religion than it is to atheism.

The former is what I said, the latter what you misconstrued it as - there's a big difference.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

LA3G wrote: »

Agnosticism is closer to religion than atheism is.

Agnosticism is closer to religion than it is to atheism.

I disagree, I doubt there is any atheist who would refuse to convert in the presence of irrefutable proof of the existence of one or more gods.

An atheist is confidant that the proof will be non-forthcoming. An agnostic is not so sure.

Religious folks are miles away. Blind faith? No thanks.

runswithascript

Sean_K wrote: »

I disagree, I doubt there is any atheist who would refuse to convert in the presence of irrefutable proof of the existence of one or more gods.

Relevance? How is any of the above disagreeing with my statements...

Sean_K wrote: »

An atheist is confidant that the proof will be non-forthcoming. An agnostic is not so sure.

Yes thank you, I know the difference.

Sean_K wrote: »

Religious folks are miles away. Blind faith? No thanks.

Religious folks are miles away but they're closer to agnostics than they are to atheists. Religion and blind faith are at one end of the spectrum while logical skeptical atheism is at the other with less skeptical agnosticism somewhere in the middle, it's a pretty simple concept.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

LA3G wrote: »

Relevance? How is any of the above disagreeing with my statements...

Well if you want me to spell it out:

I was highlighting that atheists and agnostics stand on very similar ground and are coming from the same angle, i.e. refusing to believe that which has not been proven, and this is probably the core belief of both group.

Tell me how an agnostic's core belief fits into a religious perspective which demands the unquestioning worship of a supernatural being?

Mena

Sean_K wrote: »

I disagree, I doubt there is any atheist who would refuse to convert in the presence of irrefutable proof of the existence of one or more gods.

I hate to take this off topic thread off the off topic but I can't resist that one.

I could never see myself "converting". Sure, if some irrefutable proof were to emerge (not going to happen, ever) that one of the thousands of gods out there happened to actually exist, I'd be intrigued. That's all. No way in "hell" am I going to convert and "worship" this hitherto invisible force.

Dave!

Personally I'd be down on my hands and knees worshipping the sh*t out of Him (p.b.u.h.) in the hope of mercy for my family and I.

Each to their own though...

...Enjoy hell...

AtomicHorror

Yeah, if the abrahamic God is the real deal, some gratuitous sucking-up would very much be in order. He's a fiend for the punishment I hear.

runswithascript

Sean_K wrote: »

Well if you want me to spell it out:

I was highlighting that atheists and agnostics stand on very similar ground and are coming from the same angle, i.e. refusing to believe that which has not been proven, and this is probably the core belief of both group.

Tell me how an agnostic's core belief fits into a religious perspective which demands the unquestioning worship of a supernatural being?

Agnostics also refuse to disbelieve.

There's a reason people refer to them as on the fence, it's because it's accurate - granted there are agnostics that are almost christian and almost atheist but if they still refer to themselves as agnostic they're halfway between atheist and theist and not closer to one or the other.

The Mad Hatter

LA3G wrote: »

Agnostics also refuse to disbelieve.

There's a reason people refer to them as on the fence, it's because it's accurate - granted there are agnostics that are almost christian and almost atheist but if they still refer to themselves as agnostic they're halfway between atheist and theist and not closer to one or the other.

Um...did you just contradict yourself within the space of one sentence?

Makes sense to me

Dades

LA3G wrote: »

there are agnostics that are almost christian and almost atheist but if they still refer to themselves as agnostic they're halfway between atheist and theist and not closer to one or the other.

Deleted User wrote: »

Makes sense to me

Only because like LA3G you don't understand the term agnostic.

The idea that agnostics sit between theists and atheists is crap. I'm an agnostic and an atheist. You don't have to be one if you are the other, but the fact that you can be both is enough.

pH

Dades wrote: »

The idea that agnostics sit between theists and atheists is crap. I'm an agnostic and an atheist. You don't have to be one if you are the other, but the fact that you can be both is enough.

So not only are you a fence sitter, it appears that you can't even decide which fence to sit on?

SeanW

LA3G wrote: »

Agnostics also refuse to disbelieve.

There's a reason people refer to them as on the fence, it's because it's accurate - granted there are agnostics that are almost christian and almost atheist but if they still refer to themselves as agnostic they're halfway between atheist and theist and not closer to one or the other.

Then you don't know what an agnostic is.

Agnosticism is concerned not primarily of whether or not "God" exists but the nature of any supernatural entity.
If somoene is "sitting on the fence" between believing in their traditional God belief and Atheism, then they're not agnostics, they're fence sitters.
For example, if someone raised in for example an Arabian tradition thinks the question is solely between the righteousness of Islam and the correctness of Atheism, that is NOT agnosticism, similarly if someone asks the question of a specific supernatural belief set vs. atheism.

Agnosticism holds that the nature of God is unknowable, and as an Agnostic myself who has done some (limited) research to arrive at this position, I would extend that to all spiritual matters. For example, can conciousness exist outside the body? Is there a spiritual realm of any kind?
And I am forced to conclude that the answers to those questions are the same as the first - it's all impossible to tell because any answers (particularly affirmative ones) are outside our scope of comprehension. Likewise agnosticism differs from Atheism in that the latter assert a belief in a negative.
For that reason, I write the word agnostic here un-capitalised because IMO agnosticism is the only truly non-religious position since it doesn't assert anything.

Agnosticism is a far more complicated position than a simple "does (this definition of) God exist?"

pH

SeanW wrote: »

Agnosticism holds that the nature of God is unknowable, and as an Agnostic myself who has done some (limited) research to arrive at this position, I would extend that to all spiritual matters. For example, can conciousness exist outside the body? Is there a spiritual realm of any kind?

I'm sorry but I just don't buy this. I have no problem imagining a God (think Zeus or similar) that regularly gets involved with humans, protects his armies, smites his foes, sleeps with human women and has children etc. A god like that could be very open and 'knowable', but still a God. I don't see anything fundamental about a god that would make them unknowable, you could propose an infinite number of knowable or unknowable gods, the unknowable ones no more likely or special than the knowable ones!

It seems to me that the form of agnosticism you're proposing is just saying "I can think of a god whose nature is unknowable", but the way you say it makes it sound like you're saying something fundamental about 'God'. Well sure you can postulate that type of God, as science has pretty much ruled out all the knowable ones, it still seems to me to be a theistic position : this 'unknowability' is still a characteristic of a God that exists, making your definition of agnosticism somehow Deist.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

pH wrote: »

I'm sorry but I just don't buy this. I have no problem imagining a God (think Zeus or similar) that regularly gets involved with humans, protects his armies, smites his foes, sleeps with human women and has children etc. A god like that could be very open and 'knowable', but still a God. I don't see anything fundamental about a god that would make them unknowable, you could propose an infinite number of knowable or unknowable gods, the unknowable ones no more likely or special than the knowable ones!

It seems to me that the form of agnosticism you're proposing is just saying "I can think of a god whose nature is unknowable", but the way you say it makes it sound like you're saying something fundamental about 'God'. Well sure you can postulate that type of God, as science has pretty much ruled out all the knowable ones, it still seems to me to be a theistic position : this 'unknowability' is still a characteristic of a God that exists, making your definition of agnosticism somehow Deist.

you're presupposing the existence of a god however. An agnostic does not.

pH

Sean_K wrote: »

you're presupposing the existence of a god however. An agnostic does not.

No I'm not, actually I'm saying the exact opposite.

I'm commenting on Sean W's statement:

Agnosticism holds that the nature of God is unknowable

Which (the way it's written) seems to presuppose the existence of god, but just make 'unknowability' one of his characteristics.

What difference is there (for the universe or for our lives) between a universe with an unknowable God and a universe with no God?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

pH wrote: »

No I'm not, actually I'm saying the exact opposite.

Ya I re-read your post, I think we're on the same side;) apologises

pH wrote: »

Agnosticism holds that the nature of God is unknowable

Which (the way it's written) seems to presuppose the existence of god, but just make 'unknowability' one of his characteristics.

Well, maybe i'm off the mark but my take on agnosticism is that it stems from the idea that the existence or non-existence of a god can not be proven nor disproven.

This directly implies that the nature of a god is not knowable, since if the nature of a god was knowable it would imply the provable existence of said god, in contradiction of our initial axiom.

pH wrote: »

What difference is there (for the universe or for our lives) between a universe with an unknowable God and a universe with no God?

Quite possibly none. It may be useful to consider the idea of inertial frames of reference in Physics, specifically the principle that within a frame there is no conceivable experiment performable which will tell you anything about the nature of the frame.

Zillah

Why are people arguing about the exact meaning of agnosticism when you can just look it up:

Types of agnosticism
Agnosticism can be subdivided into several subcategories. Recently suggested variations include:

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard agnosticism," "closed agnosticism," "strict agnosticism," or "absolute agnosticism") refers the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I don't know whether God exists or not, and neither do you."

Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of any deity is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deity exists or not, but maybe one day when there is more evidence we can find something out."

Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism)—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway.

Agnostic theism (also called religious agnosticism, spiritual agnosticism)—the view of those who do not claim to know existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs)

Agnostic atheism—the view of those who do not know of the existence or nonexistence of a deity, and do not believe in any.

Ignosticism—the view that a coherent definition of God must be put forward before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of God is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "God exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against.

SeanW

pH wrote: »

No I'm not, actually I'm saying the exact opposite.

I'm commenting on Sean W's statement:

Agnosticism holds that the nature of God is unknowable

Which (the way it's written) seems to presuppose the existence of god, but just make 'unknowability' one of his characteristics.

What difference is there (for the universe or for our lives) between a universe with an unknowable God and a universe with no God?

Non-existant is one potential nature of God. Existance is therefore a secondary question within a larger one.

In any case IMO the whole question of God is secondary. The bigger questions, how did we get here, where are we going, are more important - if for example we were to establish that there is some kind of spiritual realm outside the here and now (which is by no means certain at all) then the questions about that would commence, what you have to do to get there, who/what you must worship (if any) etc.

Dades

Sean_K wrote: »

This directly implies that the nature of a god is not knowable, since if the nature of a god was knowable it would imply the provable existence of said god, in contradiction of our initial axiom.

I think pHs point is when phrased like that - i.e. "the nature of god is not knowable" - it implies there is a god to know.

Agnosticism is more about the unknowability of anything to do with gods, specifically whether one exists or not.

Re Zillahs list - I seem to recall we have a couple of Ignostics here!

The Mad Hatter

Zillah wrote: »

Why are people arguing about the exact meaning of agnosticism when you can just look it up:

Because English is a wanky language whose meanings frequently change, and it's often useful to rein in definitions before a word ends up having multiple meanings.

See Compound, specifically

19. to increase or add to: The misery of his loneliness was now compounded by his poverty.

<snip>

21. to make a bargain; come to terms; compromise.

The creationist misuse of the word 'theory' is another good example of this.

Teutorix

To all those who wonder about atheism + religiousness , Einstein described himself as a "deeply religious non-believer"
chapter 1 of Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" explains how an athiest can still be "religious" in a way