The need to preach.

Carlos_Ray

I have often read (but not participated in) the threads on this forum. I would class myself as agnostic so what I am about to write won’t come as a surprise. It seems to me that the various tit for tat arguments between the atheists and religious people on boards (and indeed in real life) is very often just pointless posturing. One side is using what they perceive as the “logical” standpoint while the other is countering with “spiritual” notions. Its like they are trying to compete in a game of Monopoly but one side is using Scrabble letters and the other is using Connect Four pieces. They are operating on different levels and therefore there will never be an undisputed victor.

Personally I have never been convinced by either the religious or atheist arguments. Few people from both camps are prepared to discuss their beliefs without resorting to childish insults. From my experience a lot of atheists ( especially “new atheists”) eventually resort to aggressive ad hominem attacks. That is, if you don’t subscribe to their view of reality then you are “simple” or uneducated. Similarly the religious zealots argue through blinkers, which often results in blatant hypocrisy.

My question is basically, why do people do it? Why do people feel the need to covert people to their own belief? I lived for a year in a Muslim country and not one day went by without someone trying to convert me (or save my soul). Then when I returned to Ireland, not one house party went by without some newly “enlightened” atheist boring me to death with Dawkins, and theories that I have heard a million times before. It’s got to the point where I’ll deliberately avoid these self-appointed preachers/intellects (both religious and atheist).

Is it a case that these people think they are actually doing good? Or is it just a case that they want to flex their “mental muscles” and try to get one over on the other side?

axer

Do you believe there is a god?

Dades

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Personally I have never been convinced by either the religious or atheist arguments.

To be an atheist you only need to be unconvinced the the religious arguments.

Also, this is the A&A forum, where believers are welcome to engage us. Your question would have more validity directed at atheists bothering belivers in the Christianity forum. We don't attempt to 'convert' anyone here, so to speak, only to refute arguments presented, and enjoy a good debate and some banter.

Otacon

Being an atheist, arguing with a religious person is like asking someone with a ghetto blaster on a train to turn it down; you don't want them to never listen to music again, but perhaps use some headphones...

Not preaching in my book.

Pushtrak

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Is it a case that these people think they are actually doing good? Or is it just a case that they want to flex their “mental muscles” and try to get one over on the other side?

I'd love to see religion die. But, I'd be satisfied with this being a secular country where a child can get an education in any school no matter if they had a bit of water splashed on them as an infant. That is the biggest one. There are lots of other (relatively) minor but significant reasons which should be readily apparent. Just think on things that'd be different in the absence of religion and then imagine me saying, "Yes. That."

MagicMarker

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Personally I have never been convinced by either the religious or atheist arguments.

Which arguments are those, out of interest?

ColmDawson

Why does there need to be an atheist argument when there isn't even a good religious argument?

Carlos_Ray

Dades wrote: »

To be an atheist you only need to be unconvinced the the religious arguments. .

That's not true and betrays a lack of understanding about what Agnosticism really is.

Dades wrote: »

Also, this is the A&A forum, where believers are welcome to engage us. Your question would have more validity directed at atheists bothering belivers in the Christianity forum. We don't attempt to 'convert' anyone here, so to speak, only to refute arguments presented, and enjoy a good debate and some banter.

My question is not directed at people that don't try to convert people. Its aimed at those (atheists and religious people) that do. From my experience both sides have elements that actively do it. I didn't mean to single out this thread and I didn't want to "double post." Aslo, its my experience as a young adult in modern Ireland, that atheists tend to be more vocal in my social group and hence are the ones more inclined to bother me with their ideas. (Again this is my social group, don't take it as a generalisation of all atheists.)

axer wrote: »

Do you believe there is a god?

I don't know if a God can exist, but neither can anyone else. Thats my stance and on occassion both religious people and atheists try to claim me for "their side", but in truth I don't belong to either camp and never will.

Carlos_Ray

MagicMarker wrote: »

Which arguments are those, out of interest?

What difference does it make? This was not intended to be an invitation for yet another person to spout on about their "clever ideas" and theories. In fact it was quite the opposite. It was a question regarding the need for some people to preach, which i suspect from your question, is a need that you also have.

eoin5

Carlos Ray wrote:

...That is, if you don’t subscribe to their view of reality then you are “simple” or uneducated. Similarly the religious zealots argue through blinkers, which often results in blatant hypocrisy.

Personally I don't see much difference between saying someone is simple or uneducated or saying that they argue through blinkers.

pH

These types of post get old real fast, but you reminded me I was once bored at a party on the topic of Greek philosophy, and at another time by someone who went on and on about 24, I must pop off to the appropriate forums and tell them what minor inconveniences I suffered at parties, I'm sure they'll be very interested.

And a question, why did you feel the need to come here and preach your agnostic "You and the theists are argumentative bores" sermon? Why do you feel the need to preach?

Genghiz Cohen

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

I don't know if a God can exist

I'm afraid without an active belif in God you are a ..... dun dun dunnnnnnnnnn
Athiest!!!
(Hide the wimmen and childer!)

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

I don't belong to either camp and never will.

Many Atheists, myself included (also you) don't know if a God can exist and as such do not live by the rules of one particular God.

Turtwig

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

From my experience a lot of atheists ( especially “new atheists”) eventually resort to aggressive ad hominem attacks.

Name the folks on this forums who do that. You've made a few observations but can I tell you about one I've made? Well, I don't care what your answer is. My observation is that people generally post new threads in the A&A/Christian/Islam forums saying stuff about some caricature bunch of people associated with those forums and tend to automatically label all posters as if they also have the same characteristics as those caricatures. Yes, they are atheists posters here who, for want of a better term, I'd love nothing more than to give them a smack on the head with a stick. Just as there are some Christians. But you know what? There's a tonne, if not the majority, who, regardless of whether I agree with them or not, post stuff and hardly ever resort to ad hominem attack unless they've been barraged by them first. Instead of using the easy Glenn Beck reasoning whereby subscribing to an idea can be equally criticised by the actions performed by the minority who take such ideas to absurd logical conclusions maybe you should try to read what less absurd folks say?

Then when I returned to Ireland, not one house party went by without some newly “enlightened” atheist boring me to death with Dawkins, and theories that I have heard a million times before.

You're obviously going to the wrong house parties.:pac:

liamw

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

I would class myself as agnostic so what I am about to write won’t come as a surprise.

I'm so sick of people saying that they're agnostic and not atheist. Gnosticism refers to knowledge and theism refers to belief.

So you are weak agnostic. Now, are you:
a. An agnostic theist?
b. An agnostic atheist?

MagicMarker

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

What difference does it make? This was not intended to be an invitation for yet another person to spout on about their "clever ideas" and theories. In fact it was quite the opposite. It was a question regarding the need for some people to preach, which i suspect from your question, is a need that you also have.

Well you suspect wrong, I was just curious about what arguments you have heard that you find unconvincing, that's all.

I don't have a need to preach, I just like reading and sometimes contributing to this forum. Is there something inherently wrong with this? You make it sound like I go around in my spare time questioning peoples beliefs and trying to 'convert' them to atheism, which couldn't be further from the truth.

strobe

{see my drunk pigeon thread.} That is all.

Genghiz Cohen

strobe wrote: »

{see my drunk pigeon thread.} That is all.

I think that thread should be stickied...
Is that weird?

Dades

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

That's not true and betrays a lack of understanding about what Agnosticism really is.

I assure you I know what it means. Believe it or not you're not the first person to post claiming that people here are preachy and unsure of their definitions. You're not even the first person this week.

I am agnostic in terms of knowledge of the existence of gods, but since it is my belief that the gods of human religions do not exist, I am an atheist.

The only difference between you and me is that I'll answer the question of belief whereas you are too hung up on knowledge to venture an opinion.

pH

Dades wrote: »

I am agnostic in terms of knowledge of the existence of gods, but since it is my belief that the gods of human religions do not exist, I am an atheist.

I think it's even simpler than that, take the question "Do you believe in a personal intervening God?"

Those that answer "Yes", and there are millions of them, Christians, Jews, Muslims etc are theists.

Anyone who does not answer "yes", are not theists therefore atheists. And the answer need not be "no", anyone answering "wibble" to that question is also not a theist, hence an atheist.

liah

In fairness, I kinda get where the OP is coming from.

Nine times out of ten, any discussion on here turns to childish retorts and condescending attitudes, whether the people want to admit it or not. It's the sole reason I very, very rarely bother posting anywhere near hear these days. I have a read once in awhile, but I've even stopped doing that because there's just no point-- it's always the exact same ending, no matter how it starts out.

To be honest, it is a bit sad. Each thread is the same people arguing in circles with, inevitably, Jakkass. Which is understandable, as a lot of the stuff he says can be pretty infuriating, and I've been guilty of arguing back at him in the distant past, but I gave up a long time ago because I figured what's the point of wasting time on someone who's never going to change their mind? What's the point? What does it achieve other than frustrating me? Absolutely nothing.

I particularly tend to avoid bothering to read Sam Vimes and Zillah's posts lately, because (and no offense) they tend to be the ones to kick off the arguments, or at least they tend to be the most "aggressive" and I find myself behind their arguments less than the rest because I don't really agree anymore with the way they're put across. I don't get why we always feel the need to convert each other and I don't get why we always feel the need to be so patronizing. Well, I do, but.. we're adults, we don't have to say exactly what we're thinking.. can still be civil and diplomatic.

Kind of hard defending fellow atheists sometimes with the way some of you go on..

Dades

It's the internet. People like to argue. About everything.

It goes on in the Soccer forum, the Animals & Pet Issues forum, the Parenting forum, and here. Religion is a big issue with some and a big annoyance with many.

I'm not sure what exactly people who complain about this forum envisage as the ideal. Some sort of atheist utopia where everyone is in agreement? Sounds a bit like the "heaven" as envisaged in the recent thread. Mind-numbingly boring.

liah

I do think people need to start treating each other a little better.. and that's true for both sides, not just us. We need less argument and more intelligent debate.. the majority of threads here are just each side trying to hammer their point home instead of actually working with and developing on the questions being asked or points raised from the opposing side.

I know it's hard to take a fundamentally opposing view seriously, but jesus, do we have to make everything so much harder for ourselves and them?

Dades

liah wrote: »

I do think people need to start treating each other a little better.. and that's true for both sides, not just us. We need less argument and more intelligent debate.. the majority of threads here are just each side trying to hammer their point home instead of actually working with and developing on the questions being asked or points raised from the opposing side.

That sounds like politico speak.

Take the numerous threads that assert that "because everything must have a cause, then the universe must have a creator, so the creator must be God"... Those threads invariably start with intelligent contributions but dissolve when it becomes apparent that the OP will ignore refutations of logic to cling to an idea.

To maintain an intelligent discussion both side must embrace the laws of debate, and 'address and refute'.

Carlos_Ray

pH wrote: »

I think it's even simpler than that, take the question "Do you believe in a personal intervening God?"

Those that answer "Yes", and there are millions of them, Christians, Jews, Muslims etc are theists.

Anyone who does not answer "yes", are not theists therefore atheists. And the answer need not be "no", anyone answering "wibble" to that question is also not a theist, hence an atheist.

If only everything was that simple.

I don't agree btw. Dades already outlined one difference. Although similar atheists and agnostics have subtle differences which for those that suscribe to them are of major importance. There are numerous definitions of Agnostic and atheist, and numerous arguments that follow these definitions. However, the fact of the matter is most mainstream scholars and publications present a difference between the two. Even Boards.ie has chosen to name this forum Athiest and Agnosticism which again highlights that a signifcant number of people don't label Agnosticism as a sub-heading of Atheism. Maybe you should petition boards to change this and see how far you get?

When posting I anticipated that I would be inundated with the usual “pseudo-intellectual” analysis of what I perceive myself to be. Again, it’s nothing new although it gets quite tiresome after a while.

To paraphrase Socrates, the only real wisdom is knowing you know nothing. I don't even know if I believe in a God. That, imo is a third ground that some people are too lazy or blinkered to acknowledge.

Some will no doubt disagree but thats life and in a debate such as this it will only come down to semantics and theories. But Im not int the game of preaching or converting, I am comfortable with my stance and don't need to.

Its really amazing how this thread has deviated so much.

liah

Dades wrote: »

That sounds like politico speak.

Take the numerous threads that assert that "because everything must have a cause, then the universe must have a creator, so the creator must be God"... Those threads invariably start with intelligent contributions but dissolve when it becomes apparent that the OP will ignore refutations of logic to cling to an idea.

To maintain an intelligent discussion both side must embrace the laws of debate, and 'address and refute'.

Well, I mean, from what I've seen most of the "others" do respond to things if they're delivered at least respectfully. While posters like Sam Vimes/Zillah (sorry for singling you guys out, btw, I agree with pretty much all your points for the record!) make incredible arguments, I think they get largely ignored because of the condescension factor.

I could be wrong, though, it just has been a pattern I've noticed. I think it's fair enough if they choose not to address the point if it comes across to them as disrespectful, and I think that if we really do want an honest debate we need to have some tact and not make them shy away.

Shenshen

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

If only everything was that simple.

I don't agree btw. Dades already outlined one difference. Although similar atheists and agnostics have subtle differences which for those that suscribe to them are of major importance. There are numerous definitions of Agnostic and atheist, and numerous arguments that follow these definitions. However, the fact of the matter is most mainstream scholars and publications present a difference between the two. Even Boards.ie has chosen to name this forum Athiest and Agnosticism which again highlights that a signifcant number of people don't label Agnosticism as a sub-heading of Atheism. Maybe you should petition boards to change this and see how far you get?

When posting I anticipated that I would be inundated with the usual “pseudo-intellectual” analysis of what I perceive myself to be. Again, it’s nothing new although it gets quite tiresome after a while.

To paraphrase Socrates, the only real wisdom is knowing you know nothing. I don't even know if I believe in a God. That, imo is a third ground that some people are too lazy or blinkered to acknowledge.

Some will no doubt disagree but thats life and in a debate such as this it will only come down to semantics and theories. But Im not int the game of preaching or converting, I am comfortable with my stance and don't need to.

Its really amazing how this thread has deviated so much.

It's very, very simple really.

Agnosticism makes a claim about knowledge.
Theism/Atheism makes a statement about belief.

If you compare it to physics, one would make a statement about speed, the other about temperature.
You don't answer the question "How fast were you going?" With "32.5 degrees Celsius".

So to answer the question "What do you believe in?" with "I'm an agnostic" makes no sense whatsoever.

I can honestly say that I've never ever met a gnostic atheist, and even most of the theists I know are actually agnostic.

If you answer the question "Do you believe in god?" with either "no" or "I don't know", you're an atheist. It really is that simple.

MagicMarker

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

If only everything was that simple.

I don't agree btw. Dades already outlined one difference. Although similar atheists and agnostics have subtle differences which for those that suscribe to them are of major importance. There are numerous definitions of Agnostic and atheist, and numerous arguments that follow these definitions. However, the fact of the matter is most mainstream scholars and publications present a difference between the two. Even Boards.ie has chosen to name this forum Athiest and Agnosticism which again highlights that a signifcant number of people don't label Agnosticism as a sub-heading of Atheism. Maybe you should petition boards to change this and see how far you get?

When posting I anticipated that I would be inundated with the usual “pseudo-intellectual” analysis of what I perceive myself to be. Again, it’s nothing new although it gets quite tiresome after a while.

To paraphrase Socrates, the only real wisdom is knowing you know nothing. I don't even know if I believe in a God. That, imo is a third ground that some people are too lazy or blinkered to acknowledge.

Some will no doubt disagree but thats life and in a debate such as this it will only come down to semantics and theories. But Im not int the game of preaching or converting, I am comfortable with my stance and don't need to.

Its really amazing how this thread has deviated so much.

When you've finished throwing out sly digs (''pseudo-intellectual''), can you explain what you expected to get when you started this thread?

This forum is full of people who happen to share common interests and enjoy talking about them. Sometimes people who hold different views come here and a debate ensues and vice versa. There's nothing preachy about it. It's a discussion forum.

dvpower

liah wrote: »

Well, I mean, from what I've seen most of the "others" do respond to things if they're delivered at least respectfully. While posters like Sam Vimes/Zillah (sorry for singling you guys out, btw, I agree with pretty much all your points for the record!) make incredible arguments, I think they get largely ignored because of the condescension factor.

Is that good or bad?

Carlos_Ray

Shenshen wrote: »

It's very, very simple really.

Agnosticism makes a claim about knowledge.
Theism/Atheism makes a statement about belief.

If you compare it to physics, one would make a statement about speed, the other about temperature.
You don't answer the question "How fast were you going?" With "32.5 degrees Celsius".

So to answer the question "What do you believe in?" with "I'm an agnostic" makes no sense whatsoever.

I can honestly say that I've never ever met a gnostic atheist, and even most of the theists I know are actually agnostic.

If you answer the question "Do you believe in god?" with either "no" or "I don't know", you're an atheist. It really is that simple.

Once again you have just repeated what a previous poster has said but using different examples. And once again, I don't agree with your view point. And thats what it is a view point. I have debated this issue time and time again throughout university and even in my career but I am not so arrogant to believe that what I say is absolute fact. We're dealing with an area that is heavily open to interpretation (whether you like it or not) and my interpretation differs from yours.

I have spent a huge amount of time and energy coming to my conclusions (or lack of). As I have already said I am extremely confident in my stance (which is the only stance that matters to me). For you to say " it really is that simple," when it is blantantly obvious that is not, is imo a bit arrogant and blinkered. It reminds me of certain religious zealots that say the same thing in relation to scriptures ." it really is that simple???" If that was the case why are there numerous books, dissertations,and studies that take a different stance on the issue? Its because its not an exact science...

In your opinion, its simple. But like the word "terrorism" , "Agnosticism" has no definitive definition and is heavily open to interpretation.

Pushtrak

dvpower wrote: »

Is that good or bad?

I think the point was the condescension part. It's basically that they give too much of the stick rather than the carrot. I question how effective the carrot is, to tell the truth. Absurdities shouldn't be really treated too seriously.

Carlos_Ray

MagicMarker wrote: »

When you've finished throwing out sly digs (''pseudo-intellectual''), can you explain what you expected to get when you started this thread?

This forum is full of people who happen to share common interests and enjoy talking about them. Sometimes people who hold different views come here and a debate ensues and vice versa. There's nothing preachy about it. It's a discussion forum.

I agree, and I never accused the forum of being preachy in general. It was a question aimed at both preachy atheist and preachy relgious people. However, it soon decended into a farce when certain people actually attempted to dictate to me what I am. I'm not a five year old child... lol

Shenshen

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Once again you have just repeated what a previous poster has said but using different examples. And once again, I don't agree with your view point. And thats what it is a view point. I have debated this issue time and time again throughout university and even in my career but I am not so arrogant to believe that what I say is absolute fact. We're dealing with an area that is heavily open to interpretation (whether you like it or not) and my interpretation differs from yours.

I have spent a huge amount of time and energy coming to my conclusions (or lack of). As I have already said I am extremely confident in my stance (which is the only stance that matters to me). For you to say " it really is that simple," when it is blantantly obvious that is not, is imo a bit arrogant and blinkered. It reminds me of certain religious zealots that say the same thing in relation to scriptures ." it really is that simple???" If that was the case why are there numerous books, dissertations,and studies that take a different stance on the issue? Its because its not an exact science...

In your opinion, its simple. But like the word "terrorism" , "Agnosticism" has no definitive definition and is heavily open to interpretation.

It's not a point of view, it's a point of terminology.
Agnosticism is very clearly defined, as is atheism.
There might be grey areas regarding which gods you are atheistic about, or even what proofs or knowledge you accept into your considerations as agnostic. But the meaning of the words themselves are unambiguous.

If you have problems with the meaning of the labels you pick to define your stance, those problems are yours and not the labels'.

Rev Hellfire

Shenshen wrote: »

If you answer the question "Do you believe in god?" with either "no" or "I don't know", you're an atheist. It really is that simple.

Both atheism and theism are definitive statements on a fact, its illogical to say an agnostic can be either one of them.

Its the same as saying he's undecided so he's made up his mind.

axer

OP: Maybe read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, encompasses atheism and agnosticism.[1] Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.[1][2] The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but does not claim to have knowledge of such.[1]

I couldn't care less what "side" you are on but I do care about the misuse of words and it is important to correct such misuse or the misuse will spread. People already misunderstand the use of the word Atheist (I even did at the begining).

eoin5

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

...But like the word "terrorism" , "Agnosticism" has no definitive definition and is heavily open to interpretation.

Can you see the slippery slope side to this point? The one where no words mean anything in particular.

I propose we drop the use of 'a' for negation for a while, we could try 'non', like nontheist or nongnostic and therefore return the original meaning to them for a while. Maybe have a cycle using 'a' 'non' 'un' etc so that when each one gets fuddled a bit we can just switch and itll always be fresh

Rev Hellfire

OP: Maybe read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism


It's wiki-wars !

Pushtrak

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Its the same as saying he's undecided so he's made up his mind.

In fairness, that is a false dichotomy. It is saying "No one can know" which isn't exactly a "Hm, I need to look into the two options more."

Shenshen

Pushtrak wrote: »

In fairness, that is a false dichotomy. It is saying "No one can know" which isn't exactly a "Hm, I need to look into the two options more."

Not really, "no one can know" doesn't make any statements about belief.
No one can know if there's a teapot orbiting Mars, but people can either believe it or not.

With knowledge, there are always the 3 options of "true", "false" or "impossible to say".

With belief, you either believe or you don't.
If you haven't decided if you believe or not, you currently don't believe.

Carlos_Ray

shenshen wrote: »

It's not a point of view, it's a point of terminology.
Agnosticism is very clearly defined, as is atheism.
There might be grey areas regarding which gods you are atheistic about, or even what proofs or knowledge you accept into your considerations as agnostic. But the meaning of the words themselves are unambiguous.

Obviously not true considering interpretation is still being debated to this day. Even Dawkins debates it, so how you can say the meanings are unambiguous is strange to say the least.

shenshen wrote: »

If you have problems with the meaning of the labels you pick to define your stance, those problems are yours and not the labels'.

Oh silly me, I forgot. If I don't agree with your point of view than I don't understand the issue. Just keep telling yourself that. :rolleyes: This is the exactly the type of person I was referring to in my original post.

Dades

Carlos_Ray, I think you picked a bad time to post.

We recently had a thread from another supposed agnostic deriding atheists. As it turns out that agnostic had pretty much the same beliefs as most of the atheists around here (basically that human religion was contrived). That thread ended badly.

I think there are several reasons people are hesitant to call themselves atheists, one of the being the stigma, and the other being the misconception that atheists claim to know there is no god(s).

Rev Hellfire

Pushtrak wrote: »

In fairness, that is a false dichotomy. It is saying "No one can know" which isn't exactly a "Hm, I need to look into the two options more."

That's not quite true, its more like me asking you do you think it will rain tomorrow.
I can look out the window and decide yes. But equally if I look out the window then decide I don't know that doesn't mean I've said no.

Shenshen

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Obviously not true considering interpretation is still being debated to this day. Even Dawkins debates it, so how you can say the meanings are unambiguous is strange to say the least.

I have to admit my ignorance on this, could you post a link as to what exactly is being debated about the meaning?

Oh silly me, I forgot. If I don't agree with your point of view than I don't understand the issue. Just keep telling yourself that. :rolleyes: This is the exactly the type of person I was referring to in my original post.

What, people who are fed up with seeing words misused on a daily basis?

A-gnositc. Un-knowing. Not un-believing.
A-theist. Not believing in a deity. Not undecided, simply not believing.

Zombrex

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

In your opinion, its simple. But like the word "terrorism" , "Agnosticism" has no definitive definition and is heavily open to interpretation.

Agnostic was a word coined by Thomas Henry Huxley. Now if only he had left some writing to clarify what the word meant

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle ...Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

and

I further say that Agnosticism is not properly described as a “negative” creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what agnosticism asserts and, in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.

I am agnostic about everything I do not believe it is possible for anyone to know anything for absolute certain.

I believe that theist claims are made up, the after product of superstition and the way the brain evolved. I reject theist claims as not being trust worthy, thus I'm an atheist.

Rev Hellfire

Dades wrote: »

As it turns out that agnostic had pretty much the same beliefs as most of the atheists around here (basically that human religion was contrived).

I'm not sure how that's relevant, that's like saying if I don't believe in this it means I must believe in that. You can hold an atheist position on one narrow definition but remain agnostic on a broader scope.

sink

Frankly I'm ingnostic but just label myself atheist for brevities sake.

Before I can consider the question 'is there a god?' I first must have a definition for god. The word god, can be stretched to mean virtually anything and so is essentially meaningless.

For instance If you asked me the question in specific relation to the god as described by Roman Catholic theology, I would be able to say no conclusive supporting evidence exists for the events that said god undertook and as such the likelihood of it's existence is slim.

But if you asked me if a deistic form of god exists, I would be able to say the the question is unanswerable as by that definition evidential means of verify it's existence/non-existence does not and can not exist.

If you were to define god simply as that which created the universe without any further parameters, given that the universe exist one can conclude that such a god exists but we know absolutely nothing else about it, including whether it is a conscious being or a collision of two branes in 11 dimensional space.

liamw

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

That's not quite true, its more like me asking you do you think it will rain tomorrow.
I can look out the window and decide yes. But equally if I look out the window then decide I don't know that doesn't mean I've said no.

You just don't get it either do you.

Here is you interpretation:
Atheist

---

Agnostic

---

Theist

That, as has already been explained is plain WRONG. they are two different scales.

Here is reality:
Agnostic

---

Gnostic
Atheist-Theist

Are you starting to understand now?

Carlos_Ray

Shenshen wrote: »

A-gnositc. Un-knowing. Not un-believing.
A-theist. Not believing in a deity. Not undecided, simply not believing.

This is what I adhere to. So we agree on this. However, people in this forum have attempted to label me an atheist claiming that agnostic and athiest are the same thing. It is my opinion that there are clear differences and hence cannot be the same. Also in the "God Delusion" Dawkins launches (what can be seen as a scathing attack on agnostics) which once again highlights that he also sees significant differences but more importantly recgonises that it is a valid and real stance.

Carlos_Ray

liamw wrote: »

That, as has already been explained is plain WRONG. they are two different scales.

Whats this? Some type of Boards infallibility? You say it so it becomes true?? Once again someone mixing up interpretation with facts.

liamw

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

This is what I adhere to. So we agree on this. However, people in this forum have attempted to label me an atheist claiming that agnostic and athiest are the same thing.

No they didn't. I asked are you:
a. Agnostic atheist
b. Agnostic theist

It's one or the other

liamw

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Whats this? Some type of Boards infallibility? You say it so it becomes true?? Once again someone mixing up interpretation with facts.

So you think scale 1 is correct?

Rev Hellfire

liamw wrote: »

You just don't get it either do you.

Here is you interpretation:
Atheist

---

Agnostic

---

Theist

That, as has already been explained is plain WRONG. they are two different scales.

Here is reality:
Agnostic

---

Gnostic
Atheist-Theist

Are you starting to understand now?

I totally get it.

You can't make statement until you've arrived at a decision.
Its only once you declare yourself not an agnostic that you can decide if you're athiest or thiest.

Are you starting to understand now?