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

The need to preach.

Options
24567

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭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'.


  • Options
    #33
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭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).


  • Options
    #35
    eoin5
    Registered Users Posts: 2,141 ✭✭✭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 :D


  • Options
    #36
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    OP: Maybe read this:

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


    It's wiki-wars !


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭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."


  • Options
    #38
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    Carlos_Ray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 685 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭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. :p

    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).


  • Options
    #41
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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 :D

    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.


  • Options
    #44
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #47
    Carlos_Ray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 685 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    Carlos_Ray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 685 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #50
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #51
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    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. 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.

    Er... can you show me those posts? All I've read so far were people saying that since you can be an agnostic atheist and agnostic theist, your statement of being agnostic doesn't apply to what you believe in, which you rejected.

    Ever since then people have been falling over themselves trying to explain the difference between gnostic/agnostic and theist/atheist...

    Your statement that "religious arguments don't convince me" was why people called you atheist.
    Nobody tried to convert you, people simply pointed out that if you don't believe in god, you are by definition, an atheist.


  • Options
    #53
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    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.

    What, his interpretation is that knowledge and belief are two very different things???

    Didn't you yourself just agree with that?


  • Options
    #54
    Carlos_Ray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 685 ✭✭✭Carlos_Ray


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

    It's one or the other

    Firstly, they did and if you read back through the posts you will see it.

    Secondly you do know that there is more than two types of agnostics don't you?

    I see you quoted wikipedia before so here's more from your source which you conveniently ignored.
    liamw wrote: »
    Agnosticist (also called "faithless" or "factual agnosticism")The Agnosticist is absent of belief, where theism requires faith that there is a deity or deities. An Agnosticist would say, "I neither have a belief in a deity nor do I have a belief in the absence of such a deity.
    "Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities 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 cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you.
    "Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities 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 deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is 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.
    Agnostic atheismAgnostic 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.
    Agnostic theismThe view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.
    IgnosticismThe view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the
    noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity 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 "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.


  • Options
    #55
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    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?

    No, you're still not getting it. You can be:
    a. Gnostic atheist
    b. Gnostic theist
    c. Agnostic athiest
    d. Agnostic theist

    You can have a belief, or lack thereof, without claiming full knowledge.


  • Options
    #56
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    Carlos_Ray wrote: »
    Firstly, they did and if you read back through the posts you will see it.

    Secondly you do know that there is more than two types of agnostics don't you?

    I see you quoted wikipedia before so here's more from your source which you conveniently ignored.

    Ok there's a range of agnosticism from weak to strong. I already know that.


  • Options
    #57
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    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?

    You're confusing me know...
    You can be an agnostic atheist (you don't believe in god, and know that deities are ultimately un-knowable) or an agnostic theist (you do believe in a god, and know that deities are ultimately un-knowable)
    By the same measure, you can be a gnostic atheist (you don't believe in god, and know that god doesn't exist) or a gnostic theist (you do believe in god and know that god exists).


  • Options
    #58
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    liamw wrote: »
    No, you're still not getting it. You can be:
    a. Gnostic atheist
    b. Gnostic theist
    c. Agnostic athiest
    d. Agnostic theist

    You can have a belief, or lack thereof, without claiming full knowledge.

    The problem here is you assume those are the only options.

    As Sink previous stated so well you can also be ignostic or even an apathetic agnostic.

    Though perhaps I'm not getting your definitions, would you expand upon them and show where either an ignostic or apathetic agnostic would fit in ?


  • Options
    #59
    Carlos_Ray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 685 ✭✭✭Carlos_Ray


    Shenshen wrote: »
    Er... can you show me those posts? All I've read so far were people saying that since you can be an agnostic atheist and agnostic theist, your statement of being agnostic doesn't apply to what you believe in, which you rejected..

    As already mentioned there is not just two forms of agnosticism as you are presenting. What do I believe in as a matter of interest? My stance has been very clear i.e. I don't know what I believe in.
    Shenshen wrote: »
    Ever since then people have been falling over themselves trying to explain the difference between gnostic/agnostic and theist/atheist.....

    Firstly I am well aware of the differences, and secondly if I wasn't I wouldn't be seeking advice from people off this forum. Again in a subtle way you are trying to inject that stereotypical atheist condesending tone into the discussion. Nobody here is in any position to even attempt to "educate me" and I would not be so arrogant to do it to anybody else.
    Shenshen wrote: »
    Your statement that "religious arguments don't convince me" was why people called you atheist.

    Well this logic doesn't follow. If for example, a person is not convinced by the Bible and such religious arguments does it naturally follow that they don't believe in a God?? Of Course not, thats a bit of red herring. BTW i have said I was unconvinced by both sides hence I don't know what I believe.My stance is agnostic. Why is that so difficult for some people to grasp?


  • Options
    #60
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    Carlos_Ray wrote: »
    Well this logic doesn't follow. If for example, a person is not convinced by the Bible and such religious arguments does it naturally follow that they don't believe in a God?? Of Course not, thats a bit of red herring. BTW i have said I was unconvinced by both sides hence I don't know what I believe.My stance is agnostic. Why is that so difficult for some people to grasp?

    Because agnostic is a statement about knowledge, not about belief.
    By saying you're agnostic you're saying you hold it to be unknowable, not you hold it to be unbelieveable.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    Carlos_Ray wrote: »
    My stance has been very clear i.e. I don't know what I believe in.
    Ahhh haa, so you're an atheist !

    sorry couldn't resist.


Advertisement