Agnosticism is the logical from Atheism?

Morbert · 29-09-2010 02:57AM

bnt wrote: »

Do you know what Agnostic means? Here's a picture, courtesy of irreligion.org:

I'm not sure I like that representation.

What stances do the red dots represent? And what's the difference between them? And what's the difference between the two green dots?

bnt · 29-09-2010 08:08AM

liamw wrote: »

There isn't really a theism scale though is there? Isn't it a dichotomy; you're either theist or atheist? (I guess some would say deism lies in between)

I'm of the opinion that there is - compare a fundamentalist nutball with your common Irish "Christmas & Easter" churchgoer. Dawkins talks about a spectrum of theistic probability, calling himself a 6 on a scale of 7. (1 = 100% irrational theism, 7 = 100% irrational atheism.)

So, if you go back to the diagram I posted: what are the degrees of gnosticism?

The Mad Hatter · 29-09-2010 08:48AM

cursai wrote: »

Until there is full proof of a Non godly habited world(whatever) how can a person be sure!

What?

Look, atheists aren't "sure". I don't know any atheist who is certain there isn't a god. Even Richard Dawkins doesn't state that there is no god. But until someone offers us actual, tangible evidence, why should we act as though there were?

29-09-2010 09:05AM

Galvasean wrote: »

As stated before (you have been reading the thread?), the burden of proof is on those claiming something exists, not the other way around.

"Incredible claims call for incredible evidence."

I think it's incredible to claim nothing other than us existed to start this universe off as none of us were there and no science has verifiably confirmed what started this.
Where does that leave the position of saying one side of the God debate has more onus to prove something than the other?

The unknown is a hugely fascinating thing which is why out of respect for it or for the potential of it,I'm not comfortable from my own personal point of view, with ruling out a higher power than us.
I am comfortable with skepticism on man made religions though and their man made rules.

pH · 29-09-2010 09:28AM

cursai wrote: »

If an Atheist isnt certain then he is Agnostic!

That's just your BLIND FAITH talking, unless you have any proof ... :rolleyes:

Zombrex · 29-09-2010 10:26AM

Morbert wrote: »

I'm not sure I like that representation.

What stances do the red dots represent? And what's the difference between them? And what's the difference between the two green dots?

The red dots are on the axis so of atheist theist so represent someone who is completely undecided between theism and atheism.

the difference between them is how a person views knowledge of the supernatural and what you can and can't know.

For example one of the dots might be someone who is completely undecided between atheism and theism but who is utterly convinced of ghosts, and thus is quite gnostic in his outlook.

Dades · 29-09-2010 10:55AM

After 4+ pages we get this:

cursai wrote:

Look i have to sleep. ill try to summarise. I think Atheism is the same as any religion. Believing in a certain way of existence without Scientific or other practical proof!

Apologies to those who responded, but this thread is another farce where the OP has shown no interest in taking on board any replies.

Closed to avoid wasting people's time.

Dades · 29-09-2010 02:43PM

Right, after some PMs with the OP (and consultation with this week's Good Cop, Robin

) I'm reopening this thread to see if it leads to anything except a raft of facepalms.

As you were.

Zillah · 29-09-2010 07:23PM

THIS gets the axe but Admiral JC Sails Again continues it's lumbering path of destruction through the forum?

liamw · 29-09-2010 08:49PM

Zillah wrote: »

THIS gets the axe but Admiral JC Sails Again continues it's lumbering path of destruction through the forum?

Teach the controversy

The Mad Hatter · 30-09-2010 09:54AM

…

…

Echo!

Echo!

Echo!

Echo!

Tim Robbins · 30-09-2010 10:26AM

Are you agnostic about Santa?
Because you can't proove he doesn't exist. Either can science.

I'm atheist about Santa, I rather not have you question my dogma about this as it's very sacred to me.

A Primal Nut · 30-09-2010 10:48AM

cursai wrote: »

Discuss class!
How can a person be an Atheist? If if a religious person is acting on blind faith in their belief of a God, how can an Atheist not be acting on blind faith to conclude that there IS NO GOD! There is no scientific fact or proof that GOD DOES NOT EXIST!
Before anyone asks i am Agnostic!

Heading is wrong i know!!!!

I believe there is no God in the same way I believe that babies are not delivered by storks, in spite of the fact that I've never actually seen a baby been born. However I think it would be silly to way I'm agnostic with regard to whether or not babies are delivered by storks and the same thing applies to my belief in God. Saying you are atheist is a conveniant way of saying you fall on the side where you believe there is no God; whereas Agnostic you generally aren't sure, or perhaps you think there is a God but aren't sure which one (there are plenty to choose from).

Rev Hellfire · 30-09-2010 12:00PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Are you agnostic about Santa?
Because you can't proove he doesn't exist. Either can science.

I'm atheist about Santa, I rather not have you question my dogma about this as it's very sacred to me.

Pah, you're only saying that because you where bold last year and didn't get any presents...

30-09-2010 12:47PM

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I believe there is no God in the same way I believe that babies are not delivered by storks, in spite of the fact that I've never actually seen a baby been born.

Yeah but eminent scientists aswell as parents have proven beyond reasonable doubt that babies do indeed come out of a womans vagina having spent time in the womb etc
Theres also pretty conclusive evidence of how they get there ...a lot of practice went into checking the theory on that

Isn't your belief that theres no God unprovable anyway ? Making disagreements boil down to the simple matter of how fervent one believes one thing or another in the absence of an ultimate proof.

I find these positions interesting from the simple standpoint of as alluded to earlier by me,comfort zones.
If one is perfectly comfortable with believing theres no god,then wheres the harm in that,similar to wheres the harm in being the opposite.
What I do not understand is attacking personal beliefs for what looks like attacking sake or from the motivation of a dislike of their position due to taking a fervency with the opposing position.

I guess what I'm saying here in a nutshell is agnosticism is the only credible position to take in my view and if as has been put to me a few times here most atheists do not believe there is a God,then they are practicing a belief and not a science as we know neither the end or the start game to how we evolved to where we are.
Obviously being human,I hope if God exists,that he or she likes me.
Who wouldn't

strobe · 30-09-2010 01:13PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess what I'm saying here in a nutshell is agnosticism is the only credible position to take in my view

Yes but here's the kicker. Most atheists are agnostics. As far as I am aware all atheists posting on this forum are agnostics. Also as far as I am aware all the agnostics posting on this forum are atheists. Most theists I know (in real life, not on here) are also agnostics. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. They usually go hand in hand.

My position would be that you are born atheist just like you are born apolitical. You only stop being an atheist if you become a theist just like you only stop being apolitical if you become politicised.

A Primal Nut · 30-09-2010 01:15PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah but eminent scientists aswell as parents have proven beyond reasonable doubt that babies do indeed come out of a womans vagina having spent time in the womb etc

Theres also pretty conclusive evidence of how they get there ...a lot of practice went into checking the theory on that

Yes, and a lot of practice went into verifying the laws of physics, everyone of which God breaks, just as Santa Claus being able to fit down people's chimneys breaks laws, and the idea that a stork delivers babies breaks a few laws as well. But anyway, you won't take that point because you'll just say God might have created the laws, and so he is allowed to live outside them bla, bla, bla.

Isn't your belief that theres no God unprovable anyway ? Making disagreements boil down to the simple matter of how fervent one believes one thing or another in the absence of an ultimate proof.

Its certainly provable that the God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam don't exist; just read the bible, quran or torah; there are too many contradictions with modern science for it to be true. And you already made the point that I'm allowed to trust other people (eminent scientists for example) for the purposes of this discussion without having to see these things with my own eyes. There are some things that are either true or false. Its probably not possible to prove that there is no God at all, but I put the likelihood on a par with the likelihood of Santa Claus existing, which I'm pretty sure makes me an Atheist by anyone's defintion. Also; for me, atheism is as much about the rejection of organised religion as it is about not believing in God.

I find these positions interesting from the simple standpoint of as alluded to earlier by me,comfort zones.
If one is perfectly comfortable with believing theres no god,then wheres the harm in that,similar to wheres the harm in being the opposite.
What I do not understand is attacking personal beliefs for what looks like attacking sake or from the motivation of a dislike of their position due to taking a fervency with the opposing position.

I guess what I'm saying here in a nutshell is agnosticism is the only credible position to take in my view and if as has been put to me a few times here most atheists do not believe there is a God,then they are practicing a belief and not a science as we know neither the end or the start game to how we evolved to where we are.
Obviously being human,I hope if God exists,that he or she likes me.
Who wouldn't

Yeah you better hope so, coz if he takes a disliking to you won't be long killing you, judging by the contents of holy books.

I respect your point of view as agnostic and respect it, however I disagree with the idea that atheists are really agnostic because it can't be scientifically proven there is no God.

30-09-2010 01:57PM

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I respect your point of view as agnostic and respect it, however I disagree with the idea that atheists are really agnostic because it can't be scientifically proven there is no God.

I know you do but you had to bring religon and religious books into it to do so.
Religions are only ways of worshiping a God and are man made so therefore not ultimate proof of anything.
So I'm left hanging in my uncomfortableness ruling out the existence of a god.

Dades · 30-09-2010 02:58PM

Deleted User wrote: »

So I'm left hanging in my uncomfortableness ruling out the existence of a god.

Oh ffs, ATHEISTS DO NOT RULE OUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

Atheism concerns BELIEF not KNOWLEDGE.

Did you even read the posts in this thread??

Zombrex · 30-09-2010 03:06PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess what I'm saying here in a nutshell is agnosticism is the only credible position to take in my view and if as has been put to me a few times here most atheists do not believe there is a God,then they are practicing a belief and not a science as we know neither the end or the start game to how we evolved to where we are.

The only credible position to take is that humans imagine beings like God or another supernatural agents in nature due to mental process that is a by product of how our brains evolved.

That is the only position supported by any sort of science and credible evidence.

And that is the position the majority of atheists on this forum take.

Galvasean · 30-09-2010 03:22PM

Dades wrote: »

Did you even read the posts in this thread??

What's it like moderating a forum that everybody posts in but none actually read?

Dades · 30-09-2010 03:34PM

Galvasean wrote: »

What's it like moderating a forum that everybody posts in but none actually read?

Penitential.

30-09-2010 03:35PM

Dades wrote: »

Oh ffs, ATHEISTS DO NOT RULE OUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

Atheism concerns BELIEF not KNOWLEDGE.

Did you even read the posts in this thread??

Of course I read the posts in this thread,I am here to discuss this not have people swear profanities at me.The issue I have is how can you not rule out the existence of a God and disbelieve that there is one at the same time?
that seems to be a conceived position of convenience to me.

robindch · 30-09-2010 03:36PM

Galvasean wrote: »

What's it like moderating a forum that everybody posts in but none actually read?

Sorry, could you repeat that?

Zombrex · 30-09-2010 03:39PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course I read the posts in this thread,I am here to discuss this not have people swear profanities at me.The issue I have is how can you not rule out the existence of a God and disbelieve that there is one at the same time?
that seems to be a conceived position of convenience to me.

It is impossible to rule out the exists of anything. you cannot prove there are no baby carrying storks

What we do have is a perfectly testable and established alternative, ie natural child birth.

Along with that we have a perfectly reasonable explanation for why humans would invent the notion that storks bring babies.

Based on that you can say that there is no basis for the assertion "Storks bring babies" is actually real.

You can do EXACTLY the same thing with notions like God.

So if you think it is reasonable to assert Storks don't bring people babies it is reasonable to assert human Gods are imaginary.

amacachi · 30-09-2010 03:46PM

Dades wrote: »

Oh ffs, ATHEISTS DO NOT RULE OUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

Atheism concerns BELIEF not KNOWLEDGE.

Did you even read the posts in this thread??

I was going to say that but I had already said it to the OP in this thread, no sense in repeating oneself. :pac:

30-09-2010 03:50PM

Wicknight wrote: »

The only credible position to take is that humans imagine beings like God or another supernatural agents in nature due to mental process that is a by product of how our brains evolved.

That is the only position supported by any sort of science and credible evidence.

And that is the position the majority of atheists on this forum take.

I'd agree with that analysis to an extent.
Theres oceans of analysis of how the mind works.
However,thats a position on what makes some people comfortable and how other people don't need that comfort or in some cases have learned they don't need it.
But it doesn't deal with beliefs or convictions people have without evidence.
When I first responded to a primal nut in this thread it was to a post where he/she said they didn't believe a God existed.
You don't either I presume? In which case correct me if I'm wrong,I'm engaging here with at least 2 posters who are declaring a belief and not a fact that there is no God.
If atheists do not rule out a God and you two do,what label/description or category does that come under?

30-09-2010 03:59PM

Wicknight wrote: »

It is impossible to rule out the exists of anything. you cannot prove there are no baby carrying storks

What we do have is a perfectly testable and established alternative, ie natural child birth.
Along with that we have a perfectly reasonable explanation for why humans would invent the notion that storks bring babies.

Based on that you can say that there is no basis for the assertion "Storks bring babies" is actually real.

You can do EXACTLY the same thing with notions like God.

So if you think it is reasonable to assert Storks don't bring people babies it is reasonable to assert human Gods are imaginary.

You mean Gods,that humans imagine? As opposed to the unknown
What you've outlined above reads to me as a justification for a belief as opposed to an understanding of the unknown.
Thats an understandable position as obviously the unknown isn't understandable.
Now whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander in that respect as isn't that what people who believe in the opposite of what you believe also do.
Where each individual falls is their own comfort zone on the issue.
I get your's,I'm just not there with you.

Mark Hamill · 30-09-2010 04:42PM

Deleted User wrote: »

What you've outlined above reads to me as a justification for a belief as opposed to an understanding of the unknown.

Dades wrote:

Oh ffs, ATHEISTS DO NOT RULE OUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

Atheism concerns BELIEF not KNOWLEDGE.

Did you even read the posts in this thread??

Its almost as if he is reading the posts, but subconsciously, like.

Dades · 30-09-2010 04:46PM

Black Briar, I'm confused as to the point you're making in your last two posts, so let me try and clarify.

Your use of the phrase "ruling out" is not compatible with atheism, as it implies knowledge on the question of gods.

Atheism only deals with belief, and not absolutes. Atheism is compatible therefore with agnosticism, as one can acknowledge the fact that we do not know, and yet hold a belief, at the same time. Most people on this forum would be 'agnostic atheists', but given that's a bit of a mouthful we're cool with just being atheists.

A lot of people don't like this notion, because it messes with their preconceptions that atheists claim to know 100%, which would make them an easy target were it true.

A quote that was linked to earlier that I liked is relevant here:

Isaac Asimov wrote:

I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.

Agnosticism is the logical from Atheism?

Comments