Atheists? Have you been feeling a bit "agnostic" lately?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

God himself might be unknowable, but the existence of said god is not. It can be tested.

Regardless of what your "logic" dictates, THAT IS NOT THE CONCERN OF THIS DISCUSSION.

See ya buddy,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused

I see, you think that not having an opinion about something makes you agnostic. You are wrong and it has been explained a few times in different ways.

In the end, you're not going to get other people to stop using the word correctly just because you don't understand it. That isn't their problem.

The irony is that you should probably practice what you preach and not opine.

BenReclused
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

God himself might be unknowable, but the existence of said god is not. It can be tested.

Regardless of what your "logic" dictates, THAT IS NOT THE CONCERN OF THIS DISCUSSION.

See ya buddy,
Milt

The concern of this discussion is the relationship between atheism and agnosticism. Unfortunately, a few people around here seem to be a little fuzzy on agnosticism and whether atheism is agnostic by default. If you don't like where I'm taking the discussion, then, as you so eloquently put it earlier, "tough".

reply to post by BenReclused

Agnostics aren't interested in PROVING ANYTHING ABOUT GOD. Because WE DO NOT HAVE A BELIEF IN GOD, WE, quite honestly, DO NOT GIVE A DAMN.

OK I understand now. You think apathetic and agnostic mean the same thing.

ap·a·thet·ic
ˌapəˈTHetik/Submit
adjective
1.
showing or feeling no interest, enthusiasm, or concern.
"apathetic slackers who don't vote"
synonyms: uninterested, indifferent, unconcerned, unmoved, uninvolved, disinterested, unemotional, emotionless, dispassionate, lukewarm, unmotivated, halfhearted; More

Well I can finally write this thread off. If you had just come out and said what you meant to begin with instead of playing games this could have all been avoided.

You are truly apathetic towards religion /deity belief not the same as agnostic.

reply to post by BenReclused

I knew that you would. After all, atheists tend to feel that they are the smartest of the smart, and the best of the best.

As an agnostic, I can only consider that to be a subjective truth, that I do, indeed, BELIEVE. And, I KNOW that a great many of your posts will, ONLY, confirm that belief.

Then there was no point to this thread other than to post your opinion, give us the middle finger, and walk away whistling a merry tune. The only other option is that you apply the principles of scientific investigation in a rigorous examination of every claim ever made by a theist regarding their deity of choice. And I think we both know that won't happen.

No, that was not an assumption. That was a valid conclusion that was based on personal experience. You played a huge role in that determination. And, I can link to a number of your posts that would, indeed, confirm that conclusion. Should I, do so?

I am one atheist. You are generalizing. Such an elementary mistake for such a veteran contributor.

I'm not interested in "resolving" that "matter". Nor, is that "matter" the subject of this "Little Experiment".

You criticize atheism using agnosticism, but when a method is proposed to remove agnosticism from the equation, it's suddenly irrelevant? You want to discredit atheism. That's the message I've gotten here. Atheism is vague and fuzzy and unreliable. Atheism without agnosticism is just as watery as the theists it likes to pick on. But I've explained how atheism can stand on its own without agnosticism. And that's what you don't care about.

Agnostics aren't interested in PROVING ANYTHING ABOUT GOD. Because WE DO NOT HAVE A BELIEF IN GOD, WE, quite honestly, DO NOT GIVE A DAMN. That "issue" only concerns atheists, and theists. Unless you're willing to dismiss that "issue", as a "FIGHT OVER NOTHING", YOU CAN NEVER BE AN AGNOSTIC.

...So, is this the conclusion that you were so adamant about not sharing with us in the first place? Because that was extremely anticlimactic. Oh well - I trust you won't mind if I continue to explore differences in atheism and agnosticism with other atheists in this thread? Agnosticism is such an intriguing position to take, given the plethora of scientific tools and techniques at our disposal. You've settled on the conclusion that there is no answer, and I think you're wrong. So how do we resolve that?

reply to post by Jbird

This is obviously a contentious subject

Yes it is! And, THAT TRULY IS UNFORTUNATE...

IT SHOULDN'T BE.. and IT WOULDN'T BE... if certain individuals would learn to put "PRINCIPLES BEFORE PERSONALITIES".

Though not surprising, this "Little Experiment" has shown, beyond all reasonable doubt, that many atheists have the misconception that they know more about "agnosticism", than "agnostics" do.

At the moment, it seems, the only way that they can support their version of "agnosticism", is by ignoring the topic of this discussion, ignoring ALL QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED OF THEM, BERATING THOSE WHO HAVE ASKED, and "TALKING DOWN" to those with whom they disagree.

My current conclusion is that "atheism" is only "phony-ism at it's worst".

Cheers,
Milt

Question for everyone:
Should I provide examples?

BenReclused
Question for everyone:
Should I provide examples?

Your thread failed.

Who cares what you do.

BenReclused
reply to post by Jbird

 

This is obviously a contentious subject

Yes it is! And, THAT TRULY IS UNFORTUNATE...

IT SHOULDN'T BE.. and IT WOULDN'T BE... if certain individuals would learn to put "PRINCIPLES BEFORE PERSONALITIES".

Though not surprising, this "Little Experiment" has shown, beyond all reasonable doubt, that many atheists have the misconception that they know more about "agnosticism", than "agnostics" do.

At the moment, it seems, the only way that they can support their version of "agnosticism", is by ignoring the topic of this discussion, ignoring ALL QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED OF THEM, BERATING THOSE WHO HAVE ASKED, and "TALKING DOWN" to those with whom they disagree.

My current conclusion is that "atheism" is only "phony-ism at it's worst".

Cheers,
Milt

Question for everyone:
Should I provide examples?

Yes, please. Provide every example you can possibly think of. I want you to demonstrate to the whole wide world how atheists are a rotting festering putrid cesspit of ignorance and bigotry just seizing at the bit to poison every attempt the saintly agnostics and theists make to heal this floating rock. I wanna hear more about how bad and stupid and ignorant we are. You're just so good at it. After all, this whole thread was a stage for your tongue-in-cheek performance with exactly that message in mind. Don't let us stop you in the prime of your exhibit.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I think that's a fair judgement. I only call myself agnostic to avoid getting trapped in discussions about things that do not exist. This may be an affirmation of my atheism, although I refuse the label. In that sense I am apathetic towards the topic altogether. However, although I am atheistic towards deities as explained by theists, I am also atheistic towards towards deities as explained by atheists and agnostics.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Thanks for clearing that up for us, Grim. Always helpful having you around.

reply to post by BenReclused


Wow biggeat case of pot calling the kettle I have seen on ats. You are the one shouting in every post.

That was too many posts to read through, so if you read mine, I will say god is like aliens. You have never seen either and if you believe in either ...than so be it. If you have proof of either please post it so I can change my outlook on both. Thanks in advance....

reply to post by daskakik

Your thread failed.

You are, INDEED, correct:
I tried to coax you guys into thinking objectively about what agnosticism is. Instead, many of you felt that I was challenging the "doctrine" of the "Church of Atheism". Go figure...

The truth is, many of you are no longer capable of "objective reasoning". And, that's because you're so "stuck" on all of that "subjective nonsense" that you've been worshiping for your entire lives.

Agnosticism is, ONLY, about thinking for one's self, and challenging the subjectivity of others. And, that IS, INDEED, what makes me a very proud "Old Troll".

That's okay though... I'm still having fun...

Thank you very much for you participation (???).

See ya buddy,
Milt

reply to post by boymonkey74

Wow biggeat case of pot calling the kettle I have seen on ats. You are the one shouting in every post.

I haven't accused anyone of shouting. And, quite apparently, you don't understand the difference between shouting, and EMPHASIS. I can't say that I'm surprised though... You seem to have spelling issues, as well...

Thank you, very much, for your participation (???)...

See ya buddy,
Milt

BenReclused
I tried to coax you guys into thinking objectively about what agnosticism is.

No you didn't. You tried to force your subjective definition of what it is on us.

The truth is, many of you are no longer capable of "objective reasoning".

Seems you don't understand what "objective" and "subjective" are either.

Agnosticism is, ONLY, about thinking for one's self, and challenging the subjectivity of others.

There you go wanting your definition to be the "ONLY" one. Besides, as posted earlier, the word your looking for is "apathy".

BenReclused
reply to post by daskakik

 

Your thread failed.

You are, INDEED, correct:
I tried to coax you guys into thinking objectively about what agnosticism is. Instead, many of you felt that I was challenging the "doctrine" of the "Church of Atheism". Go figure...

The truth is, many of you are no longer capable of "objective reasoning". And, that's because you're so "stuck" on all of that "subjective nonsense" that you've been worshiping for your entire lives.

Agnosticism is, ONLY, about thinking for one's self, and challenging the subjectivity of others. And, that IS, INDEED, what makes me a very proud "Old Troll".

That's okay though... I'm still having fun...

Thank you very much for you participation (???).

See ya buddy,
Milt

edit on 912America/Chicago3RAmerica/Chicago2014-03-04T14:53:30-06:00Tuesdayu30America/Chicago by BenReclused because: Typo

Really?

1ag·nos·tic noun ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-
: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not

: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something

That is the official definition. It is the definition we have been working with for the entire thread - you, on the other hand, seem to have a different idea of agnosticism which seems to have a lot in common with apathy. Agnosticism is not apathy, as was explained to you before. Is there anything else you'd like to say before your thread dies completely?

reply to post by BenReclused


When someone becomes a grammar nazi they have lost.
On my phone plis dyslexia so....

reply to post by boymonkey74


Ok them shouting maybe raving definitely.

reply to post by Words

I'm saying the only evidence for God, any God, is that God himself. Awaiting for that type of evidence is literally awaiting for God.

Right. 'God' would need to exist in order for anyone to ever find evidence for 'god'. I still don't see your point. Which still seems to be that waiting for evidence implies belief in 'god'?

If I await strong evidence for the claim the Earth is hollow it doesn't follow that I believe the Earth is hollow. Even to a small degree...

But the agnostic is making the claim (not outright, but implying) that it could exist

You're, I think, confusing this could with belief in the existence.

Could only in the sense that since we cannot evaluate what is outside the physical Universe things outside of nature are unknowable and therefore we cannot be absolutely certain it does or doesn't exist. It's about acknowledging the limitations of our knowledge. If it's outside our limitation obviously we cannot prove the thing to exist or not exist. If someone made the claim outside the physical Universe there exists a place called Equestria where ponies, unicorns, and pegasi all live harmoniously together…. it would be an uncertainty. We cannot evaluate that claim. Just because one cannot be objectively certain it's false doesn't mean that person believes Equestria
is a real place.

But its not unknowable. It's not knowable and its not unknowable

Agnosticism isn't suggesting 'god' is unknowable itself in its nature. Why would it? That would suggest that thing exists. Agnosticism isn't saying that. It's unknowable because of our limitation of knowledge. The unknowable part has to do with us, not this alleged 'god'. This is apparent in those Huxley quotes.

Simply because it is posited as supernatural does not make it so.

Absolutely. But this is a reactive position towards someone else's claim. So if they say it's supernatural we evaluate the idea under that light.

Once again, evidence should be looked at

Absolutely. And since we don't have evidence to look at it's grounds for said agnostic to be atheist.

Yes I would argue that agnosticism is a simple refusal to participate in the debate. Yet here we are asserting that God is unknowable, that the other positions are foolish, all within a forum dedicated to religion.

And I would argue I am an agnostic atheist and I am participating in this debate Check out my earlier posts with Huxley quotes… I think it will put that unknowable bit into perspective. The only positions I think are unreasonable is theism and *ones claiming absolute certainty.

*save for certainty against religious god's which can be dismissed since their descriptions can be evaluated and proved false. For example. Yahweh's description is the Bible. The Bible makes literal claims about the natural world. They have been proven false. We can toss that god out. The idea of a supernatural creator in general is still a hypothetical uncertainty.

reply to post by BenReclused


OP - get a clue.

Theism/Atheism refers to what we believe.

Gnosticism/Agnosticism refers to what we know.

The two things are not mutually exclusive. Agnostics are not a 'rare breed' at all, this is just a fundamental misunderstanding of what Gnosticism/Agnosticism is and how it relates to belief. Most Atheists are Agnostics.