Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   
The main difference between the three (agnostic,atheist,theist) is that two are lying to themselves.




posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


Please define what you mean by God. God has many definition and means many things to different people.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by swanne
 


I have an inclining of a feeling "created" things have a very difficult time understanding their creator('s) this makes it complex at least to me



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
I suck at "yes/no" tests, so I failed from the start.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
I know that I feel a pull in the pit of my stomach. Hard to describe. As if I sense his presence sometimes. Idk that's just me.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Agnosticism and atheism don't have to be mutually exclusive, nor do theism and agnosticism. There's not just one spectrum of theistic probability or just one spectrum of gnosticism. I prefer to think of it as one (theism/atheism) being a measure of belief and the other (gnosticism/agnosticism) being a measure of what is knowable. I lack a belief in deities but, by the same token, I don't think it's possible to know definitively in one way or another. I'd call myself an agnostic atheist.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


The challenge:
I say that it's impossible for atheists, and theists alike, to be agnostic, at the same time. Prove me wrong…

You see them as incompatible because you are misunderstanding agnosticism.

Agnosticism is not a middle ground. It's not a belief god exists %50. Or that god doesn't exist %50. All agnosticism is functionally saying is that the proposition cannot be claimed as absolutely true one way or another as it is unknowable and unprovable. It has to do with knowledge. Gnosis is knowledge, right? A-gnostic-ism is concerning the notion one can have knowledge about this… it says you cannot. That's it. It's not in any way excluding one from believing god does or does not exist. And if one doesn't they are an atheist. If one does then one is a theist/deist. Agnosticism is simply saying the atheist or theist needs to include the acknowledgment their belief isn't an absolute certainty. Because neither is privy to the evidence of god [should that god exist].

Google throws at me right away when I ask "Can an atheist be agnostic?"

"An atheist agnostic is someone who does not believe in gods and also thinks that the existence of gods cannot be known. This might mean that they don't believe in gods because they haven't seen any evidence that supports their existence."

The first part about a lack of belief makes the person an atheist. The second part about the existence cannot be known is agnostic. What's the implication of cannot be known? That it's possible! This atheist lacks the belief gods existence is true because of a lack of evidence. This atheist is not saying god doesn't exist.

This is why I said you lost the argument in the other thread. You said you didn't believe Ma'at existed. You said it's possible Ma'at exists. That is precisely what I am describing of my own position. The only difference between the 'agnostic atheist' and your own position is that it applies to one more god than you.

Here is a quote from Robert Flint, an agnostic atheist, in a lecture over 100 years ago:


"The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one.

If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist – an agnostic-atheist – an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other…" link


You may not understand how agnosticism works with atheism but others do. Today and even over a century ago.

To reiterate the same thing another way. Here is a definition from atheism.about. com

"Definition: An agnostic atheist is defined as one who does not know for sure if any gods exist or not but who also does not believe in any gods. This definition makes it clear that being an agnostic and being an atheist are not mutually exclusive. Knowledge and belief are related but separate issues: not knowing if something is true or not doesn't exclude believing or disbelieving it." link

^Not knowing something is true or not doesn't exclude believing or disbelieving it.

^You're essentially saying that's what is impossible when you say agnosticism cannot be couple with atheism or theism.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Very informative post. Not to say its unknowable, but how can you identify something if you don't know what it is? What is a god, exactly? Any being who is worshipped? An entity capable of defying the laws of physics on a universal scale with no effort? Someone who embodies a particular element or idea? What is a god, and what is our basis for that determination?



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

Thanks
I agree with what you're saying here and when you've addressed this in other threads.

If it's unknowable [at the moment at least] how do we know what we identify as "god" is even an accurate identification of the idea to begin with? Perhaps all our ideas on it are completely erroneous. How would we know indeed. The question of whether god exists itself is flawed


I think the definitions for god have been traditionally, purposefully, constructed in a manner that is unreasonable/unprovable.
edit on 1-3-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


1) Do you believe that FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER IS REAL?

Nope

2) Do you believe that FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER IS NOT REAL?

Yup

3) Do you believe that FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER EVER EXISTED?

Nope

4) Do you believe that FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER NEVER EXISTED?

Yup

5) Do you believe that FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER WILL EVER EXIST?

Nope

6) Do you believe that FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER WILL NEVER EXIST?

Probably not

7) Do you believe that FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER IS POSSIBLE?

Anything is possible

8) Do you believe that FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER IS NOT POSSIBLE?

Probably

Optional questions (All answers are valid):

1) Does FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER EXIST?

Don't think so

2) Did FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER EXIST?

Doubtfull

3) Will FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER EXIST?

Maybe

4) Do you REALLY believe that FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER IS A "God", or "SOME INVISIBLE MAN", somewhere?

HAHA no way.

_______________________________

I can't answer your questions the way you want and be truthful at the same time so I decided to be truthful while answering your questions instead.

Does this make me an agnostic Athipasta?
edit on 1-3-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Who cares what other people believe?

We're all wrong. We're all on this ride together.

"We're all mad here."

I suppose superiority over other human beings is more important than acceptance.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


That is why I am an agnostic atheist. Agnosticsm deals with knowledge (I do not possess the knowledge of God's existence) and atheism deals with belief (the absence of belief in any gods).

Here is a chart for quick reference:





EDIT: Ah, dang. Lucid beat me to it lol.
edit on 3/1/2014 by Nacirema because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


My answer is always 'No' to any question regarding belief in something that acts inside physical reality - we cannot know it, we can only observe and try to derive meaning.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Nacirema
reply to post by BenReclused
 


That is why I am an agnostic atheist. Agnosticsm deals with knowledge (I do not possess the knowledge of God's existence) and atheism deals with belief (the absence of belief in any gods).

Here is a chart for quick reference:





EDIT: Ah, dang. Lucid beat me to it lol.
edit on 3/1/2014 by Nacirema because: (no reason given)


I am not an atheist, nor a theist - I am just a pure agnostic. I dont believe in anything regarding God, or even physical reality for that matter. I dont believe god exists, and I dont believe he doesnt exist - I just look at the evidence and so far there isnt enough evidence for me to make any behavioral changes .. I wouldnt be surprised by a sudden appearance of evidence either way.

Oh - I should mention - there is clear evidence that Jesus never existed - it seems to me that there is far more evidence to indicate his non existence, rather than his existence - but, once more - I dont know, and therefore dont believe either side of that argument .. Id just point out the evidence is on the side of non existence.

On the other hand there is clear evidence for the existence of the old testament god Yahweh - in fact Id say the evidence is fairly compelling to say that he actually existed. I think the error hat many make is looking at evidence of the existence of Yahweh, and the old testament - and assuming it makes some case for the existence of Jesus - it should be pointed out that its just convention to put those two books into one cover, and there seems to be no evidence that they should be considered part of the same story.
edit on 1-3-2014 by Amagnon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


I dont believe god exists, and I dont believe he doesnt exist -


But you believe he is a he?


Not sure I understand what you're really saying. So you equally believe god exists and god doesn't exist? Like god is in Shrodigner's Box?



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Personally I do not believe in a god, and to be honest it doesnt affect my life if I must be honest. Most use god as a source inspiration but in fact it is YOU that is the source of any inspiration/motivation that you fathom. To me God is just an exscuse for the people that do not want to have control over their own lives, and therefore permit a source of higher authority to be accountable for anything good or bad that happens to them. Oh it was gods will!
People who ask for god to repent their sins, are merely asking themselves for forgiveness. To live a righteous life you do not need a god, just be true to yourself and you will know if you are in the wrong.
Faith in youreelf is the only thing that matters, not blind faith in an omnipresent being to help you. You can help yourself more.
It seems ludicrous that you live your life by an infallible guide, supposedly the word of god, which was actually written by man, in order to fulfill the right for you to eventually get into heaven, which isnt even guaranteed.
I would rather live my own life and be accountable for my own decisions then say it was all a test, by some made up entity.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Hi guys,

Before I PERSONALLY welcome EACH and EVERY ONE OF YOU, I've got a couple of things that I'D LOVE TO SAY, so I will:

First off:
Thank you VERY MUCH for PARTICIPATING in this "Little Experiment"! IT TRULY DOES MEAN A GREAT DEAL TO ME, AND IS ABOUT MUCH MORE THAN YOU MIGHT THINK... (Does anyone know how to capitalize a "."? Damn it! I TRULY CAN NOT BELIEVE that there is not a way to do that!)

The rest:
"Agnosticism" isn't near as complex, NOR AS GLORIOUS, as many tend to portray it as being. And most importantly, "Agnosticism" IS NOT ABOUT RELIGION... AT ALL! "Agnosticism" IS ONLY A WAY OF THINKING about... well..., simply put..., EVERY DAMN THING:
Simplicity at it's best... And, skepticism at it's worst...

Special question for "Agnostic Atheists":
How would Mr. Huxley respond to that? (Answer is available upon request.)

Special question for "troll" hunters:
How do you catch a unique "Old Troll"? (Once again: Answer is available upon request.)

Special question for "DeadSeraph":
Am I consistent? (Aw Hell! Forget about it... I could never believe you any damn way. Oh well... Thanks, just the same.)

I'm sure that many of you might feel that I have an ulterior motive. The truth IS, I DO. Would anyone care to guess what that "motive" might be? (Answer available at my discretion.)

See ya,
Milt

PS:
I'll respond to everyone's comments, in turn, as time becomes available. (Yeah... As if anyone might ever BELIEVE that... I certainly wouldn't... I suppose that's just my nature...)
edit on 040America/Chicago3RAmerica/Chicago2014-03-01T17:57:44-06:00Saturday00000044America/Chicago by BenReclused because: Typo



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


I'm not sure how seriously we're supposed to take you after a post like that. It sounds like you're making fun of being serious about this stuff. I guess I'll just bite: what is your ulterior motive?



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


His location is under a bridge and his mood trollish...why bite dude?.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:08 PM
link   

boymonkey74
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


His location is under a bridge and his mood trollish...why bite dude?.


In case you're wrong. It doesn't cost anything to ask, so why not?
edit on 1-3-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join