It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Agnostics and Atheists

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby
No, an agnostic holds that the existence of god is inherently unknowable. So they can neither believe, nor disbelieve. An atheist disbelieves. Two different concepts.


They lack a belief in god/s.....just like atheists do.

They didn't say yes when asked if they believe in god/s, therefore they're atheists.




posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: DISRAELI

In large part that's because of the BS talking point that atheism is A religion. Some how they convinced people that atheists KNOW there isn't a God as much as the religiouso believe there is one.... .......


Yes atheism is not "A" religion.....however atheism is "religion" because it is BELIEF(i.e something not known) in some peoples "Belief System".The same with agnosticism religion ...it is just belief.Neither are "A" religion only a part of someones "religion".



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rex282
Yes atheism is not "A" religion.....however atheism is "religion" because it is BELIEF(i.e something not known) in some peoples "Belief System".The same with agnosticism religion ...it is just belief.Neither are "A" religion only a part of someones "religion".


Is not believing in Ewoks also "religion"?



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
OP is right, although I think people can legitimately be in the middle of figuring things out (and working against the cultural grain) during their younger years and honestly feel like they are agnostic at some point, and atheists at others; maybe even could have an unexplained spiritual or psychic event and then go full on into deism. Explanations for some things are hard to come by, after all.

Now, if I had to pick a god, I'd pick Apollo. Not apparently psychotic like the biblical god, and hot, hot, hot. And the Egyptian gods have their appeal, too. Cats, storks, dog and even alligator gods? Kewl.

Whatever the Christians may say, atheists only believe in one less god than they do. There's literally hundreds to pick from.



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Moresby
No, an agnostic holds that the existence of god is inherently unknowable. So they can neither believe, nor disbelieve. An atheist disbelieves. Two different concepts.


They lack a belief in god/s.....just like atheists do.

They didn't say yes when asked if they believe in god/s, therefore they're atheists.


No, they are in an in-between state. They neither believe, nor disbelieve. That is an entirely acceptable philosophical position to hold. And that's where agnostics choose to hang their hats.

It seems you have a very binary view of the world. So this is a hard concept for you to grasp.

But the world isn't binary. And agnostics hold a non-binary view on the existence of God. It's a perfectly credible position to hold, whether you understand it or not.



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

Agnostic is just a label people give themselves if they want to keep their spiritual beliefs, but not be lumped in with Christians. Most will claim being agnostic, but if you bring up other, more obscure gods, they will look at you like you are crazy.

To be truly agnostic you would need to be equally agnostic about all possible gods. If you think one is more likely than the others, then you are not agnostic and are just a closet theist. I cant find the video, but I heard a great line one that was something like "You don't meet many people who are agnostic about Zeus". IMO that pretty much sums it up.

DC



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

Yeah, but sticking with a negative implies one sides with that negative claim... I think there is a lack of information to reach a definitive conclusion, either way (or sideways)... thus "agnostic."

If you're really pushing for definitive labels, you're gonna be butt sore in this world.


edit on 6/21/2014 by Baddogma because: predictive strikes again ...badly



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I am an atheist.

...

I wonder if there is a god.


Would be nice to know my awesomeness is being counted in some form...But yeah, I don't buy into Odin, I mean, wielding lightning and tossing it down? please...and Ra? We know full well the sun is not a god, its just a ball of gas, Zeus? gimme a break, Yehweh? lol. Jupiter? come on, your joking! etc etc etc.



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby
No, they are in an in-between state. They neither believe, nor disbelieve. That is an entirely acceptable philosophical position to hold. And that's where agnostics choose to hang their hats.


They lack the belief in a god, and if you do not posses a belief in a god, you're not a theist but an atheist.

Is there an in between 'state' for stamp collecting? or is it that you either collect stamps or you don't?


It seems you have a very binary view of the world. So this is a hard concept for you to grasp.


This issue is completely binary, you either believe or you don't, you either accept the claims made by theists or you don't.


But the world isn't binary. And agnostics hold a non-binary view on the existence of God. It's a perfectly credible position to hold, whether you understand it or not.


To claim to be an agnostic on the existence of a god but not atheist, is a nonsensical position to hold. Agnostics have not accepted the claims made by god and they lack the belief in a god....therefore they're atheists....



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Baddogma
a reply to: Prezbo369
Yeah, but sticking with a negative implies one sides with that negative claim... I think there is a lack of information to reach a definitive conclusion, either way (or sideways)... thus "agnostic."


Atheists don't have a definitive conclusion, they've just rejected a specific claim. Is it a negative to not collect stamps?


If you're really pushing for definitive labels, you're gonna be butt sore in this world.


As I said in the OP, it's more about getting people to stand up and be counted as well as maybe perhaps getting some to consider the words they use.

Lots of folk (in this thread alone) have huge misconceptions as to what an atheist actually is.



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Moresby
No, an agnostic holds that the existence of god is inherently unknowable. So they can neither believe, nor disbelieve. An atheist disbelieves. Two different concepts.


They lack a belief in god/s.....just like atheists do.

They didn't say yes when asked if they believe in god/s, therefore they're atheists.


No, they are in an in-between state. They neither believe, nor disbelieve. That is an entirely acceptable philosophical position to hold. And that's where agnostics choose to hang their hats.

It seems you have a very binary view of the world. So this is a hard concept for you to grasp.

But the world isn't binary. And agnostics hold a non-binary view on the existence of God. It's a perfectly credible position to hold, whether you understand it or not.


The entire world may be expressed through binary language. When virtual reality becomes as ubiquitous a commodity as the Gameboy or the Xbox, we will explore vast worlds constructed entirely from 1's and 0's. And the truth of the matter is, God either is, or is not. God is not a "sometimes" or a "hopefully" or a "maybe if you squint hard enough". He either exists or he does not. 1 or 0.

So binary is very good way of looking at it. And agnostics look at it as it could be "yes" or "no", could be 1 or 0. Which is essentially an unhelpful position to take, given its lack of definitive positioning, which is why they take it. Agnosticism makes no claim except that the person is uncertain of the correct answer.



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Rex282
Yes atheism is not "A" religion.....however atheism is "religion" because it is BELIEF(i.e something not known) in some peoples "Belief System".The same with agnosticism religion ...it is just belief.Neither are "A" religion only a part of someones "religion".


Is not believing in Ewoks also "religion"?


yes ... because it is impossible to "prove Ewoks don't exist you can only believe they don't.You can't even prove you exist.Your whole life is based in "belief" of "your" Belief System religion.Only true facts can be known...1+1=2



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Moresby
No, they are in an in-between state. They neither believe, nor disbelieve. That is an entirely acceptable philosophical position to hold. And that's where agnostics choose to hang their hats.


They lack the belief in a god, and if you do not posses a belief in a god, you're not a theist but an atheist.

Is there an in between 'state' for stamp collecting? or is it that you either collect stamps or you don't?


It seems you have a very binary view of the world. So this is a hard concept for you to grasp.


This issue is completely binary, you either believe or you don't, you either accept the claims made by theists or you don't.


But the world isn't binary. And agnostics hold a non-binary view on the existence of God. It's a perfectly credible position to hold, whether you understand it or not.


To claim to be an agnostic on the existence of a god but not atheist, is a nonsensical position to hold. Agnostics have not accepted the claims made by god and they lack the belief in a god....therefore they're atheists....


What's nonsensical is your inability to understand a very simple concept.

An agnostic doesn't believe the existence of God is knowable, so he chooses to neither believe nor disbelieve in God. He cannot stand with team atheist, because they disbelieve in God. And he does not disbelieve in God.

It's about knowledge. It's not about belief. The agnostic does not know, because he cannot know. And because he cannot know, he can neither believe nor disbelieve.

The agnostic feels that the question doesn't work. It's like being asked what's behind a locked door for which there is no key.

The atheist says there's nothing behind that door. The religious person says God is behind that door. But the agnostic says I have no way of knowing what's behind that door. So I cannot side with either of you.



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby

What's nonsensical is your inability to understand a very simple concept.


Perhaps unsurprisingly I've been thinking the same thing about you since your first reply.


An agnostic doesn't believe the existence of God is knowable, so he chooses to neither believe nor disbelieve in God. He cannot stand with team atheist, because they disbelieve in God. And he does not disbelieve in God.


I'll say it again for increased clarity.......the claim for the existence of god/s has been made by theists, agnostics not making a claim one way or another as to the existence of such creatures, have nevertheless no belief in a god (due to them thinking it's unknowable w/e) and therefore lack a belief in a god. This makes them.......atheists....as that's all that's required.


It's about knowledge. It's not about belief. The agnostic does not know, because he cannot know. And because he cannot know, he can neither believe nor disbelieve.


Do you still think atheists know/think they know? they don't, they've merely rejected the claim of a god made by theists in the same way agnostics have. If either 'side' had accepted the claim they'd be theists...


The agnostic feels that the question doesn't work. It's like being asked what's behind a locked door for which there is no key.
The atheist says there's nothing behind that door. The religious person says God is behind that door. But the agnostic says I have no way of knowing what's behind that door. So I cannot side with either of you.


Thats a faulty analogy as in this context it's the theist claiming that god is behind the door, and the agnostic and atheist positions are just responses to that particular claim.



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rex282
yes ... because it is impossible to "prove Ewoks don't exist you can only believe they don't.You can't even prove you exist.Your whole life is based in "belief" of "your" Belief System religion.Only true facts can be known...1+1=2


Sounds dangerously close to solipsism to me




posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

You seem to believe the inability to answer a question implies a specific answer.

That makes no logical sense.

And the agnostic is not merely saying he cannot answer. He gives a reason he cannot answer. The answer is unknowable.

Consider this equation:

A + B = C+D

Now solve for the value of "D".

Of course, you cannot do that. The answer is unknowable. There isn't enough information there to solve for "D".

Now along comes a person who says, "D = 1". And then along comes another person who says, "I disbelieve that D = 1."

There is no way to logically argue that by being unable to solve that equation you are either agreeing or disagreeing with either of these people.

You are not answering the question, because you cannot answer the question. And there is no process to divine an answer from your inability to answer. You simply cannot answer given the information before you.

This is agnosticism.



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby
a reply to: Prezbo369
You seem to believe the inability to answer a question implies a specific answer.

That makes no logical sense.


I've said this a few times now but i'll happily say it again, the rejection of a claim is not a itself a claim.


And the agnostic is not merely saying he cannot answer. He gives a reason he cannot answer. The answer is unknowable.


....right, so they lack the belief in a god....


Consider this equation:

A + B = C+D

Now solve for the value of "D".

Of course, you cannot do that. The answer is unknowable. There isn't enough information there to solve for "D".

Now along comes a person who says, "D = 1". And then along comes another person who says, "I disbelieve that D = 1."

There is no way to logically argue that by being unable to solve that equation you are either agreeing or disagreeing with either of these people.


That analogy is way out of context.

'D=1-ists' make the claim that D=1

Other people then hear the claim and either accept the claim, reject the claim or choose not to answer.

People that accept the claim are D=1-ists, while everyone else are by default non-A=1-ists.


You are not answering the question, because you cannot answer the question. And there is no process to divine an answer from your inability to answer. You simply cannot answer given the information before you.


To be a theist is to accept the claims made for theism, if you don't accept those claims (for whatever reason) you are by default lacking the belief in god/s and therefore an atheist.



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   
The only thing common among these labels is that they concern themselves too much with the concept of God. Outside of the religious narrative they are quite meaningless.



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby
a reply to: Prezbo369


Consider this equation:

A + B = C+D

Now solve for the value of "D".


.



I understand the point you are trying to make however this argument does not prove it because I can solve this problem an infinite amount of ways.Here's just one.


1+4=2+3

D=3



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rex282

originally posted by: Moresby
a reply to: Prezbo369


Consider this equation:

A + B = C+D

Now solve for the value of "D".


.



I understand the point you are trying to make however this argument does not prove it because I can solve this problem an infinite amount of ways.Here's just one.


1+4=2+3

D=3





Oh, c'mon, you know that's not the solution. I don't think even people teaching the "Common Core" would accept that as a solution. Well, maybe them.



In algebraic equations you need ....

Oh, I'm not going to do that. You went to High School, you understand how algebraic equations work. You were just being all contrary and Internety on me.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join