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.

 

Agnosticism, Theism, Atheism - What does it mean?

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: TerryDon79

How could you be 100% certain that is a real god and not simply a hallucination and/or some other phenomena of the brain/consciousness?

Also, being dead and seeing nothing does not mean there is no god...it only means you don't get to see him.



A2D


Well it would have to prove itself, obviously. Don't ask me how coz I haven't thought that far ahead.

As for not seeing him/her/it when you die? If there's nothing there there's no afterlife. No afterlife would mean no deity as described by man.




posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147
Interesting....How do you think we can come to know whether there is or is not a god(s)?


A profound creation of or alteration of something in the natural universe that defies all natural explanations.

For instance, the following would be evidence of a god:

~ a fully formed organism that suddenly appears, has no relation to anything else on Earth, and was not produced through Technological means or humans
~ The unnatural formation/alteration of planets, stars, solar systems or galaxies (similar to above, where it was not produced through technological means)
~ The admitted reveal of a god, with an example of it's power (not through technological means). If pertaining to a specific religion, the verifiable evidence of passed events would be evidence as well.

We could go on with other various evidence, but these would certainly be beneficial to a god's existence.




originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147
Sorry if you may feel like I'm wasting your time...just curious.


I don't feel that you are. You sound honestly curious.
edit on 29/2/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Maybe you don't get to visit the exclusive party? No invite, no party. lol

I think you get my point though...it's hard to be 100% certain of anything...especially when it comes to a concept like god(s)...

A2D



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: TerryDon79

How could you be 100% certain that is a real god and not simply a hallucination and/or some other phenomena of the brain/consciousness


Identical hallucinations don't occur through multiple individuals, everyone reacts differently.

We would have to verify it through objective means.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: TerryDon79

Maybe you don't get to visit the exclusive party? No invite, no party. lol

I think you get my point though...it's hard to be 100% certain of anything...especially when it comes to a concept like god(s)...

A2D


Exactly. That's why I'm an agnostic because we can't prove either way. (Yet)



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

What would make one ascribe those unnatural changes to deity instead of saying it's simply unexplained natural phenomena? If it broke the laws of physics...couldn't we simply say that our understanding of physics is flawed instead of attributing it to the powers of deity?

A2D



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: TerryDon79
I think you get my point though...it's hard to be 100% certain of anything...especially when it comes to a concept like god(s)...


It's impossible to be 100% certain of anything. Once again, you're viewing this as a 'claim' and an 'anti claim' which is not what atheism is.

We can, in fact, have evidence that a particular observation is factual.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147

What would make one ascribe those unnatural changes to deity instead of saying it's simply unexplained natural phenomena? If it broke the laws of physics...couldn't we simply say that our understanding of physics is flawed instead of attributing it to the powers of deity?


It would be circumstantial, therefore entirely speculative to answer such a question.

We have ourselves broken laws in physics. That doesn't make us gods. But, we also did it with technological means.

If a solar system were to pop into existence right next to us, that could suggest evidence of a god.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

If it's impossible to be 100% certain of anything...then it is impossible to NOT be agnostic....

A2D



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   
That's probably to vague a statement to explain the choice

Try

Atheists, without any evidence to the contrary or definite knowledge, choose to deny the possibility of ....

Atheists make a conscious decision not to believe or even not to stay inquisitive as to possibilities.
They actively decide and in circumstances even evangelise their views like other religions

Atheists unlike agnostics choose what they believe, agnostics make no decision



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147

If it's impossible to be 100% certain of anything...then it is impossible to NOT be agnostic....


No, because agnosticism states that the existence of a God is not knowable at all, that would include evidence.

Certainty is impossible, that doesn't mean we can't know anything without any level of certainty
edit on 29/2/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
The root of all these systems of belief is God, and in an ironic sense, they all revolve around God like the earth revolves around the sun. If there is an entry for it in the religion section of a census, and it isn't "none", there is still a religious connection underlying that system of belief. If the adherent cares enough to defend Atheism, Agnosticism, or any "ism" for that matter, he is an acolyte and defender of that belief.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   
“The consequence model, the logical one, the amoral one, the one which refuses any divine intervention, is a problem really for just the (hypothetical) logician.

You see, towards God I would rather be grateful for Heaven (which I do not deserve) than angry about Hell (which I do deserve). By this the logician within must choose either atheism or theism, but he cannot possibly through good reason choose anti-theism. For his friend in this case is not at all mathematical law: the law in that 'this equation, this path will consequently direct me to a specific point'; over the alternative and the one he denies, 'God will send me wherever and do it strictly for his own sovereign amusement.

' The consequence model, the former, seeks the absence of God, which orders he cannot save one from one's inevitable consequences; hence the angry anti-theist within, 'the logical one', the one who wants to be master of his own fate, can only contradict himself - I do not think it wise to be angry at math.”
― Criss Jami, Healology
edit on 1-3-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Wow even for a submissive peon like Jamie, that's some desperate apologetic acrobatics.

Instead of just c+p a poem, how about you let us know what it means to you and how it pertainins to the thread topic?
edit on 1-3-2016 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

Not every word that ends in "ism" is a system of beliefs or an "ism" in the way people usually mean it.

Failure to realise this is why many theists attempt to make the ridiculous claim that the lack of belief is a belief system or that the rejection of the claims made by theists is a religion.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

Just thought it may shed light.

Agnositicism
A in Greek = no + Gnosis = Knowldge + ism = a distinctive practice, system, philosophy or ideology. IN total means a system, practice, Philosophy or ideology of no knowledge. In the case at hand it is literally no knowledge of god.

Theism
Theo in Greek = god + ism = a distinctive practice, system, philosophy or ideology of god.

Atheism
A = no + theism = a distinctive practice, system, philosophy, or ideology of no god.

Religion in a general sense = "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience."

All the above "isms" are in fact a religion to those who adhere to them


edit on 1-3-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Prezbo369

Just thought it may shed light.


Care to explain how exactly?

How about a source for the definitions you posted?



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

get a dictionary



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147




originally posted by: Agree2Disagree a reply to: Ghost147

If it's impossible to be 100% certain of anything...then it is impossible to NOT be agnostic....


No, because agnosticism states that the existence of a God is not knowable at all, that would include evidence.

Certainty is impossible, that doesn't mean we can't know anything without any level of certainty


Ghost147, for someone who is that much into "logic" you behave a lot like some snake that trys to escape being captured.

Didn't the existence of "God" depend a lot on how one defines such "God"? How can anybody claim that "God" does not exist, IF for example this "God" is defined as: The totality of existence as such.

Sometimes you seem as if you argue just because that is what you can do best. As if it doesn't matter what ones says, you are against it, because that's what you do, arguing against it for the sake of doing so. Could that be a possibility, Ghost? And that would indeed explain a lot. Being unable and/or unwilling to agree to disagree is just this: The stance, "I'm right and others are wrong, no matter how right they are, because I'm right only!!"

And by the way, what is logic anyway? Are we talking about formal logic? Psycho-logic? Personal logic? Trans-personal-logic? You tell me, Ghost, what kind of logic you are trying to prove so feverishly.


edit on 1-3-2016 by Willingly because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Prezbo369

get a dictionary


Well... If you insist! Heck, I'll use encyclopedias too!


Atheism (Oxford Dictionaries): Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Atheism (according to Encyclopædia Britannica): "Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons ... : for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God ... because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers ... because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., "God" is just another name for love, or ... a symbolic term for moral ideals."

Atheism (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy): An 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition.

Atheism (The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief. Prometheus Books): Atheism is simply the absence of belief in the gods


Odd... I don't see anything stating that atheism is a distinctive "practice, system, philosophy, or ideology of no god"

All they state is that Atheism is a lack of belief in god.


originally posted by: ChesterJohn
All the above "isms" are in fact a religion to those who adhere to them


Is that so? Perhaps we should continue with the definition of religion?

Religion (Pew Research Center ): Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, ethics, and social organisation that relate humanity to an order of existence.

Dictionary.com
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites:

Merriam Webster
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


Looks like atheism doesn't fall under any of those defining traits.

Why?

Because atheism says nothing. It doesn't claim anything. It doesn't have a system that it follows. It doesn't present any philosophical answers to anything. There are no practices within it. There are no moral standards in which atheists must follow. There are no traditions

Yes, there are some atheists that do make claims, some that do have traditions, some that follow a specific philosophy, some that have a firm position based on a belief alone, but those traits are individuality. They do not stem from their Atheism because the only thing that defines atheism collectively is a lack of belief in gods.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join