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.

 

Dear "agnostics": You're atheists, get over it.

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
It's called an English dictionary or just google it. It's easy to get a definition of a word like that.


People should try it more often.

Deny ignorance




posted on May, 2 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Hawking
 


...and neither do I...I just also acknowledge that I don't believe. I'm actually not certain about all sorts of things. I cannot be certain of the nonexistence of (insert mythical creature that evades detection here), yet I can safely say that I do not believe it exists.

 


Take this as a form response to all similar exceptions. Agnosticism isn't a form of 'wisdom' and to claim so is nothing more than intellectual snobbery based on a very sophomoric understanding of philosophy.


How about looking at it like a trial. I don't feel I have enough evidence yet to convict God of existing but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Does that clear things up for you? I'm sorry you're having such a hard time understanding this



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Hawking
 


It doesn't clear anything up because it doesn't answer the question: "Do you believe in a deity?"

No? That makes you an atheist. Atheist is merely the default position until you are convinced of the existence of any deity. I'm still out on all the possible deities and would gladly accept evidence in favor of them were it to be presented. I'd look at it critically and accept or reject it on its merits.

...but I still don't believe in any of them right now. That makes me (and you) an atheist.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Dictionaries tend to be hardly useful in these sorts of philosophical discussions. Why? Well, they refer to common usage...and common usage is not a great way to determine things. Hell, every dictionary I can get my hands on (I have about 4 physical ones) refers to the proper-name monotheistic deity "God" when defining an atheist...so that's clearly a biased definition based solely on cultural perceptions rather than term accuracy.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


You got a point there. It should say god/s or deity/ies of all origin. I think your dictionaries are biased.


Anyway...

Why do you bother to pick a in what seems a matter of perspective into a philosophical debate when you already now your answer. Not that isn't way better the



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
I'd like to know why my beliefs have to fall into either one or the other categories. What about religions that don't have a deity, would followers of a religion like that be atheists. Ya know like Taoism , Buddhism, or those that worship nature spirits or some such entity.
edit on 2-5-2011 by dug88 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Who cares about labels, whether Atheist, Agnostic, Christian.

We all like to perceive the same things differently base on individual core beliefs.

Hence,

Atheists = based on facts
Christians/Spiritualist = based on spiritualism
Agnostics = undecided

Just throwing it out there


Peace



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Hawking
 


It doesn't clear anything up because it doesn't answer the question: "Do you believe in a deity?"



You still need to snap out of this duality of thought. This is not a black and white issue. For example let me give you two answers to the above question , you tell me what each one labels me as:

A1) I do beleive that it is possible such a deity exists, but I have not seen enough evidenc to personally beleive in one.

A2) I do not beleive it is possible for such a deity to exists, so no, I don't beleive in a deity.

I see the above responces as two diferent world views, how you label each of them?



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
I don't know, therefor don't believe one way or another.

How is that statement difficult to comprehend? Some days I SUSPECT that there may be a structural, probably intelligent force in the universe which guides events. Is it the same God written about by the various religious sects around the world? The hell do I know. Maybe it will turn out that some long dead form of worship from the lower Mesapotamian basin is the correct religion. Maybe it's ancient alien theory. Maybe it's something completely unknown because we don't have the brainpower to put divinity into concepts understandable to people.

And then other days I'm not seeing God in anything; got cat poo on the bedcovers, late for work and projects that never seem to be finished.

What bugs me about Atheists and Theists alike is the damned pride. "I don't believe in invisible mens up in the sky like those crazy Christians." Well, great. Good for you. Way to not seem like you're carrying a grudge about your upbringing or something.
"I DO believe in invisible mens in the sky," well that's cool too. Have fun with that and may externalizing your sense of wonderment into a language that you can talk to other people about bring you a lifetime of joy.

Me, I'm happy to acknowledge the possibility of either, but not so much that I'm going to church, or waste any more time listening to Dawkins rambling with barely contained superiority. Of course, if one of the above views is correct, it won't matter wheras if the other is, well I'll have some quick thinking and fast talking to do in the afterlife

As far as I know and therefor believe, everyone may have gotten the subject of divinity ass-backwards.
What's left? Personal experience...and that's no one's business but my own.

And by the by, if it makes you feel good to label people who you don't know "closet deists" or what have you, that's cool too. It's not a statement of true fact, however...it's something that helps you through the day. Has the same condrascending tone as "forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do."

Will finish up by adressing the overused atheist statement that science is provable therefor requires no faith. Of course science requires faith; faith that people, using the scientific method will eventually figure everything out. You're on a conspiracy site, there's weird stuff happening in every nook and cranny. What keeps myself and others coming back here is getting past the layers of crud and finding the true unanswerable questions, the mysteries and the speculations. But eventually, some day, I hope (that's "hope", not "believe") that science may answer some of the weird stuff rather than glossing over it or coming up with neat catch-all phrases like "mass hysteria" or "placebo effects".
Maybe we'll even find out how magnets work, lol. (j/k)

To paraphrase someone likely smarter than myself, scientific dogma has the same lifespan as it's current proponents, which definitely implies a belief system at work. When the old guys die and new eyes look at a problem, that's when we have breakthroughs.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
No I think there's DEFINETLY a difference between atheist and agnostics. I was raised Christian but I'm currently borderline agnostic. I don't follow all the teachings in the scripture as it seems very contradictory to me. And I'd hate to have to believe an infinitly loving God could create a place of eternal torment for his creations..that doesn't sound very just or loving.

Now, we are NOT the same. You believe there is no god, supreme being, or creator. In my eyes that makes you counter-intuitive, less open-minded, and more illogical than us agnostics. By my logic, as an artist, I know what exactly goes into creating a piece of art. I am a creator, and my creations are a testament to my existence. The universe in my eyes is the ultimate work of art. It is incredibly complex, beautiful, magnificent, confounding, infinite, enigmatic, and begs to ask the question, how could you honestly think there is no creator? That's not very logical



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Here's a thought...

HOW ABOUT EVERYONE JUST ADMITS THEY'RE WRONG


The world would be a better place



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
With all due respect, you're quite off the mark on this one. Whilst I am not an atheist, I do take issue that you pretend to know what it is to be an agnostic. The issue of is there or isn't there a God is not black and white. On one side you have the religious and secularists (the latter being people who believe in God but adhere to no specific religion). On the other side, you have atheists who, obviously, don't believe in God at all, in any way, shape, or form. Agnostics are smack dab in between. They simply don't know what to believe because there is no evidence to suggest there is a God, but they also don't full on believe there to be a God. They just admit that there they don't know and wouldn't presume to know.

An atheist believes 100% that there is no God. That is a far cry from being agnostic and I find it highly interesting that you would try to redefine a term that is pretty clear in its definition and that people frequently use to describe their spiritual beliefs in the best way they can.

So, i'm not really sure what there is to "get over".



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   
So everyone knows what an Athiest is now.
Basically, someone who Believes in the (Biblical) God, or other Gods.

Being Agnostic does not preclude a belief in some sort of Universal Awareness. With traditional agnosticism that deity/awareness is thought to be what is at your core and has been hidden by "mystery". Hence why Gnostic is about coming to know one's "Self". It is atheistic in that it does not hold to a Belief in "God or Gods" as traditionally believed by Followers of Religions.

So there is quite a difference between the meanings and application of Athiest and Agnostic.


edit on 2-5-2011 by Tayesin because: coz I'm just silly



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
This whole thread is a giant ismIST belief fest.

It is highly likely that the OP will religiously defend what he (I am assuming a male, apologies if you aren't) has said and will never concede that his wording or even his logic is unclear or faulty.

He likes baiting those who have belief/s in God/s and cannot see that we are all agnostic until we have direct evidence of God.

As he said in a previous post, he doesn't discount the possibility of a deity but has seen no proof. This most definitely is the description of an agnostic.

The fact that one can be a theist by belief and agnostic by experience dumps his pet theories on the meanings of words in the bin!

Madnessinmysoul, don't try and argue semantics, I suspect it is not really your forte.

edit on 3/5/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Raelsatu
 


I could not have put it better if I'd tried.

Star for you!



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Dear O.P.

Please explain to me what I am because I am apparently confused according to you. I don't believe in a particular god or goddess. I believe there is the possibility of one or many existing , but I certainly can't say that for certain. Some days I tend to lean towards believing that there is a higher..well.. something, but sometimes I have my doubts, but I am perfectly comfortable with not knowing, because it an incredible journey exploring all the different possibilities with an opened mind. Now I was under the impression that I was agnostic but you seem to know better than I so please set me straight.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by clockwerkninja
 


Thanks for that. I was gonna say that. I believe in a Supreme being and Jesus...Mohammed...Budda...and Im sure the hell not ATHEIST. Im an AGNOSTIC.

Dont cha just get tired of all these isolated-organized-religious-my-way-the-only-way-or-else folks? Its a shame they are so closed minded....c'mon folks! And we are the only beings in all of the universes too...all the rest are just plain fallen angels! (As my J.W. friends keep sayin')

Oh! And God is good!



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hawking
Because being "agnostic" means being wise enough to say "I don't know for certain."


I've got seven arms. Are you agnostic to that or do you think I'm talking rubbish? Nobody lives there life like that. You only apply the agnostic "I don't know for certain." principals to religion. You don't live the rest of your life like that, you're making an exception because you're a hypocrite.

Person 1 - Hey jimmy, are you a Republican or a Democrat?
Jimmy - I'm Agnostic
Person 1 - What does that mean?
Jimmy - I'm wise enough to realise I don't know for certain
Person 1 - wtf

Being Agnostic is to fence sit and misunderstand the English language. NOBODY knows for certain, but there is no point stating the obvious. How many Atheists or Theists do you meet who say "I know as a fact that I'm right", you'd be hard pressed. Your opinion is no different than any other Atheist, you just have an ego and like to give yourself an erroneous title.

You're either an Atheist or a Theist, there really is no middle ground. You believe or you don't. That you publicly disclaimer your beliefs with "I don't know for certain" means nothing. There are 2 types of Agnostics - There's Agnostic-Theists and Agnostic-Atheists. You're still one or the other, whether you like it or not.

Ultimately though there's nothing wise about Agnosticism. It's the middle ground fallacy in all its glory.





posted on May, 3 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Hey Madness!

I'd say dictionaries that talk of common usage are exactly the kind we should be using. Common usage means exactly that- they are the definitions of words in the sense that most people today use them. I mean, otherwise, what other criteria would you use? "Earliest/Original usage"? Because according to that, everyone except believers in the Greek pantheon are atheists.

Now there is the possibility of using your question to delineate the issue: "Do you believe in the existence of a deity?"

One could indeed say "Yes" "No" and "I don't know".

"I don't know" is not a subset of "No". If someone asked "Do you believe the sun will rise in the east tomorrow?"

Most people would answer "Yes".
Maybe a couple (doomsday enthusiasts?) would say "No".
Some would say "Maybe. How the hell should I know?"

This doesn't mean they are saying it will or it won't. Their position is DEFINED by a lack of position.

It seems funny that it is mostly those atheists who play these semantics games, that slowly try to expand the definition of atheism and thus must push so hard for agnosticism to be nullified as a position.

Perhaps there can be such a thing as an agnostic atheist, and perhaps even an agnostic theist, but there can certainly also be such a thing as a agnostic who is neither atheist nor theist, and there are people who define themselves as such.
edit on 3-5-2011 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
Hey Madness!

I'd say dictionaries that talk of common usage are exactly the kind we should be using. Common usage means exactly that- they are the definitions of words in the sense that most people today use them. I mean, otherwise, what other criteria would you use? "Earliest/Original usage"? Because according to that, everyone except believers in the Greek pantheon are atheists.

Now there is the possibility of using your question to delineate the issue: "Do you believe in the existence of a deity?"

One could indeed say "Yes" "No" and "I don't know".

"I don't know" is not a subset of "No". If someone asked "Do you believe the sun will rise in the east tomorrow?"

Most people would answer "Yes".
Maybe a couple (doomsday enthusiasts?) would say "No".
Some would say "Maybe. How the hell should I know?"

This doesn't mean they are saying it will or it won't. Their position is DEFINED by a lack of position.

It seems funny that it is mostly those atheists who play these semantics games, that slowly try to expand the definition of atheism and thus must push so hard for agnosticism to be nullified as a position.

Perhaps there can be such a thing as an agnostic atheist, and perhaps even an agnostic theist, but there can certainly also be such a thing as a agnostic who is neither atheist nor theist, and there are people who define themselves as such.
edit on 3-5-2011 by babloyi because: (no reason given)


Not true. There is no such thing as an agnostic who is neither atheist or theist. To not know is to not believe. If you don't believe, you're an Atheist. You don't have to like it, but that's what you are.

Again; Not knowing is NOT believing. If you don't know, you don't believe. How could you?

Do you believe in God? There are 3 answers - Yes, no and I don't know. "I don't know" is to not believe. "I don't know" IS a subset of Atheism. So your analogy isn't really correct.

If someone asked "Do you believe the sun will rise in the east tomorrow?"

Most people would answer "Yes". - Theism
Maybe a couple (doomsday enthusiasts?) would say "No". - Atheism
Some would say "Maybe. How the hell should I know?" - Also Atheism


belief

–noun
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

You're pigeon holing Atheism to be only the belief there is no God, it's not. Atheism is also the absence of belief, which encompasses "I don't know". People who don't know are Atheists. That's why Agnosticism is a pointless word, you're a Theist or you aren't. If you aren't, you're Atheist.
edit on 3-5-2011 by NadaCambia because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join