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

reply to post by NadaCambia

At this point it seems we've come to a "I'm right!" "No, I'm right!" level of the discussion, which is pretty pointless.
Considering that there ARE people who say they are agnostics, and who also say they are not atheists, I'm willing to believe them. Considering that standard definitions of "agnostic" ALSO include people who are neither atheist nor theist, I tend to believe those definitions.

It's like the whole catholic thing: Hilarious how some christians are so adamant that catholics are not christians, while catholics insist that they are.

So a person who says "Maybe. How the hell should I know?" in response to the question "Do you believe the sun will rise in the east tomorrow?" is ACTUALLY saying "No, I don't believe it will"?

Don't be silly.

reply to post by dug88


...they're still atheists. No deities. Atheism has nothing to do with faeries or unicorns or nature spirits. It is merely a position of nonbelief in deities.

reply to post by Shamatt


Agnostic Atheist
Gnostic Atheist

I thought that one was already sorted out. Agnostic is a position on whether or not the question is absolutely knowable, not whether or not you believe. Both people described are atheists as they both lack a belief in any deity.

reply to post by Unresponsible

Originally posted by Unresponsible
I don't know, therefor don't believe one way or another.

You're...well...wrong. It's not an issue of belief in one vs belief in another. It's an issue of whether or not you believe a given statement. That is whether you believe a deity exists. If you do not believe a deity exists...then you are automatically an atheist.

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.

Suspicion is not the same as belief.

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.

Hey look, it's a straw man.

You know what, I'm going to ignore the rest because I have a lot to respond to and you're simply wrong. I'll gladly show you how you're wrong, but I don't feel like taking the time until I'm done responding to others.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Shamatt

 

Agnostic Atheist
Gnostic Atheist

I thought that one was already sorted out. Agnostic is a position on whether or not the question is absolutely knowable, not whether or not you believe. Both people described are atheists as they both lack a belief in any deity.

Fair enough. Millions of us will continue to use the words incorrectly.

You, in your wosdom and brilliance can start being the onlu person in the world to use the words the way you are proposing. Have fun.

Jeeez, how can someone be so thick sculled and arrogent? Must be a teeneager

reply to post by Raelsatu

Originally posted by Raelsatu
No I think there's DEFINETLY a difference between atheist and agnostics.

Well, you're wrong.

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.

Well...do you believe in the deity or don't you? If you believe the deity exists, you're a theist (possibly an agnostic theist) who doesn't accept doctrinal positions on scripture. If you don't believe in the deity then you're an agnostic atheist who thinks there are some useful points in a religious book.

Now, we are NOT the same. You believe there is no god, supreme being, or creator.

You don't know what the term 'atheist' means. It's been cleared up several times. I do not believe in any deity. It is a rejection of a positive claim, not a positive claim against something.

In my eyes that makes you counter-intuitive,

Heard of a little thing called science? Even some of the basics of it are counterintuitive.

less open-minded,

Because I reject claims that aren't backed up in evidence?

and more illogical than us agnostics.

...yet you don't seem to understand logic. It's a binary position. You either believe or you don't. Your certainty on the claim is entirely separate. I am an agnostic atheist.

By my logic, as an artist, I know what exactly goes into creating a piece of art.

Ugh...not this again.

I am a creator, and my creations are a testament to my existence.

...actually, no. Our evidence of people creating art is how we infer that art has people that created it.

The universe in my eyes is the ultimate work of art.

So it was designed because it's so pretty? I'm sorry, but that's just a bad argument. The argument from design is just generally flawed.

It is incredibly complex, beautiful, magnificent, confounding, infinite, enigmatic, and begs to ask the question, how could you honestly think there is no creator?

Because there is no evidence for a creator. Your personal intuitions on the subject aren't rational conclusions based upon evidence, you simply lack an understanding of the natural world and are thus arguing from your personal ignorance.

You need to demonstrate that there is a creator, not simply assume there is a creator because the universe exists.

Pears exist, therefore there is a pearsmith who carves them!

That's not very logical

Says the individual who just demonstrated a lack of logic.

reply to post by nunya13


How many damn times am I going to have to respond to this nonsense?

Originally posted by nunya13
An atheist believes 100% that there is no God.

Incorrect. How many times am I going to have to respond to this claim?

An atheist is an individual who does not believe in any deity. There is a difference between not believing and believing not.

The difference?

Agnostic atheism
Gnostic atheism.

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

Your personal ignorance of the term atheist.

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by NadaCambia

 

At this point it seems we've come to a "I'm right!" "No, I'm right!" level of the discussion, which is pretty pointless.
Considering that there ARE people who say they are agnostics, and who also say they are not atheists, I'm willing to believe them. Considering that standard definitions of "agnostic" ALSO include people who are neither atheist nor theist, I tend to believe those definitions.

It's like the whole catholic thing: Hilarious how some christians are so adamant that catholics are not christians, while catholics insist that they are.

So a person who says "Maybe. How the hell should I know?" in response to the question "Do you believe the sun will rise in the east tomorrow?" is ACTUALLY saying "No, I don't believe it will"?

Don't be silly.

edit on 3-5-2011 by babloyi because: (no reason given)

No, I'm saying your analogy isn't applicable.

Originally posted by Shamatt

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Shamatt

 

Agnostic Atheist
Gnostic Atheist

I thought that one was already sorted out. Agnostic is a position on whether or not the question is absolutely knowable, not whether or not you believe. Both people described are atheists as they both lack a belief in any deity.

Fair enough. Millions of us will continue to use the words incorrectly.

You, in your wosdom and brilliance can start being the onlu person in the world to use the words the way you are proposing. Have fun.

Jeeez, how can someone be so thick sculled and arrogent? Must be a teeneager

In the UK what he's saying is both the accepted definition and understanding of Atheism and Agnosticism. He's hardly unique in his views. In fact most theologians and noted Atheists agree too.

Originally posted by NadaCambia

Originally posted by Shamatt

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Shamatt

 

Agnostic Atheist
Gnostic Atheist

I thought that one was already sorted out. Agnostic is a position on whether or not the question is absolutely knowable, not whether or not you believe. Both people described are atheists as they both lack a belief in any deity.

Fair enough. Millions of us will continue to use the words incorrectly.

You, in your wosdom and brilliance can start being the onlu person in the world to use the words the way you are proposing. Have fun.

Jeeez, how can someone be so thick sculled and arrogent? Must be a teeneager

In the UK what he's saying is both the accepted definition and understanding of Atheism and Agnosticism. He's hardly unique in his views. In fact most theologians and noted Atheists agree too.

I spent most of my life in the UK I was born there. What he is saying is a crock. He keeps saying "How often do I have to explain this" - Well, Untill he gets it right he will have a lot of explaining to do matey!

So many intelligent people have tried to put him rught here, but he stil sticks with his stupid duality.

All Oranges are fruit, therfore all fruit is oranges.
Athiests don't beleive in a god so if you don't beleive in a god your are an athiest.

This is flawed logic as it assumes that those who have not yet made up their minds must, by definition not yet beleive in god and therfore they must be by definition an Athiest. Doh!

And if you start getting to the nitty gritty, Athiests beleive there is no god, agnostics can't decide, just don;t know..... then all sorts of non logical mumbo jumbo gets thrown about which really makes little sence at all.

This guy is a brilliant arguer, if only he could get his poor little head arround some basic English words. Perhaps purchase a dictionary, or check out some online recourses wchich would help him look up the meaning or words.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


How can you have Gnostic Atheism? You don't even know that I exist for certain how can you be sure that God doesn't exist? You can say that you believe there is no God, but how can you know? We're all agnostics until we die.

Believe what you want but if you claim to know you are just as delusional as the creationists you so love to claim superiority over.

reply to post by Buddha1098

We're all agnostics until we die.

Not true, i'd think you would understand that from the other posts i've seen you make

reply to post by Shamatt


Finished with your ad hominem?

I think he's been pretty reasonable considering a lot of user's lack of ability to read through the questions or points already posed.

Gnosticism = Knowing (with knowledge)
Agnosticism = Not Knowing (without knowledge)

Theist - I believe in God. (positive belief)
Atheist - I don't believe in God (response to positive belief - in most cases)

Proposition: "GOD exists"

As no one knows whether this is true how could such a theory be formed? It must have been formed on the basis of not knowing. (Unfalsifiable hypothesis - Not always false, but not nessarily true either )

Many Atheists reason their lack of belief through agnosticism. Why would i assume there's a teapot factory in the alpha-centurai system, just because i can't prove it wrong or right? Just because i don't have knowledge to prove or not? What reason is there to have faith?

Summary

Gnostic Atheist - knows, and claims as truth that there is no God (or specific God defined by man)
Agnostic Atheist - Aware of lack of knowledge, doesn't believe positive theory.

Gnostic Theist - Knows, and claims truth to an existence of a deity.
Agnostic Theist - Acknowledges lack of knowledge, but still believes or has "faith"(sometimes justified by Pascal's wager)

I make the claim that no human has knowledge of the "unknown".....that's why it's the unknown.

reply to post by Akragon


Absolutely it's true. I believe because I have experienced the divine and I believe my experiences to be authentic, but I also concede that I could be delusional or mistaken. I have no empirical evidence that the spiritual realm exists so I do not claim knowledge of it.

reply to post by Buddha1098


i understand that... I've had experiences myself, but i wouldn't place them in the delusional catagory. If you know the truth of existance why dilute it by presenting the possibility of insanity.

Perhaps its fear of being wrong?

reply to post by Buddha1098


You would have to have enough evidence to make the statement that you would claim to know that there isn't any deity.

In a sense, I'm a gnostic atheist with regard to the four foot tall glowing red deity of the storms that someone would claim lives quite visibly on my ceiling fan. That deity is within knowledge, therefore I am a gnostic atheist with regard to it...but other deities are so nebulously defined that they are simply unfalsifiable at the moment.

And to clarify, I'm an agnostic atheist with regards to the majority of deity claims...the vast majority.


Edit again...

I'd also like to clarify that I don't feel superior to creationists...they're just wrong about some things that I'm not wrong about. We're all wrong about something.

reply to post by Shamatt


As has already been pointed out to you...you're wrong. And I'm neither a teenager nor do I have any problem with the English language. Wouldn't you know...I actually get paid to teach people the damn language and I could get a job doing so in pretty much any country that had an available position at the moment.

So not only are you wrong about the argument, as awake_and_aware pointed out, you're wrong about me. Hell, I'm one of the few people on here that actually gives my birth date...and I have been on here since '05....

The proposition is "Do you believe in one or more deities?" If your answer is "No" then you are an atheist, no matter how you qualify that no. If you say "No, but I could be wrong", you are an agnostic atheist. If your answer is "Yes" you are a theist.

The problem I seem to find is that you haven't bothered proposing a counter argument, yet I'm taking the pain to try to explain things in different ways in the hope that you might understand.

(double)

reply to post by Akragon


Or you're just being rational...personal experience is not the best thing to base reality claims on. Certain aspects of reality are counter-intuitive and the human brain itself is great at tricking itself.