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

reply to post by mbartelsm

Originally posted by mbartelsm
No, I'm saying that there is a point in which both can overlap and opening the possibility of being called "equal", but there are also points in which the two meanings do not overlap,

And I fully agree with you there. I put that point as the distinction between 'agnostic' and 'gnostic' atheists.

for example, people who blindly deny the possibility of any deity ever existed or will ever exist, that person is, by no means an agnostic; or people who believe in deities, but are in doubt about their true existence, they are agnostics, but they are also theists.

And I fully agree. Not all agnostics are atheists and not all atheists are agnostics...but all agnostics are either atheists or theists.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Doublemint

 

So...your ignorance on what 'agnosticism' is means that I'm not thinking? I'm sorry, but a lot of agnostics don't believe in any deity of any sort. Sure, there are agnostics who do believe, but there are also agnostics who do.

so my ignorance for saying that agnostics do believe in god, but yet your ignorance for saying that they dont, but you even say some do and some don't so what ignorance are you talking about?

reply to post by Freeborn

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

No-one has ever proved to me that there isn't a 'God', and I suspect that no-one ever will.
And no-one has ever proved to me that there is a 'God' and I suspect that no-one ever will.

Well, last I checked that didn't effect whether or not you believe.

As such I am neither a believer or a non-believer, neither Theist or Atheist and as such I am an Agnostic Agnostic.

So you don't know if you don't know? I'm sorry, but atheists don't claim that there isn't a deity, they merely don't believe. This has been gone over many times. Atheists simply don't believe, though some do go the further step of making the positive claim in no deities.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


How can it possibly be a lie when it is a direct quote from your post ?
Here it is again, referring to agnostics

And I'm trying to tell them that we're not allies

All of a sudden with my last post you do a complete 180 because you see what you did, and realize that you shouldn't have posted that. So to deflect attention away, you accuse me of lying and quote mining.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
[So you don't know if you don't know? I'm sorry, but atheists don't claim that there isn't a deity, they merely don't believe. This has been gone over many times. Atheists simply don't believe, though some do go the further step of making the positive claim in no deities.

Why waste your time with creating a god if you are not going to believe in it?

The differnce between the two, atheists if shown proof would not accept it as agnostics if they were shown proof they would accept it.

reply to post by Doublemint

The differnce between the two, atheists if shown proof would not accept it as agnostics if they were shown proof they would accept it.

DOH.

Little bit of reading will aid your ignorance.

en.wikipedia.org...

Agnostic Atheism is normally based on the CURRENT lack of evidence for a deity, by the same rationale by which the position was formed, if evidence came about proving the existance of a deity.... the agnostic atheist would have to renounce his position based on new evidence uncovered.

Just a point to add, it's one task to prove a deity, but to prove the deity's of any religion requires much more extraordinary evidence.

reply to post by Doublemint

Originally posted by Doublemint

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
[So you don't know if you don't know? I'm sorry, but atheists don't claim that there isn't a deity, they merely don't believe. This has been gone over many times. Atheists simply don't believe, though some do go the further step of making the positive claim in no deities.

Why waste your time with creating a god if you are not going to believe in it?

...well, atheists aren't the ones creating deities.

The differnce between the two, atheists if shown proof would not accept it as agnostics if they were shown proof they would accept it.

I'm sorry, but let's quote a famous atheist here. Probably the most well known atheist:

Richard Dawkins:

Reason has built the modern world. It is a precious but also a fragile thing, which can be corroded by apparently harmless irrationality. We must favor verifiable evidence over private feeling. Otherwise we leave ourselves vulnerable to those who would obscure the truth.

Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results. Myths and faiths are not and do not.

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.

Evidence is more important...so...yeah, atheists would change their minds.

Here's a whole article entitled "6 (Unlikely) Developments That Could Convince This Atheist To Believe in God"

An atheist is one who does not believe in deities, not one who is dead set in their ways.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

How can it possibly be a lie when it is a direct quote from your post ?
Here it is again, referring to agnostics

And I'm trying to tell them that we're not allies

It's called quote mining:

"And I'm trying to tell them that we're not allies, we're in the same boat (except for agnostic theists)."

Taking out that "we're in the same boat" entirely changes the nature of what I said. I'm saying we're the same group of people..so we're definitely not allies because we're the same group. Instead of being two allied groups we're a singular group in the same damn boat.

All of a sudden with my last post you do a complete 180 because you see what you did, and realize that you shouldn't have posted that.

You're right, I shouldn't have posted something you should so flagrantly distort.

So to deflect attention away, you accuse me of lying and quote mining.

Well, I just demonstrated that you've done just that.

I am both gnostic and agnostic, depending on whether God is defined or not. Based on a current lack of evidence, (specific) positive claims can easily be falsifed.

Christianity - Are geological events dictated by a deity? Are "natural" catastrophes punishment from that deity?

I think this can be easily falsified - I'm a Gnostic atheist because i KNOW this is incorrect.

Undefined "GOD" - Agnostic Atheist - Because there is no information, and little definition. I don't know what the cause of the universe is, and i don't claim to know.

Madness, would you ever claim to be a "Gnostic" atheist even if it's regarding (what i think are) the easily falsifiable religions?

I find agnosticism to religion to be equal to that of toothfairy and teapot agnostics.

If I may, the point to this thread is to promote solidarity between agnostics and atheists. OP convinced me of his logic that an agnostic is by definition an atheist.
The line of thinking that got me there was:
Theist: believes in a deity
Agnostic: believes in the potential for a deity ("potential" being the key concept at hand, rather than "deity")
Atheist: believes in no deity

Most people who are agnostic have only encountered one, slightly frightening type of atheist. The committed and certain variety of atheist who would state without hesitation that there is no god, despite having no concrete evidence. I'm pleased to know that there are atheists who are at heart willing to accept the possibility of the divine, no matter how implausible, just as I'm pleased to have met several theists who also keep an open mind towards the nature of reality.
In this light, there is common grounds for us all. No one wants to force their beliefs down anyone's throat and theological debate becomes something empowering rather than an exercise in subjugation.
Or at the very least, a bunch of people looking down their noses at other equally self-righteous folk over a subject that might very well be a collective figment of our imagination (or not at all!).

So the problem with calling agnostics "atheists" is one of image; perhaps there would be less gut reactions if some of the best known atheist proponents were less condescending to those who adhere to a legitimately possible worldview. I do wonder what it says about the people who flock to Dawkins and his ilk and enjoy looking down on the deluded masses and the ignorant fence-sitters and hide their contempt with reductionist attacks on metaphysical subjects.
Maybe if Dawkins did not compare the possibility of divinity with the possibility of garden fairies, more people who aren't already proclaimed atheists would be willing to pay attention to any of his more astute observations.

To reiterate: yes, I understand that an agnostic is by necessity an atheist; believing in the potential for a deity is not the same as believing in the deity itself, ergo one disbelieves in the deity but respects the potential for one to varying degrees. But surely such an open, literal view of atheism (which encompasses people who might be near-damned certain that there is a God, but hold themselves off from believing completely) is not the same one espoused by atheists who have accepted without question or doubt the non-existence of the divine.

In short, no, I don't believe that solidarity is in order; the belief in the potential for a deity is at odds with both the certainty of a deity and the absence of certainty in a deity. At least until more evidence is presented, which would (I believe, lol) require a significant revolution in technology and/or philosophy.
That an agnostic is also an atheist is secondary to the belief, which states that there may or may not be a god.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I don't believe or disbelieve, I simply acknowledge that I don't know, it is impossible to answer either way with total conviction and think that in the grander scheme of things it's completely irrelevant.

I think that qualifies me as Agnostic and not an Atheist.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
So you don't know if you don't know? I'm sorry, but atheists don't claim that there isn't a deity, they merely don't believe. This has been gone over many times. Atheists simply don't believe, though some do go the further step of making the positive claim in no deities.

Can you read this quote of yours?

so you say atheists would change if they were provided proof, then why do you say they merely don't believe? useing the word believe means that they would not necessarily change their mind because depending how strong their belief that there is no god.

Also you said atheists don't create gods, then why did you say atheists simply don't believe, though some do go further step of making the positive claim in no deities. that quote would either mean that some atheists don't believe but some how acknowledge a god or you just wanted to state the obvious?

reply to post by Freeborn


I acknowledge that i don't know.

I'm still an Atheist. - "Agnostic Atheism"

Because i don't know, scientists don't know, how could anyone else? They are performing a conjuring trick , a cold reading trick - Very easy to lie when you can't be proved wrong - think Fortune Tellers, Mediums, Tarot Card Readers. It's fraudulent and hucksterish.

Extraordinary unprovable claims should not be trusted, whether "GOD" is or isn't ultimately true.

reply to post by Doublemint

useing the word believe means that they would not necessarily change their mind because depending how strong their belief that there is no god.

It doesn't mean that. Atheism can't be equated to stubbornness.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I do not know how inconclusive equals not present, like I said there is no belief involved in my decision process on the God Hypothesis. So how can one who doesn't know as of yet, become one who thinks the decision is in the negative? I am just trying to understand your hypothesis on this subject. Say for instance, I do not have conclusive proof that there was one band before many regarding native americans in America. (Not saying is so just as an example) Does that mean that I don't think there was one band or not?

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Doublemint

 

useing the word believe means that they would not necessarily change their mind because depending how strong their belief that there is no god.

It doesn't mean that. Atheism can't be equated to stubbornness.

but word Believe can, thats my real question I geuss why is he useing the word Believe or why is he not useing the proper adjatives in front of it to let others know what he means by believe.

reply to post by Freeborn


You seem to be missing that I'm not saying my position with total conviction. I'm taking a reasonable skeptical position, not a position of total conviction. If anything my position is one of being unconvinced..I am equally unconvinced of the claim that there is any deity or the claim that there are absolutely none...but that still makes me an atheist because I'm not believing in any.

reply to post by Golithion


To take your example, you do not believe that there was one band. You also do not claim that there necessarily was not one band. You're still not accepting the positive claim, thus not believing it, but you're also not necessarily accepting the counter-claim that such a band could not have possibly existed.

reply to post by Doublemint


An atheist is not an individual who believes not, an atheist is a person who does not believe...so there's no stubbornness involved.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Don't think I'm missing your point at all, I understand fully what you are saying....I just disagree with you on this.

But hey, I've enjoyed my visit into the Religion Forum....I must say I've become quite an infrequent visitor over the last year or two....seems like a lot of the people I used to enjoy reading, talking too and clashing horns with don't come here much now...and that's a shame....I don't think even Ashley posts here anywhere near as much as she used to.