If you define atheism as "not believing in God", then theoretically aren't agnostics (excepting agnostic theists) who genuinely do not know whether God exists aor not atheists? That would mean that they don't believe in God, but they also don't not believe in God.
Or maybe this is just senseless word play. ^^
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 05-06-06, 02:04 AM babthrower If you define atheism as not believing in god. Roll Eyes
But atheism is not defined as 'not believing in god'. Atheism is 'without a god': from the Greek, a=without theos = god .
So the atheist does not deny there are gods. There are plenty of them. Jehovah, Zeus, Mithra, and so forth.
But the atheist doesn't accept any of them as his/her god.
GOD ACCORDING TO M/W: 1 (capitalized) : the supreme or ultimate reality: as (a) the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe (b) (Christian Science) : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind 2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality 3 : a person or thing of supreme value 4 : a powerful ruler
So the atheist is someone who does not devote him/herself to any of the above notions. The atheist is literally "without a god". 05-06-06, 02:19 PM synthesized synaesthesia I was speaking of the common usage, not the complex Latin-derivative usage. =)
05-06-06, 02:23 PM tsaeb babthrower: Bull.
"Atheism" defined as "without God" means "denying the existence of God."
In short, God is God, not god/gods, because the theist believes in God, not god/gods.
SS: I think that you were musing but that your thinking may have gotten a little wishy-washy, which is what can happen when musing. Yet, continued musing can lead to truth via clarification.
05-06-06, 04:12 PM synthesized synaesthesia My basic question is:
Taking atheism by its most common definition, not believing in God, aren't agnostics atheists, excepting agnostic theists?
If you asked an agnostic "Do you believe in God, yes or no?", the answer would have to be no, correct? That may seem like oversimplifying things, but since agnostics neither believe in the existance of God or disbelieve in the existance of God, it would seem that, by that definition, agnostics are atheists.
quote: In short, God is God, not god/gods, because the theist believes in God, not god/gods.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's incorrect. Monotheists and polytheists are both theists.
05-06-06, 04:19 PM tsaeb SS: Not so fast.
Some agnostics categorize themselves as agnostics, because they are theists with wavering faith.
I think that usually by "theist" we mean "monotheist." I leave to others to determine the case with polytheists.
05-06-06, 04:27 PM synthesized synaesthesia
quote: I think that usually by "theist" we mean "monotheist."
Only because most popular religions are monotheistic. Though we'd stil refer to Hindus as theists, right?
05-06-06, 06:13 PM FredPuli Agnostic: A person who holds the view that nothing can be known of the existence of God or of anything beyond material phenomena.
The word was coined by T H Huxley from Greek A- 'without' a productive prefix of negation and privation and gnostic,adjective from gnosis " a special knowledge of spiritual mysteries, specifically in theology the redemptive knowledge that the Gnostics claimed to have of God and of the origin and destiny of man "
Gnostic: " A member of a heretical Christian sect of the 1st to 3rd centuries AD who claimed gnosis"
So an agnostic is a Christian who makes no claim to a special knowledge of God.
Atheist: A person who denies the existence of God or gods . From Greek A- (as above) and theos 'god'.
So your question, Syn, is seemingly based on a misunderstanding of what 'agnostic' means in theology Smile.
[Definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary]
05-06-06, 06:23 PM synthesized synaesthesia
quote: Agnostic: A person who holds the view that nothing can be known of the existence of God or of anything beyond material phenomena.
That's just strong agnosticism. Your dictionary isn't very detailed. =( Check out the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia
05-06-06, 06:27 PM jusork
quote: Originally posted by synthesized synaesthesia: If you asked an agnostic "Do you believe in God, yes or no?", the answer would have to be no, correct? That may seem like oversimplifying things, but since agnostics neither believe in the existance of God or disbelieve in the existance of God, it would seem that, by that definition, agnostics are atheists.
As you said, an agnostic neither believes in God nor disbelieves. While he doesn't fully believe in God, he also doesn't fully disbelieve in God. An agnostic would answer that question with "I don't know."
I know when I use 'theists,' I mean either poly or mono.
Strong agnosticism? Wow, I didn't realize agnosticism was so complicated.
05-06-06, 06:53 PM frankvan Like many of the terms that are bandied about in religious discussion, and despite the difference in dictionary definitions, there is a certain amount of overlap between "agnostic" and "atheist". It is entirely possible that what I call myself may differ from what some of my friends and most of my enemies call me. I would say that since I believe that God is unknown and unknowable I might be called an agnostic. On the other hand since I personally disbelieve in the existence of what my monotheist friends call God, because I see no preponderance of evidence that would convince me of its plausibility, I might equally qualify for the label "atheist". Who cares? Am I what I call myself, or what every Tom, Dick. or Harry call me ? The point is I don't pray to, or worship anything or anybody, and I see no reason to imitate those who believe otherwise. If the people who believe that worshiping an all-powerful deity who requires such homage is necessary in order to avoid eternal damnation, I'll gamble that they don't know what they're talking about. Wink
05-06-06, 06:58 PM methos What exactly, in that Wikipedia article, conflicts with Fred's definition?
Atheism is a belief that there are no gods (including God).
Theism is a belief that there is a god (sometimes God).
Agnosticism was a term specifically created because Huxley did not agree with the certainty of either position. An agnostic doesn't know whether or not there is a god (including God), and often believes that it is unknowable.
Bab's point was that, if you misdefine the common usage, sure you can make it mean the same thing. In actual usage (including the Wikipedia article you linked), the two terms are different. I had originally typed distinct, but I realized that's not really so. They are degrees if certainty - atheist being certain, agnostics believing certainty is impossible, and most real atheists or agnostics falling somewhere inbetween (just as many if not most or all theists have moments, if not more, of doubt in their life).
05-06-06, 07:48 PM synthesized synaesthesia
quote: agnostics believing certainty is impossible
Again, that is describing strong agnosticism. Strong agnostics believe that the existance of God is unknowable; weak (a.k.a. open) agnostics believe that the existance of God is unknown but not necessarily unknowable. I'm a weak agnostic myself. =)
05-06-06, 08:51 PM babthrower 1. Theist includes monotheists such as Jews and polytheists such as Hindus.
2. Agnostic means without knowledge (of god or gods, usually)
3. Atheist means without a god or gods.
The most important rule having to do with discussions in which anyone with any sense will engage is:
do not quibble.
To avoid quibbling, we should stick to standard definitions of words. In referring to authorities, we should use the more well recognized. Wikipedia is neat and I love it, but it has not the authority of a standard reference work.
Else our discussions soon degrade into something out of Lewis Carrol:
"And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!".
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't --- till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean --- neither more nor less."
"The question is", said Alice, "whether you CAN make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master --- that's all."
************** The distinction between 'weak' and 'strong' agnostics, so-called, is arbitrary and confined to special contexts such as skeptic's sites. So if you wish to introduce a special term into a discussion, that's fine.
But one doesn't just baldly assert it.
The right way to do it is something like:
"Some agnostics distinguish between those who deny that a god or gods can be known; these we may style 'strong' agnostics. Other agnostics believe that a god or gods may be knowable, but they have not known one. These we may style 'weak agnostics'."
How can you tell when you need to introduce a special term? Look the term up in a standard reference work. If it's not there, but you have seen it, say, in the writings of some philosopher, you may introduce it as above, or preferably if it is someone else's term, attribute it.
E.G. "Bertrand Russel used 'strong agnostic' to refer to...."
05-06-06, 09:07 PM methos
quote: Originally posted by synthesized synaesthesia:
quote: agnostics believing certainty is impossible
Again, that is describing strong agnosticism. Strong agnostics believe that the existance of God is unknowable; weak (a.k.a. open) agnostics believe that the existance of God is unknown but not necessarily unknowable. I'm a weak agnostic myself. =)
And what did I just say? (Hint, commas mean the sentence isn't over.) "and most real atheists or agnostics falling somewhere inbetween"
That doesn't mean they are the same thing, just thar there's a broad grey area not covered exclusively by either term.
At any rate, enough quibbling for me Wink
05-06-06, 10:22 PM jusork
quote: Originally posted by synthesized synaesthesia: I'm a weak agnostic myself. =)
Oh, good, I was curious about something. So what is the way that you could find that God is actually certain?
05-06-06, 11:01 PM synthesized synaesthesia
quote: So what is the way that you could find that God is actually certain?
I do not know enough about God (if there is a God) to know how he/she/it would reveal itself to me. But an all-powerful being could certainly reveal itself to me if it wanted. There's nothing to refute the possibility.
07-13-06, 02:02 PM Mael Colluim
quote: Originally posted by synthesized synaesthesia: If you define atheism as "not believing in God", then theoretically aren't agnostics (excepting agnostic theists) who genuinely do not know whether God exists aor not atheists? That would mean that they don't believe in God, but they also don't not believe in God.
Or maybe this is just senseless word play. ^^
It is not a senseless word play at all.
The difference between atheism and agnosticism is simple.
Atheism: There is no God. Rejection of the belief in a Diety.
Agnosticism: There might be a God, but there is no such thing that absolutely proves it's existense. Therefore one cannot say whether there is or isn't a God.
An atheist claims there is no God. An agnosticist claims he simply cannot know whether there is a God or not.
Another major point within certain aspects of agnosticism is the irrelevance of the existense (or non-existense) of a God.
07-13-06, 03:09 PM juanruiz
quote: Another major point within certain aspects of agnosticism is the irrelevance of the existense (or non-existense) of a God.
I think the central point is that most A/As do not even bother to think about the existence of a deity. Something many believers simply cannot comprehend.
07-13-06, 07:03 PM frankvan I have to go along with Juan's definition. I claim to be one or the other depending on the situation. The point being that I see little sense in trying to come up with a precise set of conditions. Who cares? And welcome to the pool. I have a soft spot in my heart for the Netherlands. Smile
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
I call myself an agnostic, but for all practical purposes I am an atheist!
I am open to the possibility of something we have no inkling of, but I deny that any of the gods being worshipped by humanity exist.
P.S. I note that I am now a platinum enthusiast. Nice to know that the brilliance of my postings, the new thoughts and keen insights, has been recognized! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 07-13-06, 07:33 PM GarColga Agnosticism=Atheism? I call myself an agnostic, but for all practical purposes I am an atheist!
I am open to the possibility of something we have no inkling of, but I deny that any of the gods being worshipped by humanity exist.
P.S. I note that I am now a platinum enthusiast. Nice to know that the brilliance of my postings, the new thoughts and keen insights, has been recognized!
07-14-06, 05:21 AM tsaeb I think that too many who call themselves believers, too, do not give much thought about God. Quite possibly, what with all the thinking about God which they are doing on this website, the atheists and agnostics here are having a closer walk with Him than many of the professing believers in the world.
07-14-06, 07:24 AM Elexina Interesting theory, Tsaeb. I expect that many professed believers would be horrified to imagine a godless wretch such as myself us closer to deity than they. Yikes!
07-14-06, 08:51 AM frankvan Could tsaeb be right about that? What irony! To think that I might still get in without joining the club. Think of the fortune in membership fees I've saved over the years! Wink
07-14-06, 02:52 PM Elexina
quote: Could tsaeb be right about that?
Is there a Graemlin for "shudder"? Big Grin
Oh, Frank, you can always get in, as long as you're really really sorry. Wink
07-14-06, 03:35 PM juanruiz
quote: Oh, Frank, you can always get in, as long as you're really really sorry.
If that's true, he'd better practice being simpering and obsequious now.
07-14-06, 06:35 PM frankvan I think it was George Burns who said that the important thing is sincerity, if you can fake that - you've got it made. Wink I can do simpering !
07-20-06, 07:00 AM tsaeb The true church is neither the building nor necessarily only those in it. Also, the Bible states that there has to be a falling away first. Maybe your punishment has been putting up with me, and having thereby been cleansed, you are on a higher level of spiritual development.
07-20-06, 07:42 AM Elexina
quote: Originally posted by tsaeb: The true church is neither the building nor necessarily only those in it. Also, the Bible states that there has to be a falling away first. Maybe your punishment has been putting up with me, and having thereby been cleansed, you are on a higher level of spiritual development.
Honestly, "putting up with you" ain't so tough. If that's the only punishment we have to face, then I say "bring it!" Though being "cleansed" and ending at a "higher level of spiritual development" because of it, well, that's a little harder to swallow. ...Perhaps a spoonful of sugar will do the trick.
07-20-06, 09:10 AM stampeding turtles Since there seems to be so much confusion about the word 'agnostic' ...it may be because we cannot really 'know' what that word means? Wink
I'm back.
07-20-06, 12:48 PM jusork
quote: Originally posted by stampeding turtles: Since there seems to be so much confusion about the word 'agnostic' ...it may be because we cannot really 'know' what that word means? Wink
I'm back.
Hey! Welcome back. I was wondering where you went.
07-23-06, 05:37 AM tsaeb Elexina: Remember the old days when you did not realize that I have such a peculiar sense of humor? I, too, prefer some sugar.
I was answering GarColga's challenge of "I am open to the possibility of something we have no inkling of, . . ." (Pssst! Usually, GarColga is impatient with me.)
07-24-06, 08:04 AM Elexina
quote: Originally posted by tsaeb: ...I, too, prefer some sugar.
Although perhaps the grain of salt I've always taken you with would be more useful. Smile
12-21-06, 01:20 PM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: If you define atheism as not believing in god. Roll Eyes
But atheism is not defined as 'not believing in god'. Atheism is 'without a god': from the Greek, a=without theos = god .
So the atheist does not deny there are gods. There are plenty of them. Jehovah, Zeus, Mithra, and so forth.
But the atheist doesn't accept any of them as his/her god.
GOD ACCORDING TO M/W: 1 (capitalized) : the supreme or ultimate reality: as (a) the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe (b) (Christian Science) : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind 2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality 3 : a person or thing of supreme value 4 : a powerful ruler
So the atheist is someone who does not devote him/herself to any of the above notions. The atheist is literally "without a god".
Why guess? Here's a definition for atheism from a good English dictionary:
atheism One entry found for atheism.
Main Entry: athe·ism Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m Function: noun Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god 1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
12-21-06, 03:37 PM FredPuli Why the capitals, Zik? In your quote from the M-W dictionary you put UNGODLINESS and WICKEDNESS in capitals. You may note that the dictionary has these meanings as 'archaic'. No doubt in ancient, unenlightened , times Christians and others of faith were so blind as to equate not believing in any god and claiming there was no god as being the same as being wicked. In fact such atheists would be blasphemers (and that is really WICKED, isn't it? Wink )
12-21-06, 03:40 PM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by FredPuli: Why the capitals, Zik? In your quote from the M-W dictionary you put UNGODLINESS and WICKEDNESS in capitals. You may note that the dictionary has these meanings as 'archaic'. No doubt in ancient, unenlightened , times Christians and others of faith were so blind as to equate not believing in any god and claiming there was no god as being the same as being wicked. In fact such atheists would be blasphemers (and that is really WICKED, isn't it? Wink )
The capitals are not mine. I've quoted my source verbatim. You can check for yourself using the link I've supplied.
01-02-07, 06:58 PM cattywampus0 The only possible response, for an athiest, when asked, "Do you believe in God?" is "Who?"
The mere mention of His name means acceptance of His existence.
I once asked my mother why she was such a strong believer, and she said (after Pascal), "I'd rather believe and be wrong than not believe and be wrong." It's a choice you make, like believing in wind. You can't see wind, but you can see, and feel, its results.
01-02-07, 07:02 PM cattywampus0 Hey GarCola, who do you think gave you life? Who do you credit for the fact that you're walking around alive today, and didn't get hit by a truck yesterday? Some did - why not you? Do you have the power to prevent this?
01-02-07, 07:04 PM cattywampus0 'Xcuse. I'm back just to set my preferences, only to find there's no way. ????.
01-02-07, 07:27 PM jusork
quote: Originally posted by cattywampus0: The only possible response, for an athiest, when asked, "Do you believe in God?" is "Who?"
The mere mention of His name means acceptance of His existence.
That's not true. If you were talking about bigfoot, you may not believe it exists, but you'd picture a big furry creature and understand the character known as bigfoot that some people believe exists.
And how can you feel God exactly? Wind is physically felt. God isn't, especially in such a way that one can undeniably say, yes, this thing I feel is definitely God.
I was created by sperm and egg. That explains everything and there's nothing else that needs crediting. And I didn't get hit by a truck simply because I avoided getting hit by one. I could've easily been hit by one though. Getting hit by a truck is just one of the many numerable things that can happen. Nobody's determining what happens in the world. It happens on its own. Everything that happens is from people and the circumstances that they cause. Someone gets hit by a truck because at that very second, they were accidentally at the space in the road that allows for that to occur. Things can happen or not happen. Anything can happen at any given point and they are allowed to happen because we exist at that particular moment and at that particular moment, something has to occur according to the laws of physics. Does that not make sense? So why do you think something more is determining if you die right now or not?
Preferences works for me. Do you mean you can't find it, or the options aren't working?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 1969 | Location: Boise, Idaho, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
The mere mention of His name means acceptance of His existence.
But Gar referred to
quote:
any of the gods being worshipped by humanity
Does that mean he believes they all exist? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 01-02-07, 10:18 PM juanruiz It's one thing to admit people believe in a vast array of gods. That does not indicate belief on the part of the person who makes the assertion. 01-03-07, 06:37 PM GarColga
quote: Originally posted by cattywampus0: Hey GarCola, who do you think gave you life? Who do you credit for the fact that you're walking around alive today, and didn't get hit by a truck yesterday? Some did - why not you? Do you have the power to prevent this?
There is no user here named GarCola, but I'll assume this is addressed to me - that you just didn't care enough to get the name right. After all, I've only been posting here about 5 years!
Who gave me life? My parents of course.
Who do I credit for the fact that I'm walking around alive today, and didn't get hit by a truck yesterday? I am a careful driver and an aware pedestrian, presumably any trucks I encountered yesterday were driven by responsible drivers.
Do I have the power to prevent being hit by a truck? No, of course not.
01-03-07, 06:59 PM juanruiz
quote: There is no user here named GarCola
I'd love to repeat my rum and GarCola line from years ago. But I won't.
01-03-07, 10:37 PM babthrower What, JR, did you have him workin' for the Yankee dollah? Shame on you!
But GarCola isn't very good. Gar is garlic, from which spears were named, for their shape which were similar to spears of young garlic.
And cola is plural for colon. The anatomical feature, not the punctuation mark.
So GarlicColons is not an attractive screen name, Xaurraux. So stop it!
(Cola, as in CocaCola, is derived from the name of the Kola nut.)
01-04-07, 08:02 AM Elexina
quote: The mere mention of His name means acceptance of His existence.
I disagree. The mere mention of the name of any of the Greek, Roman or Egyptian deities does not mean acceptance of their existence, does it? Talking about something does not mean you believe in it. Jusork has a great example. The same goes for vampires or aliens or the Bermuda Triangle or any other superstitious thing.
quote: ...who do you think gave you life? Who do you credit for the fact that you're walking around alive today, and didn't get hit by a truck yesterday? Some did - why not you? Do you have the power to prevent this?
As Gar said, our parents gave us life. The fact that I did not get hit by a truck yesterday is due to the fact that I was not goofing around in the street when I should have stayed on the sidewalk. Part luck, part common sense. Nothing divine.
01-04-07, 10:05 AM babthrower But Cat would be bound to wonder: "Who do you credit for the fact that you're walking around alive today, and didn't get hit by lightning yesterday? Some did - why not you? Do you have the power to prevent this?"
[Gulp!] Ah yes. The most primitive fear of all. No amount of prudence can protect us! Learn the traffic rules and obey them religiously, but the almighty gods can still get you with the thunderbolt (which originates in the heaverns, after all).
True. But Cat is not immune either. The only diff is, Cat would die praying aloud, "Spare me, O Lord, and I will sacrifice a hundred oxen..."
Whereas some of us would die saying, "Dog Bite It, I zigged when I shoulda zagged!"
Cat would see herself in the hands of a protective deity, but how many people have died of starvation praying to their god to provide them food?
Some of the rest of us would see ourselves in a universe not specifically designed for humans. We just happened to evolve, along with myriads of other creatures. So sometimes we wander into a human-hostile environment (e.g. the path of an electrical spark big enough to fry us) and become prey to a purely random event.
And our heirs inherit the hundred oxen with which to help carry on our genetic line!
If God is in control of who gets hit by trucks or not, then what should we infer from the huge numbers of people who have been hit by trucks?
01-05-07, 04:59 PM babthrower Hmmm, interesting.
What should we infer from the relatively small number of people who get hit by lightning?
Does this god have a weapon of choice? It used to be the thunderbolt but now it's the automobile? The divine arm got tired?
01-05-07, 05:01 PM juanruiz Maybe it means he doesn't abide fools who don't get out of the rain or jay-walk.
01-22-07, 09:55 PM RoverRoad Hey juanruiz, I'm pretty sure that you're not an Agnostic, so, What does this post have to do with Agnosticism? In fact, wouldn't every post in this forum that doesn't support Agnostisism be off topic here...
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 6397 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
