Originally posted by Bardock42
I do not care for what xyz says. He is not me. I stand by my definition as it is the correct one.Though you do not understand. I agree with both. Atheism is the denial of God. Atheists can also accept the possibility. It is no contradiction.
This in not quite true. Obvioulsy agnosticism is also based on assumptions. Though I grant it seems more reasonable.
How is agnosticism based on assumption? Assumption of what?
Agnostics claim no knowledge - thats not an assumption, thats a fact.
And as far as Atheism goes - please provide me a link, or some kind which confirms that Atheists accept possibility of god.
AS far as I heave researched, Wiki and dictionaries the very deffinition of Atheist is a ''doctrine of NON existance of God''.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism Same goes for Wiki.
You can make up your own interpretation, those however are not what the actual definition or the doctrine is about.
Originally posted by Strangelove
atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.agnostic: a person who asserts the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
Agnostics do not believe anything.
We are talking about religious agnostics I believe. But it does not matter. Int his case it is synonymous with skepticism. Are you implying that an atheist can not be a skeptic?
I believe that nothing in the world can be known for sure.
But I also believe that there is no God. I believe that I exist. I believe that the chair in my room is red. I do not know those things. I don't think they can be known. but I believe them to be true.
Do you now understand the difference between the two? And why they can both apply?
The last sentence is wrong. Since Agnostics obviously believe that nothing can be known.
Originally posted by StrangeloveIf by what your saying is true, then I am Agnostic.
atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.agnostic: a person who asserts the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
Agnostics do not believe anything.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Atheists can accept the possibility of a God.
Bardoc says other-wise.
The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism is quite simply "not believing in any gods." Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism.
There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods, making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessspelt wrong!
👆 Differance.
Originally posted by StormNow it looks like I am a strong Atheist. Cool I guess.
The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism is quite simply "not believing in any gods." Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism.There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods, making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
How is agnosticism based on assumption? Assumption of what?Agnostics claim no knowledge - thats not an assumption, thats a fact.
And as far as Atheism goes - please provide me a link, or some kind which confirms that Atheists accept possibility of god.
AS far as I heave researched, Wiki and dictionaries the very deffinition of Atheist is a ''doctrine of NON existance of God''.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism Same goes for Wiki.
You can make up your own interpretation, those however are not what the actual definition or the doctrine is about.
Assumption that there can't be any knowledge. Are people not thinking their believes through anymore? I am agnostic and because I am agnostic I think that agnosticism is based on believe not fact.
Yes, you believe that there is no God. You do not know that there is no God. How can you not understand this fundamental difference? Also, read the link you posted. A few sentences in there it says how Agnostics are included.
Originally posted by lord xyz
But that's saying Atheism doesn't exist. If the dibelief of GOd isn't Atheism or the denial of gods existing isn't atheism, then what is?
What? Oh Jesus, how does that say Atheism does not exist?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Assumption that there can't be any knowledge. Are people not thinking their believes through anymore? I am agnostic and because I am agnostic I think that agnosticism is based on believe not fact.Yes, you believe that there is no God. You do not know that there is no God. How can you not understand this fundamental difference? Also, read the link you posted. A few sentences in there it says how Agnostics are included.
Agnostics claim that there IS no knowledge, not that there can never be any.
And there is NO knowledge. So it is not an assumption, its a fact.
The article says that Atheists are designating Agnostics, people who have never heard of gods and new born children. They are, in the scope of the sentence indicating Agnostics and new born children as those who do not hold the idea of God...I believe.
As far as the article goes on to say it divides Atheists around, as those who reject the idea of God, those who simply do not believe in it, although article on ''weak theism and strong theism'' is ''not reliable.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Agnostics claim that there IS no knowledge, not that there can never be any.
And there is NO knowledge. So it is not an assumption, its a fact.The article says that Atheists are designating Agnostics, people who have never heard of gods and new born children. They are, in the scope of the sentence indicating Agnostics and new born children as those who do not hold the idea of God...I believe.
As far as the article goes on to say it divides Atheists around, as those who reject the idea of God, those who simply do not believe in it, although article on ''weak theism and strong theism'' is ''not reliable.
They claim either that there is no knowledge at the momenht or that there never can be any. Can be both. Either way an agnostic can also be a theist or atheist.
The point is Atheists can be Agnostics and the other way around. That's just how it is.
What is your point?
It is not, actually.
Atheism and Agnosticism are two different concepts.
To suspend belief on a subject (of God, here) is to hold off judgment until more information is acquired. This is agnosticism, not atheism.
It is an admission that not all information is acquired thus logically requiring the possibility of the existence of the thing being considered, ie GOD.
This is something atheists do not do by definition, but agnostics do.
Agnosticism is the position, in part, that "suspension of belief" is maintained until further information is acquired, ie No knowledge.
Atheists do not ''suspend belief'' in God. They deny it.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It is not, actually.
Atheism and Agnosticism are two different concepts.To suspend belief on a subject (of God, here) is to hold off judgment until more information is acquired. This is agnosticism, not atheism.
It is an admission that not all information is acquired thus logically requiring the possibility of the existence of the thing being considered, ie GOD.
This is something atheists do not do by definition, but agnostics do.Agnosticism is the position, in part, that "suspension of belief" is maintained until further information is acquired, ie No knowledge.
Atheists do not ''suspend belief'' in God. They deny it.
Yes. Two different concepts. Kinda like shape and colour. They can be in the same thing. They do not explain the same things.
That is your, wrong, definition. The actual definition is that an agnostic believes that there is no proof for or against the existence of God (at the moment or forever). If from the lack of proof they decide to believe in a God, no God or decide not to make a statement is of no matter to agnosticism
Please. Why do we argue about that? I am absolutely right, and you can even read it in links you posted.
People can be agnostics and atheists. That is all to it.
That is a really fine line, most atheist that I know “deny” God until proven otherwise. If shown proof or existence of a God most would believe however if you are a zealot of any belief system wouldn’t believe no matter what is shown, however from what I have observed in many faiths they wouldn’t believe no matter what you show them because they would consider it as a deception by their “evil” force trying to make them doubt their faith.
Many Agnosticism that I know have more of a “I don’t care” concept because many believe what atheist do but saying that you are atheist in society today is like a curse word or shocking, even my parents where shocked when I told them I was and they are agnostics.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes. Two different concepts. Kinda like shape and colour. They can be in the same thing. They do not explain the same things.That is your, wrong, definition. The actual definition is that an agnostic believes that there is no proof for or against the existence of God (at the moment or forever). If from the lack of proof they decide to believe in a God, no God or decide not to make a statement is of no matter to agnosticism
Please. Why do we argue about that? I am absolutely right, and you can even read it in links you posted.
People can be agnostics and atheists. That is all to it.
Ha. Of course the link I posted also says that Atheists point out Agnostics, new born babies and people who have never heard about God, as possible Atheists.
This is even stupider to consider, since new born babies and people who have never heard about God, do not have a concept of God, and thus are not Atheists.
My bad for posting that link.
To call oneself atheist is to not believe in God, to call oneself agnostic is not to know.
Agnosticism itself means no knowledge.
How complex is that?!
You can be both? Right, of course, just like you can call yourself a communist country and be under dictatorship. Its like Communist Dictatorship!
...
Either way, this is just going in circles.
Any belief of ''god does not exist'' is jsut as irrational and baseless as ''god does exist''.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness"Fairies do not exist". Is this belief jsut (sic) as irrational and baseless as "fairies do exist."?
Ha. Of course the link I posted also says that Atheists point out Agnostics, new born babies and people who have never heard about God, as possible Atheists.This is even stupider to consider, since new born babies and people who have never heard about God, do not have a concept of God, and thus are not Atheists.
My bad for posting that link.
To call oneself atheist is to not believe in God, to call oneself agnostic is not to know.
Agnosticism itself means no knowledge.
How complex is that?!
You can be both? Right, of course, just like you can call yourself a communist country and be under dictatorship. Its like Communist Dictatorship!
...
Either way, this is just going in circles.
Any belief of ''god does not exist'' is jsut as irrational and baseless as ''god does exist''.
And again agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.