Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosHow so? Comparing atheism and agnosticism this way reminds me of the sphere and cylinder. They can cast the same shadow and be said to have the same shape only if we define them through these shadows.
Isn't it actually a less straitjacketing definition?
It may well be that most agnostics haven't given the matter much thought, and so by default are essentially atheists. But then, I wouldn't have regarded them as agnostics in the first place (given this definition), just as now I wouldn't regard someone who still asks "those questions" as an atheist.
Originally posted by Mindship
How so?
Atheism is x.
Atheism is x or y.
The first is the more limited definition.
Originally posted by Mindship
Comparing atheism and agnosticism this way reminds me of the sphere and cylinder. They can cast the same shadow and be said to have the same shape only if we define them through these shadows.
Well the language is sort of vague in this area. I see two possible constructions.
Theist - positive belief
Agnostic - uncertain belief
Atheist - non-positive belief
On the one hand agnostic overlap a bit with atheist. On the other hand it appeals to the scientific concept of falsifiability, which is important to many atheists.
Theist - positive belief
Agnostic - uncertain belief
Atheist - negative belief
A bit more symmetry here and no overlapping. But in practice you get a lot people who identify as atheist that fall into agnostic.
boo, a definition discussion. I hate those. Good luck to those involved, however.
fdog
Originally posted by Liberator
See I've always thought Agnostic was that line of thought, I thought that Athiests simply refused to accept there MIGHT potentially be a god.
Nope. Of course there could potentially be a God. I just see no reason to believe there is. Because there could potentially be an infinite number of other abstract people/objects/beings/gods/etc. and I see them all about as likely as the others (which is to say, not likely at all).
Glad I could clear some of that up though. The biggest rebuttal I get from people is "you can't prove God doesn't exist," then I get weird looks when I agree completely.
Originally posted by long pig
I get what you mean Digi about me being the only one who knmys certain things and it may seen egotistical, but its true.
Originally posted by long pig
Seriously, i dont believe, but i am well informed and the bible doctrine is flawless.
Statements like these show me we're not going to have enough common ground to stand on in order to discuss this. Our opinions are too diametrically opposed to make constructive progress in any direction. So my apologies if I don't respond further. It's not a concession, just an acknowledgment of irreconcilable differences.
Originally posted by King Kandy
I barely even understand why people use the term agnostic. Usually in most cases the two are the same thing.
Some of the time agnostics are identical to atheists in worldview, and just dislike the stigma of the label. I know of very few (see also: none) agnostics who actually have a full philosophical justification for their agnosticism. There's a couple exceptions here on KMC, but none that I know in my "regular" life.
Originally posted by Mindship
One is placing his bet; the other is still thinking.
lul
Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't think that's really true, though. Being an agnostic doesn't mean one is actively pursuing a new theological perspective, and being an atheist doesn't mean you've closed yourself off to asking those questions.Bottom line, one who doesn't believe in God is an atheist. For the last 10+ pages we've discussed at length how this is NOT necessarily the same as the positive claim that god is false, but simply a passive absence. Given that, I would say that 90% or more of agnostics fit into that category, because they don't themselves believe that there is a god, but simply don't take a position. Thus they don't register a positive belief in god's existence, and are atheists.
co-signed.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosHow is Atheism x or y?
Atheism is x.
Atheism is x or y.The first is the more limited definition.
Well the language is sort of vague in this area.
In any event, all I was saying with my sphere-cylinder bit was that one can take different items, list qualities, find the common ones, then define the two items solely in terms of those common qualities, ignoring the differences.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosWithout going into every point, I agree with some of what you're saying (eg, your last statements), and disagree with others (Atheism being x or y).
I see two possible constructions.Theist - positive belief
Agnostic - uncertain belief
Atheist - non-positive beliefOn the one hand agnostic overlap a bit with atheist. On the other hand it appeals to the scientific concept of falsifiability, which is important to many atheists.
Theist - positive belief
Agnostic - uncertain belief
Atheist - negative beliefA bit more symmetry here and no overlapping. But in practice you get a lot people who identify as atheist that fall into agnostic.
Originally posted by DigiI try not to debate formal definitions. But some do at times strike me as nit-picky justifications.
boo, a definition discussion. I hate those.
Originally posted by DigiActually, I prefer the term "meta-theist," but that's another story... 😉
Some of the time agnostics are identical to atheists in worldview, and just dislike the stigma of the label. I know of very few (see also: none) agnostics who actually have a full philosophical justification for their agnosticism. There's a couple exceptions here on KMC...
Originally posted by Mindship
How so? Comparing atheism and agnosticism this way reminds me of the sphere and cylinder. They can cast the same shadow and be said to have the same shape only if we define them through these shadows.
I see this as being largely true when it comes to the layperson
I don't think it is fair to dismiss, as much as we more philosiphical atheists hate to recognize, the fact that there probably are "I-Know-there-is-no-god" atheists, as much as there are theistically leaning agnostics
however, for people who take a more nuanced stance, this type of atheism and agnosticism seem to fall off. Like digi said, there are few people with a philosophically nuanced position on agnosticism, and like this thread shows, almost no informed atheist would dare to say, without any doubt whatsoever, that god does not exist, just that there is no evidence to support the claim
Originally posted by inimalist
however, for people who take a more nuanced stance, this type of atheism and agnosticism seem to fall off. Like digi said, there are few people with a philosophically nuanced position on agnosticism, and like this thread shows, almost no informed atheist would dare to say, without any doubt whatsoever, that god does not exist, just that there is no evidence to support the claim
Pardon any particular phrasing or labeling: this is just off the top of my head.
But how is this
Originally posted by Mindship
At one end is the seeking agnostic: he who actively pursues information and/or experiences which may (or may not) help him to get some kind of answer.
Different from this?
Originally posted by Mindship
Further along is the "honest/rational atheist," who, if pressed, would say, like the agnostic, he ultimately doesn't know if God exists; there's just no evidence to support the claim.
You add labels like "if pressed" to imply the atheist is more close minded than the agnostic, and imply that the agnostic is the only one actively interested in learning about the subject, but there's nothing in my experience in real life or on this forum that would make me think that's a true distinction. Like I said (and you admitted), there are plenty of atheists who are more interested in learning than many agnostics are! Agnostics in my experience, are actually the least interested in exploring, because they feel that it's impossible to know for sure one way or another. There are exceptions, but there's nothing that would convince me this scale really relates at all to reality.
Originally posted by King KandyIt would never be my intention to imply that atheists are close-minded, especially after having had some great debates here on KMC. Atheists come to a conclusion; but that doesn't necessarily mean closed-mindedness.
You add labels like "if pressed" to imply the atheist is more close minded than the agnostic, and imply that the agnostic is the only one actively interested in learning about the subject, but there's nothing in my experience in real life or on this forum that would make me think that's a true distinction. Like I said (and you admitted), there are plenty of atheists who are more interested in learning than many agnostics are! Agnostics in my experience, are actually the least interested in exploring, because they feel that it's impossible to know for sure one way or another.
Someone who calls himself an atheist can still wonder like an agnostic (I really don't see how anyone can not wonder, on some level); and the uninformed, couldn't-care-less agnostic shares a valid point of reference with the atheist. Maybe there's a bell curve, and most people in actual practice fall in the middle.
Originally posted by Mindship
It would never be my intention to imply that atheists are close-minded, especially after having had some great debates here on KMC.
Originally posted by Mindship
Atheists come to a conclusion;
Originally posted by Mindship
Someone who calls himself an atheist can still wonder like an agnostic (I really don't see how anyone can not wonder, on some level); and the uninformed, couldn't-care-less agnostic shares a valid point of reference with the atheist. Maybe there's a bell curve, and most people in actual practice fall in the middle.
Originally posted by King KandyInteresting. I don't agree with this, but I understand it. For me, I would say none of the labels apply as the baby can not form an opinion on the subject. But I understand your reasoning.
I classify, for instance, a baby as an atheist.
See, this is the kind of thing that makes me think that on a subconscious level you think atheists are close minded. I don't see how an "uninformed" agnostic is an agnostic at all. If they have no opinion, that means they don't possess a belief in God existing, and are atheists. Your scale acts like on one end is the most open minded, and on the other is the most close minded... and if that wasn't your intention, then on what "scale" exactly are you ranking them?You call it closed-mindedness. I disagree. I think it is a coming to a conclusion, even if tentative. At some point, he who declares himself an atheist is indeed placing a bet. He's calling the number that appears most frequently on the wheel, feeling he has the best chance of "winning" with that number. He knows he could still "lose."
Would "decision" be better than "conclusion"?
An agnostic on the other hand: you could see him as "more open-minded"...or, maybe the lot of them are just indecisive. The connotations can be reversed with the right wording.
Atheism and Agnosticism are NOT the same, and never was.
They are NOT synonymous in any way, shape or form.
Agnostics are people who withdraw from conclusion of God's existence.
They are merely observers who analyze the facts that are brought to the table by Theists and Atheists alike, which may have sufficient/insufficient evidence.
Both parties have valid claims which have never been proven to be exactly accurate. This is why being an Agnostic is quite a reasonable stance for someone who seeks for spiritual truth.
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Atheism and Agnosticism are NOT the same, and never was.They are NOT synonymous in any way, shape or form.
Agnostics are people who withdraw from conclusion of God's existence.
They are merely observers who analyze the facts that are brought to the table by Theists and Atheists alike, which may have sufficient/insufficient evidence.
Both parties have valid claims which have never been proven to be exactly accurate. This is why being an Agnostic is quite a reasonable stance for someone who seeks for spiritual truth.
What facts are theists bringing to the table? If this forum is any indication their only argument that doesn't get destroyed by scientific evidence is "you can't disprove god".
I suppose agnosticism is very much philosophically defensible but then I'm not a huge fan of that sort of philosophy, rational empiricism for the win!
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Atheism and Agnosticism are NOT the same, and never was.They are NOT synonymous in any way, shape or form.
Agnostics are people who withdraw from conclusion of God's existence.
They are merely observers who analyze the facts that are brought to the table by Theists and Atheists alike, which may have sufficient/insufficient evidence.
Both parties have valid claims which have never been proven to be exactly accurate. This is why being an Agnostic is quite a reasonable stance for someone who seeks for spiritual truth.
I can apply all of those statements about "agnostics" to myself, without having to stretch or change anything. I am an atheist. What is an atheist to you?
Originally posted by Mindship
Interesting. I don't agree with this, but I understand it. For me, I would say none of the labels apply as the baby can not form an opinion on the subject. But I understand your reasoning.
Originally posted by Mindship
You call it closed-mindedness. I disagree. I think it is a coming to a conclusion, even if tentative. At some point, he who declares himself an atheist is indeed placing a bet. He's calling the number that appears most frequently on the wheel, feeling he has the best chance of "winning" with that number. He knows he could still "lose."Would "decision" be better than "conclusion"?
An agnostic on the other hand: you could see him as "more open-minded"...or, maybe the lot of them are just indecisive. The connotations can be reversed with the right wording.
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Agnostics are people who withdraw from conclusion of God's existence.
They are merely observers who analyze the facts that are brought to the table by Theists and Atheists alike, which may have sufficient/insufficient evidence.
Both parties have valid claims which have never been proven to be exactly accurate. This is why being an Agnostic is quite a reasonable stance for someone who seeks for spiritual truth.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What facts are theists bringing to the table? If this forum is any indication their only argument that doesn't get destroyed by scientific evidence is "you can't disprove god".
2. Who/what created the Big Bang? Everything has a beginning/source, therefore something/someone created this mass of matter.
3. Who/what gives life to our physical body? What gives it free-will, conscience, and emotions? Where do they come from, and how do they function the way they do?
4. Man cannot procreate life from nothing. Who/what created the one-celled organisms?
I was saying that earlier. If matter and energy can't be naturally created or destroyed then it must have been supernaturally created. The bible says many things come from another dimension, and i think this universe was one of them.(science just found out there are more than one dimension) The problem with nearly everyone of the arguments used in this thread is ya'll are the ones saying science disproves and disagrees with the bible but no one can give a single example. The burden of proof is not on me/us because we're saying we agree with science. as does da bible.
Originally posted by King KandyAccording to the definition you are using, absolutley a baby would be considered an atheist...but I don't agree with that definition: at this point, I find it too broad a net being cast (if I were to label a baby anything, perhaps "pre-theistic" would be the most accurate). By your definition, I would be considered an atheist, and I feel that very much does not describe my position.
But you would agree that the baby doesn't believe in god, right? I don't see how someone who doesn't believe in god isn't an atheist. Could you please tell me what your definition of atheism is?
As far as my definitions go, simply put...
Atheist: I don't believe God exists.
Agnostic: I don't know.
Theist: I believe God exists.
Beyond this begins to venture into overthink: fun, perhaps even useful at times, but IMO basically needless or indulgent.
But I don't see anything in general experience that would make me think Atheists are actually doing that.Then, again, we see things differently here, too. As you put it, if agnostics "simply don't take a position," then by inference, atheists have. I prefer calling it (whimsically) placing a bet because, as has also been pointed out, and as I've seen on this forum, those atheists openly pursuing truth understand their position is a best guess, not a certainty.