The amount of atheists here that don't seem to understand...

DanCorb

The amount of atheists here that don't seem to understand that everyone is either a theist or an atheist shocks me. It's simple: Agnosticism is not a third option.
Gnostic refers to knowledge. Theist refers to belief. If you believe, you are a theist. If you don't believe, you are an atheist. Simple as that. It has nothing to do with knowledge.

Not one atheist I've ever met claims he KNOWS there is no god, however when weighing up the evidence we have come to the conlclusion that there is likely no god so we therefore don't believe in one. Therefore we are agnostic atheists.

Anyone that thinks agnosticism is somehow a third option should read this:
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

"Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism."

Dades

DanCorb wrote: »

The amount of atheists here that don't seem to understand that everyone is either a theist or an atheist shocks me.

Most of the bastardisations of the definition of agnostic I've seen here, have come from people who actually call themselves agnostic. They usually sound something like "how you be atheist when you can't know if god exists?" or some such.

If you have some axe to grind with a particular post/thread, if might be better to reply to that than issue a blanket headshake and pointy finger at "atheists here".

SonOfPerdition

DanCorb wrote: »

Not one atheist I've ever met claims he KNOWS there is no god

i know there is no god.

Zombrex

DanCorb wrote: »

The amount of atheists here that don't seem to understand that everyone is either a theist or an atheist shocks me. It's simple: Agnosticism is not a third option.
Gnostic refers to knowledge. Theist refers to belief. If you believe, you are a theist. If you don't believe, you are an atheist. Simple as that. It has nothing to do with knowledge.

Not one atheist I've ever met claims he KNOWS there is no god, however when weighing up the evidence we have come to the conlclusion that there is likely no god so we therefore don't believe in one. Therefore we are agnostic atheists.

Anyone that thinks agnosticism is somehow a third option should read this:
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

"Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism."

I'm Wicknight, and I approved this message
- Paid for by Citizens for Wicknight -

Seriously though, good post but the topic has been done to death on this forum. I've already single handily convinced everyone of the position you have put forward, and now they all worship me as some kind of supernatural all powerful being.


which is nice.

Galvasean

I believe that i don't believe in God.

pH

DanCorb wrote: »

The amount of atheists here that don't seem to understand that everyone is either a theist or an atheist shocks me. It's simple: Agnosticism is not a third option.

Sure it is, agnosticism is atheism's nicer less vocal sibling, agnostics are those who don't believe in God yet don't want to piss off any theists. That and they're by far the cleverer of the non-believers, *everyone* knows that not believing in God is just as illogical, dogmatic and stupid as believing in him.

Galvasean

pH wrote: »

*everyone* knows that not believing in God is just as illogical, dogmatic and stupid as believing in him.

Dude, are you like, being sarcastic, man?

Pgibson

The word ATHEIST breaks the rule of spelling which says :

"I before E except after C"

So does the word "SCIENCE"

Therefore both are incorrect.

I believe in the FAIRIES because they obey the correct rules of spelling.

.

Pgibson

DEISTS and THEISTS disobey the rule too so they are all wrong as well.

Thats why I'm off with the FAIRIES.

.

Dades

Glad we cleared that up then.

DanCorb

Wicknight wrote: »

Seriously though, good post but the topic has been done to death on this forum.

And the amount of people that still don't seem to understand it is pretty shocking.

Pgibson

DanCorb wrote: »

And the amount of people that still don't seem to understand it is pretty shocking.

Thats 'cos you DanCorb are so very-very-very-very much cleverer than us who don't seem to understand.

O wise one I bow to your great wisdom.

.

Zillah

Pgibson wrote: »

Thats 'cos you DanCorb are so very-very-very-very much cleverer than us who don't seem to understand.

O wise one I bow to your great wisdom.

This is a truly damning rebuttal.

Dades

Well to be fair, why would you rebut a statement of "shock", aimed at nobody in particular.

studiorat

I guess someone got an 'A' in Atheisim...

Malari

DanCorb wrote: »

The amount of atheists here that don't seem to understand that everyone is either a theist or an atheist shocks me. It's simple: Agnosticism is not a third option.
Gnostic refers to knowledge. Theist refers to belief. If you believe, you are a theist. If you don't believe, you are an atheist. Simple as that. It has nothing to do with knowledge.

What do you call people who just plain have not made up their minds one way or another?? The people who answer "I don't know" when asked if they believe in a god?

Rev Hellfire

Malari wrote: »

What do you call people who just plain have not made up their minds one way or another?? The people who answer "I don't know" when asked if they believe in a god?

I don't believe such a word exists.

Pgibson

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I don't believe such a word exists.

How convenient for your beliefs !

George Orwell's 1984:

Newspeak - The official language of Oceania. Newspeak is "politically correct" speech taken to its maximum extent. Newspeak is based on standard English, but all words describing "unorthodox" political ideas have been removed. In addition, there was an attempt to remove the overall number of words in general, to limit the range of ideas that could be expressed.

.

Rev Hellfire

You're confusing your comics with real life, there's no such place as Oceania.

DanCorb

Malari wrote: »

What do you call people who just plain have not made up their minds one way or another?? The people who answer "I don't know" when asked if they believe in a god?

Once again you are confusing knowledge with belief. I've already stated that no one KNOWS. When it comes to belief, you either believe something is true or false. You weigh up the evidence for each side and then make a decision.

If I say I have a dragon in my garage, do you believe me? Of course you could answer "I don't know" - but that refers to knowledge, not belief. You are likely to disbelieve my claim based on evidence.

Pgibson

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

You're confusing your comics with real life, there's no such place as Oceania.

You call George Orwell's classic book "1884" a COMIC ?

Big Brother would be SO proud of that piece of Newspeak!

Quote:

"1984 is possibly the definitive dystopian novel, set in a world beyond our imagining. A world where totalitarianism really is total, all power split into three roughly equal groups--Eastasia, Eurasia, and Oceania. 1984 is set in Oceania, which includes the United Kingdom, where the story is set, known as Airstrip One."

.

Pgibson

Big Brother was watching me.

He said "It's 1984 you Prole."

.

sink

Pgibson wrote: »

You call George Orwell's classic book "1884" a COMIC ?

Big Brother would be SO proud of that piece of Newspeak!

Quote:

"1984 is possibly the definitive dystopian novel, set in a world beyond our imagining. A world where totalitarianism really is total, all power split into three roughly equal groups--Eastasia, Eurasia, and Oceania. 1984 is set in Oceania, which includes the United Kingdom, where the story is set, known as Airstrip One."

.

To add. The word "Orwellian" meaning "Frightening and overcontrolled by a government that interferes in nearly every aspect of personal life" is itself derived from the author of the novel George Orwell and is included in the Oxford English dictionary.

Soul Winner

If we go back to the Greek meanings:

Theos = God.

Theist = Believer in Theos.

Putting "A" before a word in the Greek reverses the meaning of the word as in "Agnosis" which is "no knowledge" as apposed to "Gnosis" which is knowledge. We get the word "Ignorant" from the word "Agnosis".

An "Atheist" then is a "non believer in Theos", not someone who says that there is no Theos.

A strictly "Agnostic" person by definition is neither "a believer" or "non believer" in Theos. Because he does not have knowledge of anything, not just no knowledge about Theos but no knowledge about anything.

An "Atheist" can be someone who says that there is in fact no Theos but the fact that he says that is not what makes him an "Athest". He still does not know so that there is no Theos which means therefore he is also an "Agnostic" in this regard. But to be an "Atheist" he must know what he does not believe in which means he can't be "Agnostic" in this reagrd even though he is "Agnostic" when it comes to knowing whether or not there is a Theos.

Can an "Agnostic" also be an "Atheist"? Of course, he can 'not know' and also 'not believe' at the same time once he has some knowledge of what he is suppose to be not believing in which sort of makes him a "Gnostic" as apposed to an "Agnostic" beacuse now he knows what he does not believe in. So he is an "Atheist" and not an "Agnostic" in this reagrd but he is still only an "Agnostic" with regard wo knowing whether or not there is a Theos or not.

Same goes for the Theist. We are all "Theistic Agnostics". All Theists don't really know there is a Theos, they only believe that there is one. They may have very strong reasons to believe and act accordingly and through experiential knowledge become knowers of many facts which help further their belief but they are still agnostic in the sense that they do not know that there is a Theos. If they actually knew that there was a Theos then they would not need to believe in the Theos as much but would still believe in Theos because they also know that there is in fact a Theos.

Now I'm confused

Zillah

Pgibson wrote: »

Big Brother was watching me.

He said "It's 1984 you Prole."

.

I must say, this new guy is growing on me.

FionnMatthew

DanCorb wrote: »

Once again you are confusing knowledge with belief. I've already stated that no one KNOWS. When it comes to belief, you either believe something is true or false. You weigh up the evidence for each side and then make a decision.

If I say I have a dragon in my garage, do you believe me? Of course you could answer "I don't know" - but that refers to knowledge, not belief. You are likely to disbelieve my claim based on evidence.

All very well, but the problem is that "atheism" has come to denote the class of people who make positive knowledge claims about the nonexistence of a personal God.

Those knowledge claims are purported to be compliant with the standard analysis: justified, true belief, etc.

They claim to derive their JTB from logical proofs of certain Gods' nonexistence, and from empirical evidence pertaining to the probability of God's nonexistence, and a cognizant reconfiguration of the justificatory requirements of the standard analysis of knowledge.

They claim to know that God does not exist. There is a hard core of certainty there.

You would call these people "Gnostic Atheists." And they do lay claim to the word "atheist." It really has come to have that connotation of positive knowledge claims as to the nonexistence of God, which, to an agnostic, of either persuasion, sounds both untenable, and somewhat reminiscent of the sorts of dogmatic belief jumped up to knowledge claims that certain of the more extreme religious cults have gravitated towards. And, for a Gnostic Atheist, it is seen as mere cowardice or laziness to refrain from knowledge claims as to God's nonexistence. One is required to hold no beliefs without radical justifiaction as to God's nonexistence.

The result is that your claim is false. Next to this sort of atheism, agnosticism IS a third position. It doesn't change the idea that there are, avoiding the mereology of the issue, still two broad positions on the existence of God - For or Against. But it does mean that agnosticism is not a redundant position. In fact, it's all the more important, being probably the most tenable. And the common tendency to distinguish "agnosticism", meaning agnostic atheism, from "atheism" meaning, for such people, gnostic atheism, is probably mainly derivative of the strident, aggressive manner with which gnostic atheists lay claim to the name, "atheism." It has connotations in the folk discourse that someone of a more cautious persuasion just doesn't want to own. It is, etymologically speaking, slightly unorthodox, but with reference to the way the words are being used by theists and atheists alike these days, it has a certain measure of pragmatic sense.

Your thought experiment isn't entirely fair, either. It's harder to be a Gnostic Atheist about dragons than about an omnipotent creator. A Gnostic Atheist may claim that God has logically impossible attributes, whereas it would be harder to claim that of dragons, fire-breathing giant lizards being, though highly improbably, not impossible, to my knowledge.

It's also worth noting that you can be a theist of Gnostic or Agnostic varieties. Most versions of Christianity make Agnostic theism a virtuous position - as one does not require proof of God's existence - Kant is a good example of a systematic version of this - but there have been a fair share of proofs of God's existence down the ages, and those who aspire to knowledge therein.

There is also the point to be made that it seems slightly premature to delineate agnostic theists and atheists of an agnostic variety with any hard and fast boundaries. There are those of us who, for various reasons, have little or no inclination towards belief in a personal god, and yet are shrewd enough, to avoid the audacity of making knowledge claims therein. But there are those who really aren't sure. They might find themselves poor on justification to either believe or not believe. All of us have had trouble deciding between, say, the cinema or the pub, or the lemon sorbet or the chocolate pudding. There are people whose level of justification one way or another put them in a no man's land between theism and atheism. They might fluctuate from day to day, with very little conviction. I know such people.

For such people, neither atheism or theism seem robust enough a category to cater. Such people really are agnostic - they certainly don't aspire to knowledge claims. They don't have, or claim to have, a gnosis, nor do they have a stable belief position either. You might call them apisteuists, or some such, from pisteuo - GK. belief, which is related to ἐπίσταμαι - "to know" - the root of epistemology.

PS. The word "gnostic" historically speaking, isn't really appropriate for this discourse, denoting, as it does, that hodge-podge of neo-Platonist and mystic beliefs that makes up a loose family of post classical religions. But I suppose it will serve it's purposes at present.

Joe1919

The original poster needs to understand the dangers of absolute or binary thinking. Many people are quite willing to accept that this binary athiest/thiest way of thinking is faulty because there are many different views of God and they are happy to accept the limits of our knowledge and to say 'I dont know if there is a God or not because I dont even know what this God is even supposed to be in the first place'.

Its reasonable then for someone that dosent know what God is or whether he exist or not to call himself an Agnostic. He's simply being honest and saying 'I dont know' and 'I see no need to commit myself to either position'

Indeed, there are at least three ways that I could say 'I dont know'

1 I dont know what God is .
2 .I dont know if God exists or what it really means to exist.
3. I dont know myself enough to know what my real true beliefs really are.

Perhaps I will call myself a 'Idontknowist'

Pgibson

Revealed Truth:

God = Richard Dawkins.

Anybody who disputes that will roast forever in eternal fires lit by the loving gentle god.

Forever = 555.45 Godzillion years,at least, without possibility of parole.


.

The Mad Hatter

Pgibson wrote: »

The word ATHEIST breaks the rule of spelling which says :

"I before E except after C"

So does the word "SCIENCE"

Therefore both are incorrect.

I believe in the FAIRIES because they obey the correct rules of spelling.

.

Weirdo.

Malari

DanCorb wrote: »

Once again you are confusing knowledge with belief. I've already stated that no one KNOWS. When it comes to belief, you either believe something is true or false. You weigh up the evidence for each side and then make a decision.

If I say I have a dragon in my garage, do you believe me? Of course you could answer "I don't know" - but that refers to knowledge, not belief. You are likely to disbelieve my claim based on evidence.

Well, I'm not "confusing" anything, actually, I just asked a question that was not intended to be taken rhetorically. But there are people who have not made a decision, have not weighed up the evidence, have not thought about it yet. What do you call them? Maybe there is no word...

FionnMatthew

Malari wrote: »

Well, I'm not "confusing" anything, actually, I just asked a question that was not intended to be taken rhetorically. But there are people who have not made a decision, have not weighed up the evidence, have not thought about it yet. What do you call them? Maybe there is no word...

There's plenty of words.

DanCorb is just patently ignorant of all of them.

He also seems to endorse the blatant fiction that belief is uncontroversially a bivalent affair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_logic