The need to preach.

Shenshen

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

This is what I adhere to. So we agree on this. However, people in this forum have attempted to label me an atheist claiming that agnostic and athiest are the same thing. It is my opinion that there are clear differences and hence cannot be the same. Also in the "God Delusion" Dawkins launches (what can be seen as a scathing attack on agnostics) which once again highlights that he also sees significant differences but more importantly recgonises that it is a valid and real stance.

Er... can you show me those posts? All I've read so far were people saying that since you can be an agnostic atheist and agnostic theist, your statement of being agnostic doesn't apply to what you believe in, which you rejected.

Ever since then people have been falling over themselves trying to explain the difference between gnostic/agnostic and theist/atheist...

Your statement that "religious arguments don't convince me" was why people called you atheist.
Nobody tried to convert you, people simply pointed out that if you don't believe in god, you are by definition, an atheist.

Shenshen

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Whats this? Some type of Boards infallibility? You say it so it becomes true?? Once again someone mixing up interpretation with facts.

What, his interpretation is that knowledge and belief are two very different things???

Didn't you yourself just agree with that?

Carlos_Ray

liamw wrote: »

No they didn't. I asked are you:
a. Agnostic atheist
b. Agnostic theist

It's one or the other

Firstly, they did and if you read back through the posts you will see it.

Secondly you do know that there is more than two types of agnostics don't you?

I see you quoted wikipedia before so here's more from your source which you conveniently ignored.

liamw wrote: »

Agnosticist (also called "faithless" or "factual agnosticism")The Agnosticist is absent of belief, where theism requires faith that there is a deity or deities. An Agnosticist would say, "I neither have a belief in a deity nor do I have a belief in the absence of such a deity.
"Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you.
"Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is evidence we can find something out.
"Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism)The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.
Agnostic atheismAgnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.
Agnostic theismThe view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.
IgnosticismThe view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the
noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.

liamw

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I totally get it.

You can't make statement until you've arrived at a decision.
Its only once you declare yourself not an agnostic that you can decide if you're athiest or thiest.

Are you starting to understand now?

No, you're still not getting it. You can be:
a. Gnostic atheist
b. Gnostic theist
c. Agnostic athiest
d. Agnostic theist

You can have a belief, or lack thereof, without claiming full knowledge.

liamw

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Firstly, they did and if you read back through the posts you will see it.

Secondly you do know that there is more than two types of agnostics don't you?

I see you quoted wikipedia before so here's more from your source which you conveniently ignored.

Ok there's a range of agnosticism from weak to strong. I already know that.

Shenshen

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I totally get it.

You can't make statement until you've arrived at a decision.
Its only once you declare yourself not an agnostic that you can decide if you're athiest or thiest.

Are you starting to understand now?

You're confusing me know...
You can be an agnostic atheist (you don't believe in god, and know that deities are ultimately un-knowable) or an agnostic theist (you do believe in a god, and know that deities are ultimately un-knowable)
By the same measure, you can be a gnostic atheist (you don't believe in god, and know that god doesn't exist) or a gnostic theist (you do believe in god and know that god exists).

Rev Hellfire

liamw wrote: »

No, you're still not getting it. You can be:
a. Gnostic atheist
b. Gnostic theist
c. Agnostic athiest
d. Agnostic theist

You can have a belief, or lack thereof, without claiming full knowledge.

The problem here is you assume those are the only options.

As Sink previous stated so well you can also be ignostic or even an apathetic agnostic.

Though perhaps I'm not getting your definitions, would you expand upon them and show where either an ignostic or apathetic agnostic would fit in ?

Carlos_Ray

Shenshen wrote: »

Er... can you show me those posts? All I've read so far were people saying that since you can be an agnostic atheist and agnostic theist, your statement of being agnostic doesn't apply to what you believe in, which you rejected..

As already mentioned there is not just two forms of agnosticism as you are presenting. What do I believe in as a matter of interest? My stance has been very clear i.e. I don't know what I believe in.

Shenshen wrote: »

Ever since then people have been falling over themselves trying to explain the difference between gnostic/agnostic and theist/atheist.....

Firstly I am well aware of the differences, and secondly if I wasn't I wouldn't be seeking advice from people off this forum. Again in a subtle way you are trying to inject that stereotypical atheist condesending tone into the discussion. Nobody here is in any position to even attempt to "educate me" and I would not be so arrogant to do it to anybody else.

Shenshen wrote: »

Your statement that "religious arguments don't convince me" was why people called you atheist.

Well this logic doesn't follow. If for example, a person is not convinced by the Bible and such religious arguments does it naturally follow that they don't believe in a God?? Of Course not, thats a bit of red herring. BTW i have said I was unconvinced by both sides hence I don't know what I believe.My stance is agnostic. Why is that so difficult for some people to grasp?

Shenshen

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Well this logic doesn't follow. If for example, a person is not convinced by the Bible and such religious arguments does it naturally follow that they don't believe in a God?? Of Course not, thats a bit of red herring. BTW i have said I was unconvinced by both sides hence I don't know what I believe.My stance is agnostic. Why is that so difficult for some people to grasp?

Because agnostic is a statement about knowledge, not about belief.
By saying you're agnostic you're saying you hold it to be unknowable, not you hold it to be unbelieveable.

Rev Hellfire

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

My stance has been very clear i.e. I don't know what I believe in.

Ahhh haa, so you're an atheist !

sorry couldn't resist.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The problem here is you assume those are the only options.

As Sink previous stated so well you can also be ignostic or even an apathetic agnostic.

Though perhaps I'm not getting your definitions, would you expand upon them and show where either an ignostic or apathetic agnostic would fit in ?

The issue everyone is taking with the original post is the implication that to be an atheist means you are declaring gnostic belief, ie I know for certain there is no God

That isn't the case. An agnostic, as defined by Huxley, is someone who does not believe that humans can possess the knowledge to know something is true to a degree of certainty, a claim common in religious circles particularly in Huxley's time.

It doesn't stop you from being an atheist. If you do not believe theist claims you are an atheist. You do not need to be 100% certain that theists are wrong to do this.

If you do not believe theist claims you are an atheist. It is not a question of will it rain tomorrow. It is a question of do you believe me when I say it will rain tomorrow.

Rev Hellfire

Wicknight wrote: »

If you do not believe theist claims you are an atheist. It is not a question of will it rain tomorrow. It is a question of do you believe me when I say it will rain tomorrow.

The problem is you assume I can form a belief in the absence of sufficient knowledge.
But you can't, you must have a kernel of knowledge to begin with to form a belief.

Carlos_Ray

Wicknight wrote: »

If you do not believe theist claims you are an atheist. You do not need to be 100% certain that theists are wrong to do this.

If you do not believe theist claims you are an atheist. It is not a question of will it rain tomorrow. It is a question of do you believe me when I say it will rain tomorrow.

I have never said I don't believe theist claims. I said I was unconvinced by both sides. People seemed to jump at the word "unconvinced" and took it to mean "don't believe in" while it should have been seen as "don't know." I am well aware that atheists have a problem with this stance and are often critical about it. However, its my stance and one that is quite common.

My main issue so far on this forum is peoples atitude. They are presenting ideas as facts and resorting to patronising tactics in order to push their ideas through. Like everybody here I have read Dawkins and I respect the man. I understand his ideas and criticisms about agnostics, however, i don't suscribe to them. I respect him becuase like most scholars he presents his ideas as ideas. Something that a lot of people here seem to miss.

axer

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The problem is you assume I can form a belief in the absence of sufficient knowledge.

Well religious people do it everyday! :pac:

Rev Hellfire

axer wrote: »

Well religious people do it everyday! :pac:

Touché

axer

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

I have never said I don't believe theist claims. I said I was unconvinced by both sides. People seemed to jump at the word "unconvinced" and took it to mean "don't believe in" while it should have been seen as "don't know." I am well aware that atheists have a problem with this stance and are often critical about it. However, its my stance and one that is quite common.

There is no claim being made by atheists, thats the part you are missing. Atheism is the lack of belief - it is not another belief thus saying you are unconvinced by both sides doesn't make sense. This would make sense only if you thought atheism means "there definitely is no higher power". From my understanding this is what Dawkins was arguing (although I have never read any of his books).

DeVore

I'll be content to live and let live when religious types stop touching up kids, insisting on teaching them nonsense and attempting to subvert our laws to enshrine their particular belief system.

When that happens, they can do as they please.

DeV.

Dades

liamw wrote: »

Are you starting to understand now?

Can we play nice and avoid this type of antagonism? Good.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

My main issue so far on this forum is peoples atitude. They are presenting ideas as facts and resorting to patronising tactics in order to push their ideas through.

Can you offer some examples from other threads?

Otacon

Atheism vs theism is a binary choice - you are one or the other, neither of which makes any statement about what you 'know', only what you 'believe'.

DeVore

ps: I do find preachy atheists annoying, but then I find preachy people annoying, so perhaps the sub-specification is unnecessary there.

DeV.

Shenshen

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

I have never said I don't believe theist claims. I said I was unconvinced by both sides. People seemed to jump at the word "unconvinced" and took it to mean "don't believe in" while it should have been seen as "don't know." I am well aware that atheists have a problem with this stance and are often critical about it. However, its my stance and one that is quite common.

My main issue so far on this forum is peoples atitude. They are presenting ideas as facts and resorting to patronising tactics in order to push their ideas through. Like everybody here I have read Dawkins and I respect the man. I understand his ideas and criticisms about agnostics, however, i don't suscribe to them. I respect him becuase like most scholars he presents his ideas as ideas. Something that a lot of people here seem to miss.

Nobody is argueing the ideas.
What I and many others have done is presented the definitions of the terms, and tried to explain why they should not be confused.

If that's patronising, so be it. I'd rather be patronising that have people confuse windows and doors just because they feel they're just different ideas of holes in the wall.

Dades

DeVore wrote: »

ps: I do find preachy atheists annoying, but then I find preachy people annoying, so perhaps the sub-specification is

That's probably a good distinction and ties in with the point I made earlier about the same discussions (and personalities) that appear on in most every forum.

Rev Hellfire

axer wrote: »

There is no claim being made by atheists, thats the part you are missing. Atheism is the lack of belief - it is not another belief thus saying you are unconvinced by both sides doesn't make sense. This would make sense only if you thought atheism means "there definitely is no higher power". From my understanding this is what Dawkins was arguing (although I have never read any of his books).

But to arrive at that belief you have weighted up the facts as you perceive them and come to a conclusion. Or are you saying you can have a belief with out giving it any thought ?
At some point you've made the decision you know enough to make a statement.

Shenshen

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

But to arrive at that belief you have weighted up the facts as you perceive them and come to a conclusion. Or are you saying you can have a belief with out giving it any thought ?
At some point you've made the decision you know enough to make a statement.

How many hours have you spent weighing the pros and cons of the existence of the teapot orbiting Mars, or the potential non-existence of red bicycles in China?
We believe in a lot of things without giving it much thought, and we disbelieve even more.

axer

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

But to arrive at that belief you have weighted up the facts as you perceive them and come to a conclusion. Or are you saying you can have a belief with out giving it any thought ?

You can not have a belief without giving it any thought (I hope that makes sense). For instance if you never thought about gods or higher powers you would be a de facto atheist i.e. since you have an absense of belief that a god exists.

Atheism is the absense of belief not the belief of absense.

Rev Hellfire

axer wrote: »

You can not have a belief without giving it any thought (I hope that makes sense). For instance if you never thought about gods or higher powers you would be a de facto atheist i.e. since you have an absense of belief that a god exists.

Nope you can only become an atheist once you consider the possibility of gods. Are rocks athiests ?

Shenshen

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Nope you can only become an atheist once you consider the possibility of gods. Are rocks athiests ?

This is leading to the old "Are children born atheists" question, is it?

Dades

Hmmm, I don't know. If you never even knew of religion or gods etc. (desert island syndrome) I think you are technically just a person.

Until such time as you entertain the question given some options, I don't believe you can be labelled anything else.

axer

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Nope you can only become an atheist once you consider the possibility of gods. Are rocks athiests ?

Since rocks are incapable of even thinking I don't think your example will work.

Rev Hellfire

axer wrote: »

Since rocks are incapable of even thinking I don't think your example will work.

But your definition its the absence of belief in gods, or is it now the reasoned rejected of a belief in gods? In which case you can't have a position until you think about it.

axer

Dades wrote: »

Until such time as you entertain the question given some options, I don't believe you can be labelled anything else.

If you had an absense of belief in a deity then you would be a de facto atheist. I can't see how it would matter that you never thought about it.

Rev Hellfire

axer wrote: »

If you had an absense of belief in a deity then you would be a de facto atheist. I can't see how it would matter that you never thought about it.

So rocks can be atheists since thinking is unimportant.

axer

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

But your definition its the absence of belief in gods, or is it now the reasoned rejected of a belief in gods? In which case you can't have a position until you think about it.

You are trying to put a label for a living thing onto something that is not living. How is that going to work?

Rev Hellfire

axer wrote: »

You are trying to put a label for a living thing onto something that is not living. How is that going to work?

I'm just trying to tighten your defination

So if rocks aren't atheists because they can't think, are dogs atheists because they can?

axer

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

So if rocks aren't atheists because they can't think, are dogs atheists because they can?

My understanding was that the word was coined up to describe humans.

Rev Hellfire

axer wrote: »

My understanding was that the word was coined up to describe humans.

Ahh I see, so would there be a different word say if we encountered intelligent life else where who didn't believe in gods ?

Just to be prepared such I be abducted by god delusion reading aliens some night

ColmDawson

Asking whether rocks or dogs can be atheists is somewhat absurd and I can't imagine it could really add to this conversation or to your understanding of the situation.

However, I'll venture the suggestion that the term 'atheist' can only be appropriately used in relation to a creature that is capable of being a theist.

JimiTime

If I may, as a Christian, wade in to the 'need to preach' question, I have a few points to make.

1. A Christian who does not share the message of the good news of the kingdom is irresponsible and selfish. In order to understand, you need to comprehend that a Christian believes that he has news that will give you everlasting life in happiness. However, a Christian should not be persistant in their evangelisation, e.g. Knocking on a persons door a second time after being told to feck off the first time etc.

2. Here on the internetzweb, its alot more about pitting ones wits, and shaping ones views. Yes we get into realms of heated debate, frustration and disrespect, but there is very little 'preaching' going on. I would not mix up Christian preaching, with Christians arguing their positions or against others positions. Alot of the arguements are hot air etc, and my own personal testimony about posting is as follows:

a) Sometimes theres slow days at work, and an arguement, even when you see its lack of worth, can pass the time.
b) Sometimes you know you are not going to covince anyone you are arguing with, but to enter into certain debates can bring clarity to your own position, and at times tweak it. Sometimes even realise you are wrong:eek:
c) Sometimes you think you can show someone their error. This is when the frustration can start, and accusations of pig headedness etc can flow.
d) Sometimes you simply want to be educated in certain topics that others have more knowledge in.

I agree, that decorum is ignored by everyone at certain points, and some are more guilty than others. I prefer to know where I stand with a poster though, e.g. Zillah, than have to put up with IMO the more annoying, tippy tappy around the bush on eggshells posters who actually feel the same way as someone like Zillah, but mask it in phoney diplomacy etc. Things can sometimes overstep the mark, but then there's the Mods.

My two cent anyhoo.

Dades

ColmDawson wrote: »

However, I'll venture the suggestion that the term 'atheist' can only be appropriately used in relation to a creature that is capable of being a theist.

Exactly! And someone who has never heard of gods or religion is incapable of being a theist.

It's all a bit irrelevant, but sure we just can't stop disagreeing and hammering out or own opinions.

Zombrex

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

I have never said I don't believe theist claims. I said I was unconvinced by both sides.

There is no "other side" Theists claim something. If you reject what they say you are an atheist. It is pretty simple.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

People seemed to jump at the word "unconvinced" and took it to mean "don't believe in" while it should have been seen as "don't know." I am well aware that atheists have a problem with this stance and are often critical about it. However, its my stance and one that is quite common.

That is up to you. I'm not saying you are an atheist. But your idea of what an atheist is seems way off.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

My main issue so far on this forum is peoples atitude. They are presenting ideas as facts and resorting to patronising tactics in order to push their ideas through. Like everybody here I have read Dawkins and I respect the man. I understand his ideas and criticisms about agnostics, however, i don't suscribe to them. I respect him becuase like most scholars he presents his ideas as ideas. Something that a lot of people here seem to miss.

Er you seem to be the only one in an argumentative mood. You came onto this forum telling everyone they were wrong and didn't like them. What exactly did you expect would happen?

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The problem is you assume I can form a belief in the absence of sufficient knowledge.
But you can't, you must have a kernel of knowledge to begin with to form a belief.

I'm not assuming anything. I don't believe atheism is simple a lack of belief in theism, I think it is a rejection of the claims of theists. If you have never heard of theists claims then it becomes a moot point. Like supposing that someone has arachnophobia in a world without spiders or someone who doesn't collect stamps in a world without stamps.

Rev Hellfire

Wicknight wrote: »

And?

What?

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

What?

I figured you would ask that so I changed my post above.

You seem to be assuming I hold to an idea that I don't.

ColmDawson

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not assuming anything. I don't believe atheism is simple a lack of belief in theism, I think it is a rejection of the claims of theists. If you have never heard of theists claims then it becomes a moot point. Like supposing that someone has arachnophobia in a world without spiders or someone who doesn't collect stamps in a world without stamps.

I think the categories Explicit and Implicit are useful for that kind of thing.

Explicit atheist: someone who has heard the claims of theists and rejects them (is unconvinced by them).

Implicit atheist: someone who hasn't consciously rejected the claims of theism (i.e., has never been introduced to the concept of god).

Rev Hellfire

Wicknight wrote: »

If you have never heard of theists claims then it becomes a moot point. Like supposing that someone has arachnophobia in a world without spiders or someone who doesn't collect stamps in a world without stamps.

Totally agree with you. Thats us bffe.

Rev Hellfire

ColmDawson wrote: »

Implicit atheist: someone who hasn't consciously rejected the claims of theism (i.e., has never been introduced to the concept of god).

Is that like a Implicit theist, someone who hasn't consciously accepted the claims of theism (i.e., has never been introduced to the concept of god) ?

*dog with bone*

ColmDawson

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Is that like a Implicit theist, someone who hasn't consciously accepted the claims of theism (i.e., has never been introduced to the concept of god) ?

*dog with bone*

Do you mean a person who, in isolation, independently invented the concept of god (without being aware of the existing concept)?

I'm not even sure that that would count as implicit, because the person would have consciously accepted their own invented concept.

Rev Hellfire

ColmDawson wrote: »

I'm not even sure that that would count as implicit, because the person would have consciously accepted their own invented concept.

Which is different to an implicit atheist which consciously rejected their own invented concept?

strobe

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Once again you have just repeated what a previous poster has said but using different examples. And once again, I don't agree with your view point. And thats what it is a view point. I have debated this issue time and time again throughout university and even in my career but I am not so arrogant to believe that what I say is absolute fact. We're dealing with an area that is heavily open to interpretation (whether you like it or not) and my interpretation differs from yours.

I have spent a huge amount of time and energy coming to my conclusions (or lack of). As I have already said I am extremely confident in my stance (which is the only stance that matters to me). For you to say " it really is that simple," when it is blantantly obvious that is not, is imo a bit arrogant and blinkered. It reminds me of certain religious zealots that say the same thing in relation to scriptures ." it really is that simple???" If that was the case why are there numerous books, dissertations,and studies that take a different stance on the issue? Its because its not an exact science...

In your opinion, its simple. But like the word "terrorism" , "Agnosticism" has no definitive definition and is heavily open to interpretation.

I'm just after giving out to myself in another thread for not reading all the posts before responding but still.....

So you are complaining that you have a view point that you don't feel is being respected and then going on to say that your view point is the only one that matters to you? People give thier view point so you object to thier stance profusely but when people object to your view point it gets your back up? I'm hugely confused Ted.....

Carlos_Ray

Wicknight wrote: »

There is no "other side" Theists claim something. If you reject what they say you are an atheist. It is pretty simple.

But I haven't rejected it. Nor have I accepted it. Thats the whole point.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is up to you. I'm not saying you are an atheist. But your idea of what an atheist is seems way off.

Seems way off what? I know exactly what the common definition of atheist is and I'm not one despite what some people are trying to say. Some people believe that if you are not convinced by theism you are automatically an atheist. I don't follow this line of thought. Bottom line is most people on this forum don't agree with me. Thats fine. Doesn't mean that they are correct. I have had the same debate numerous times with a variety of people many agree some don't.

Wicknight wrote: »

Er you seem to be the only one in an argumentative mood. You came onto this forum telling everyone they were wrong and didn't like them. What exactly did you expect would happen?

I never said anyone was wrong. I never said I didn't like anyone. False accusations.