Secret Chief
Degrow!
I humbly suggest a lot of agnostics are not atheists.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Agnostics: Get Off the Fence
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
-
- Tags
- agnostic agnosticism
I humbly suggest a lot of agnostics are not atheists.
Secret Chief
Degrow!
Last edited:
How much is "a lot?"
I've met agnostic theists before, but my experience says that they're pretty rare.
Secret Chief
Degrow!
Agnostic theism is but one descriptor some people may use. More generally, I agree with post #7, the two are referring to different things:
"agnosticism pertains to the state of our knowledge while atheism is about the state of our beliefs."
I do not self-identify as either an agnostic or atheist unless forced at gun point, but what kind of self-identification is that?
Last edited:
exchemist
Veteran Member
Yes, @Revoltingest is speaking ex ano.
A mere glance at the dictionary definition of agnostic should be enough. Most people are well aware what agnostic means. The whole purpose of having such a term is that it is not the same as atheist.
Secret Chief
Degrow!
Well! You public school types are still posh even when you're rude!
Very educational. I shall endeavour to use the term at least once a day.
I feel very strongly both ways. After all, I'm not the kind of guy who would ever get into an argument.
Secret Chief
Degrow!
"Miller" is American slang for ****.
syo
Well-Known Member
I'm sure some might say they're not.
I know a guy who says Muslims are Satanists.
Dictionary definitions are more useful than personal ones.
I would never use such language on a family friendly forum!
Would you say that the natural numbers are rational numbers?
Or that rational numbers are not real numbers?
Of course not.
They're all included in the set of real numbers.
But it's useful to define subsets of things, eg, agnosticism.
Maybe it's because you're annoying and they don't want to talk to you, so they just smile and nod and move on.
You've annoyed me by insisting that I'm a theist, because I'm not atheist enough for you. I can well imagine other people feeling the same way.
Tom
exchemist
Veteran Member
The term (agnosticism, not ex ano
) was invented by T H Huxley, who described his stance in this way:" When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble." [my bold]
Words from history don't always retain original meaning.
I prefer 21st century definitions.
The word "typewriter" originally referred to the person typing?
Do you still use it that way?
Secret Chief
Degrow!
I'm not using personal definitions.
"Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysicalbeliefs in God or spiritual beings. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable."
- atheism | Definition, Philosophy, & Comparison to Agnosticism
I find it slightly weird to say the least when an agnostic is told they do not know what they are.
Last edited:
Interesting. I have no memory of whatever it is that I said that got you so worked up.
Most of the people I annoy for saying that they aren't atheists are deists. Is this what this is about?
In a sense, yes.
You told me I am a theist because I call the reason that there is something, rather than nothing, God. Sometimes.
But the real reason I was annoyed was you telling me I was wrong in my self identification. I don't think I'm a theist. You told me I am wrong.
It's not a big deal. You aren't the only annoying person on the internet. I find hard atheists annoying more often than not.
Tom
I think it is one thing to make a claim to knowledge either way, if by that I mean knowing in the way that I know that PI is an irrational number. But then there is the question of what does the preponderance of potential evidence -- all the clues that may point to either the existence or non-existence of "gods" in the sense usually meant by the religious. And for me, that preponderance of evidence falls on the side of non-existence.It is not the case. I have been on this forum for many years and have kept the same signature that you see below.
I don’t know, and neither do you.
I am not a theist. To be a theist means that you have faith that God exists. I do not have faith that God exists.
I am not an atheist. The be an atheist you have to have concluded (have faith) that no God exists. I cannot exclude the possibility (and you cannot either).
And before any twits here start labelling me with “strong atheist”, or “atheistic agnostic”, or “weak theist” garbage. Just know that all that blubbering is just garbage. Get over yourselves and your claims of knowledge. You. Don’t. KNOW.
You have faith. I am faithless in this regard.
I’m very comfortable “on the fence” as you say. The rest of you live with your beliefs.
I will keep watching what is, because I don’t think that we’ve learned everything that the multiverse has to show us yet.
There’s plenty of room up here, and all are welcome.
Now, it may be true that I haven't considered all the potential evidence that might exist, but as far as I am able, I have certainly looked carefully at al the evidence that has ever been presented to me.
And I don't much care for your use of the word "faith" in this, or for that matter, even the word belief. I think that there is quite a large difference between believing that a thing is not true and not believing that a thing is true.
I would also say this to your signature line: if, as you suggest, it is impossible for anyone to know, one way or the other, then is there any further point in considering the matter at all?
I usually refer to myself as an agnostic atheist. Sometimes I'll talk about or endorse an idea of God as a metaphor for reality. But I don't think there's anything supernatural about it, at least nothing we can verify.
I say agnosticism is a subset of atheism.
This comports with both Wikipedia & Dictionary.com.
Got anything more authoritative?