Neither actually say that. You just choose to (wrongly) interpret it that way.
-
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
Although I have agnostic atheist in my descriptor, I find the apatheist part to be an ever growing aspect of my identity. I just do not feel like the question of if there are gods to be an important question as far as me, my behavior and my ethics are concerned.
No reason or evidence?
I've underlined some things for you.
Btw, I once thought as you did, ie, that agnosticism wasn't included in atheism.
But common usage suggested otherwise. Investigation confirmed it.
Agnosticism is at the weak end of the atheism spectrum.
(I'm simultaneously at both extremes. Odd, eh?)
Atheism - Wikipedia
Excerpted....
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, an absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4]
Definition of atheism | Dictionary.com
noun
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Definition of ATHEISM
1a: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
Last edited:
Secret Chief
Degrow!
(Wikipedia:
"Atheism has been regarded as compatible with agnosticism, but has also been contrasted with it.")
Good grief, are we playing that game? Brittania not good enough?
How about the Cambridge dictionary?:
Atheism:
"the belief that God does not exist"
ATHEISM | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
Agnosticism:
"the beliefs of someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, if a god exists"
AGNOSTICISM | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
Off the top of my head I know four people ITRW who consider themselves agnostic but not atheistic. Perhaps I need to disabuse them of their ignorance of the former being a sub-set of the latter.
"Brittania"?...Cambridge...they sound British.
If it's about Brit vs US definitions, then it's moot...we each see it as we do.
I'm an Ameristanian, so I define things in this context.
What is Atheism? | American Atheists
Excerpted...
Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Excerpeted....
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”
Back to me......
You'll note the plural, "gods". Some atheists say "God doesn't exist", but
atheism here is defined far more broadly than denying the Christian god.
Btw, I disbelieve in any & all gods.
I have a strong sense that none exist, but logically this can't be
proven. Thus I'm both a strong & weak atheist simultaneously.
(Weak atheist being an agnostic, of course.)
Even as soon as I came into existence, I had no belief in gods, so
I've been (per American Atheists) an atheist for all of my 67 years.
Last edited:
That doesn't work for me. By that definition, I'm not an atheist. I have come to no such conclusion. Any system of nomenclature that doesn't include me among atheists is of no value to me.
You wrote, "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)."
That makes you an agnostic atheist to me. If that offends you, sorry, but that's on you. Why would you have an emotional reaction?
It's like the Christian who doesn't consider himself or mankind animals. Obviously, by animal, he means what I would mean by non-human animal. OK, I agree that he's not a non-human animal, but not that he is not an animal. If he has an emotional response to that, once again, that's on him. It's not responsibility to manage his emotions for him or to adopt language he finds less offensive. As with the definition of atheist, his definition of animal doesn't work for me.
If you subscribe to one dictionary definition over a competing one, then that choice is personal, just as the theist who says that his religious moral code is not of his choosing, but comes from a holy book. He may not have written that moral code, but he choose it, making the choice subjective.
I presume that what you mean is that you consider deism a form of theism. So do I. And as you suggest, this also gets an emotional response from some deists. OK. If I know that, I won't discuss it with them. They obviously are using a different definition of theist than I do, but that doesn't affect the way I use those words.
I'm sure that you've noticed all of the dictionary definitions for atheist offered in this thread. So what? Nobody is under any obligation to accept any of them. If I read one that agrees with my definition, fine, but it doesn't matter if I do or don't.
A commonly sited definition of atheist is, "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." I would change that to "a person who lacks belief in the existence of gods." Why add disbelieves? To me, that says, "a person who lacks belief in the existence of gods including those that say that there is no god." Why add that? Why not add "or lacks a god belief and perhaps has a moustache." It's not wrong. It's superfluous.
And why add the vague term "God"? Assuming that refers to a specific supernatural entity, it's covered by gods. God is one of the gods, as is Allah, and Loki. It does not include "whatever is the source of the universe," which may not be a sentient, supernatural agent. I don't call the multiverse "God" or a god. Nor the laws of nature.
People make this too complicated, and pointlessly argue about definitions as if they are prescriptive and describe existential truths.
These “undecided” ones are in the majority, I think. It must be a bit frustrating at times, because of the implications.....stuck between two opposing camps, both with clear cut beliefs about everything....and not having enough “evidence” to join either side.
For “believers” in the Bible’s God, there is no doubt at all. Their relationship with this God and his Christ are a positive influence in their lives and governs all the decisions they make (or it should). It gives them purpose and adds understanding to who we are, and what we are doing here. It gives us standards that never change.
It fills in the blanks regarding the things that science cannot explain. It satisfies an innate need in them.
For the “unbelievers”, these are equally convinced that no “God/gods” exist and that we have no purpose to our being at all. Science has given them all the information they need to eliminate any need for a purposeful Creator. The blanks do not seem to bother them, believing that science will fill them in eventually.
But where does that leave the “undecided”?
I guess the “what if’s” must create some inner turmoil for them, because there are repercussions for rejecting the rulership of the Sovereign of the Universe.
If there is no God (who is the Creator of all things) then why are the majority of humans so torn between these two options? What is there in human nature that demands a satisfying of their perceived spiritual need?....whilst others seem to have no spiritual need at all?
What does it mean if there is no reason for our existence?
What does it mean for the limited time that we spend here on planet Earth? Is it just to pass our genes on to the next generation, like the animals? That seems to be a waste of our intelligence.
If this life is all there is, then why are there so few meaningful contributors to it? Why are so many wasting this precious, limited resource? Why are so many bent on satisfying their own selfish desires at the expense of the planet and their fellow humans?
Are we doomed to wipe ourselves out of existence? The godless, scientifically minded seem to be steering us in that direction, forcing us to question how Intelligent we really are?
Believing in a purposeful Creator fills a strong need in me. It gives me reasons for my existence, and provides satisfying answers to all my questions. My relationship with God is not remote nor is he distant. He is a constant in my life who gives me strength to face any and all problems or tragedy. It takes me beyond this trouble filled world, to a place that my heart identifies with. The world to come for me, is a world where all the things that are wrong...are permanently removed. (Described in Revelation 21:3-4) We are not created to die or to experience evil. These are foreign elements in life for most of us....they do not feel natural. Even after all the years of our existence, they are not acceptable.
Without God, nothing in this world makes any sense for me. And having no hope of anything better in the future, would probably lead me to want this purposeless life to end, especially as I age and lose my physical strength. My mind is still sharp, but my body is a constant reminder that my life in this world will come to a finish sooner rather than later.
Having God in my life allows me to see the temporary nature of pain and suffering.....leading to a permanent solution to man’s inhumanity, expressed in so many ways in this world. This is what keeps me sane.
That's why I surveyed multiple (Ameristanian) sources.
As has already been explained, a/gnosticism has nothing to do with belief, its a question of knowledge. That's what gnosis means. The question that a/theism and a/gnosticism is asking is two different questions. (Do you know if vs do you believe if) Which is why there are both agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. Both of which are in the dictionary and on wiki. If agnosticism were a subset of atheism, agnostic theism wouldn't be a thing. And it clearly is.
Definitions often don't exactly match origins of root words.
Words evolve, & it's wise to keep up with the times.
You should tell American Atheists that they're wrong, &
present your argument, eh. Oh, you could correct the
Wikipedia article & the citations too.
I already did. No further explanation is necessary. Agnostic atheist and agnostic theism are words in both common use and philosophy and theology. Those who refuse to use it do so at the discretion of their own cement brains. (Mixed up and set in their ways.)
That came to mind when reading posts that oppose common usage & dictionaries.
Right, like agnostic theism, which differentiates between the two terms and is definitively not a part of atheism.
No one ever said that terminology would have consistent structures.Right, like agnostic theism, which differentiates between the two terms and is definitively not a part of atheism.
Look at "flammable" & "inflammable"....usually the "in" makes the
word's meaning be otherwise. Despite this, people use the words
according to common definitions.....not the structure that should be
imposed upon them.
If agnosticism was a subset of atheism, then agnostic theism would be a contradiction in terms. Handy prefixes and root words indicate when two words are mutually exclusive. And it doesn't and has not with agnosticism. Agnostic's opposite isn't theist, it's gnostic. The true opposite of agnostic atheism is gnostic theism. But agnostic theism is still theism and agnostic doesn't make it no longer theism.
Going up to someone who says 'I'm an agnostic who still believes in god(s)' and saying 'well agnosticism is a subset of theism' is not only definitively wrong, it's also a jerk thing to do.
Perhaps it is.
Theism - Wikipedia
Agnosticism - Wikipedia
Arguing that a definition should fit the structure you see
would require ignoring how most others use the word.
I find that approach dysfunctional. To have widely shared
definitions is more useful, some inconsistencies in
etymology & structure notwithstanding.
We know an argument fails when the claimant begins name calling.
I suggest this RF article by Rex....
Atheism Overview
Notice what "weak atheism" is per RF.
Sounds like agnosticism to me.
The atheist spectrum is a broad tent.
Last edited:
Agnostic atheism and agnostic theism are already widely used both academically and in common use, and agnostic theism isn't a contradiction in terms unless you keep insisting on using the terms incorrectly. Which, by all means, is your prerogative.
And if you insist on calling someone something other than their religious identity, it is a jerk thing to do. If you feel like the shoe fits well maybe consider not doing it.
It's also against the forum rules. (E.g. if a Jehovah's Witnesses told a catholic member 'you're not a real Christian,' that would probably be moderated, even if they feel like the definition truly doesn't include catholics.)
Sticking to the name calling, eh.
I'm not calling anyone anything....yet.
About the rules, I give Rex some authority.
What does he say?
Atheism Overview
Excerpted....
Atheism is a nonbelief in all deities, including both the impersonal
divinity of the cosmos, itself, and in the supreme Personal beings
of monotheist beliefs all often referred to as being "God."
I read "nonbelief" as broader than denial, including simply
not believing in gods....which fits in "agnosticism".
I never said you did. But if you did, it would be a jerk thing to do.
Rex hasn't been here in years, dude. But he wouldn't have let people say 'you aren't a real x' either.
And, again, agnostics do sometimes believe in Gods. A/gnostic has nothing to do with belief.
Weak atheism is sometimes used synonymous with agnostic atheism, but not 'weak agnostic' whicu doesn't really mean anything in either common use or academically.
But 'weak theism' is also a thing and also synonymous with 'agnostic theism.'
I noticed your careful phrasing....suggesting without saying.
It's still name calling though, the vagueness of the target notwithstanding.
It's best avoided.
Rex's article is still there, & thus current.
It comports with common usage, & it holds sway in RF.
Rather than saying anyone isn't a real this or that, Rex
& I use the more inclusive definition.
That seems contradictory, ie, to believe in gods that cannot be known.
Questions......
1) I've identified (& still do) as all these....
"agnostic", "weak atheist", & "atheist" (which includes the first 2).
Any objections?
2) Are agnostics able to post in the Atheist DIR?
3) Are atheists able to post in the Agnostic DIR?
If "Yes" to 2 & 3, this would point to their overlap.
Last edited: