Are atheists implying theists are delusional?

[gnostic]

As an agnostic, I believe I cannot know god; yet, I do believe in god.

I still don't see how you can believe in god and still call yourself an agnostic. That "you cannot know god" doesn't make you an agnostic, since you still have a belief in one...or two.

 

[doppelganger]

I still don't see how you can believe in god and still call yourself an agnostic. That "you cannot know god" doesn't make you an agnostic, since you still have a belief in one...or two.

What is she believing in when she believes in "god"?

 

[Willamena]

I still don't see how you can believe in god and still call yourself an agnostic. That "you cannot know god" doesn't make you an agnostic, since you still have a belief in one...or two.

Agnostics can believe or disbelieve in god; it is not a contrary position to those beliefs. "Agnostic" is literally "no knowing." Believing that god is unknowable is precisely what makes me an agnostic.

 

[Faint]

Agnostics can believe or disbelieve in god; it is not a contrary position to those beliefs. "Agnostic" is literally "no knowing." Believing that god is unknowable is precisely what makes me an agnostic.

You and gnostic might find this interesting:

Critics of the term "agnostic" claim that there is nothing distinctive in being agnostic because even many theists do not claim to know God(s) exists -- only to believe it. Under this asserted distinction between the words "belief" and "knowledge," agnosticism has recently started suffering from terminological ambiguity. While critics maintain the distinction is not contrived; others reject the distinction as trifling. By contrast, compare:

• "I believe God(s) exist(s)" means that "I know God(s) exist(s)".
• "I believe God(s) exist(s)" can still mean "I don't know if God(s) exist(s)".

If this distinction is accepted, the term agnostic becomes orthogonal to theism without further qualifiers, and many qualifiers become contradictory unless the distinction is accepted. If this distinction is ultimately accepted by the larger public, the group formerly described by the term will again find themselves without a label, because the qualifiers provided would be inappropriate for their philosophy.

 

[Faint]

Also see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

 

[logician]

O would describe theists as being more brainwashed than delusional. Religion seeks repetitive pronouncement of beliefs to constantly reinforce whatever faith they are pushing.

 

[gnostic]

Agnostics can believe or disbelieve in god; it is not a contrary position to those beliefs. "Agnostic" is literally "no knowing." Believing that god is unknowable is precisely what makes me an agnostic.

Which is why I don't understand your position or that of any agnostic theist. You sound more theist than agnostic, even though you have a little bit of doubt on certain aspect.

I'm in the position of not knowing whether to believe or not, because for me to have no evidence of God's or gods' existence, and therefore not knowing, then I am more inclined to disbelieve in God (which sort of make me lean towards atheism), til such evidence become available.

I supposed that I have more doubts on you in believing. To me, you (not "you" personally, I mean "you" as in general) can't believe in what you really don't know. If you do so, then you have "faith", so in essence, you (again not "you" you) are theist.

(Damn. I don't know if I making in any sense. )

I preferred "evidence first", then "belief later (...if it is true)" agnostic attitude.