atheism and agnostism

[giant space amoeba]

I seem to be having a bit of counfusion regarding the phrases.

Now first for definitions sake:

a = without

gnostic = knowledge

theist = beleif in a god/gods.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7ncCNwbb5Jc <--- maybe watch this

Now i could say that im both. I do not beleive in god but at the same time i cannot prove there is no god, some would say im a weak atheist but there others who say im agnostic. However i sure there is no god through my lines of reasoning (when i go and think deeper into the subject the concept of god starts to become meaningless) therefore i think its highly unlikely a god exists. But theres the confusion. Where do i stick myself on the scale? Just for clarities sake - i mean im sure im an atheist i am "without beleif in god". My philosophy is that god does not exist and to live my life with that assumption.

Do you think Agnostic atheist work or is that just agnostic?

(this is because i intend to blog my beleifs and philosophy but need to think deeply before i write it)

 

[eudaimonia]

Do you think Agnostic atheist work or is that just agnostic?

Quite a few atheists consider themselves "agnostic atheists", because these designations refer to two separate issues (knowledge and belief). I consider myself an agnostic atheist for most god-concepts. You are in good company.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Willamena]

Do you allow for the possiblity that more knowledge (gnosos) may lead you down a different path of reasoning to a belief in the possibility of God? If so, I would stick with "agnostic" as a prefix to "atheist."

 

[giant space amoeba]

Do you allow for the possiblity that more knowledge (gnosos) may lead you down a different path of reasoning to a belief in the possibility of God? If so, I would stick with "agnostic" as a prefix to "atheist."

I do allow for this though i really doubt this would be the case. Depends of the definition of god or spiritual forces (i have some listed).

Maybe i will but im researching.

 

[des]

I think the pure meaning of the word agnostic is someone who does not believe it is possible to know if there is a god(s). The pure meaning of atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the existence of a god(s). I think there are gradations though. But *strictly speaking* you can't really be an agnostic atheist. Maybe you could be a agnostic leaning towards atheism. Or you could be an agnostic leaning towards theism. But as I said there might be some gradations. Maybe you are even an atheist and don't believe you can really know that there is no deity!! I think that would be the definition of agnostic atheist.

There are, for instance, people who haven't decided whether there is a god or not. (Many of these come from conservatively religious families). And there are people who hate the idea of god, but might believe in one.
I have also heard the term "functional atheist". This could be a theist (deist,etc.) who lives as if there were no god.

I think your separation of knowledge and belief is very interesting. I'm not sure if I can "agree" to it (I sort of am considering that attitude a bit strange. I wouldnt' be so presumptious to think I could really agree or disagree with that.) But hear me out anyway. I don't think the agnostic position is a really a position of "knowledge" (despite the etiology of the word) but a position of belief. If you don't believe it is possibly to know if there is a god, then that is a belief. In fact, beliefs about a deity are all a combination of beliefs and perceived knowledge. For instance, Christians often claim to "know" God. But of course, you have to believe to know!
Even the soft form of agnostism (i.e. you haven't decided if you believe in a god) is also a belief statement. "I don't know yet, because I don't believe yet."

However I think in the real word of ideas they aren't really as neat as they are in philosophy or theology class. So there may be aspects of this taht aren't quite as clear cut. Say, I think your statement paraphrased, "I don't really believe in god." But I don't *know* for sure there could be one.
I actually think that is more of a "soft agnostic" stance. "I don't *know* for sure, but I *believe* I am right." I think it is quite different than the stronger "I don't think it is possible to know for sure if there is a God or not." Unless you actually believe that.

I actually think many more people are agnostics than true atheists. But I think atheism strikes some people as a more honest and stronger statement (as I have heard here many times, agnostism is wishy washy).
I think militant atheists such as Dawkins and Harris have made it unpopular as well. What they don't understand, I think, is that really if you say you don't really think we CAN know, that is a really strong statement. And I actually think it is one that many theists *actually* agree with as well. Many theists, unlike the more militant ones, believe that lack of faith is a part of belief. So that belief for them is more of a struggle. I'm not saying that you would be struggling with it. That would imply that it was that you would really *want* to believe but lack something needed to believe. Well maybe so but your lack is in evidence.




--des

 

[gnostic]

I have the same problem. The actual term of "agnosticism" doesn't quite fit the bill the way I feel, but nor does "atheism". I think I am in the middle ground of agnosticism and atheism.

Where the supernatural and miracles come in, found in scriptures, I feels skepticism, because it defy natural convention. A lot of that defy natural convention can occur in everyday life, but this doesn't mean it has to do with divine intervention.

The existence of God or any other divine beings seemed unlikely, and possibly the result of early ages where people seek to define natural occurrences to a god, like how fire or where does rain comes from.

The Judaeo-Christian 6-day creation is very interesting, but more of mythological POV, like that of other mythology from other religions. It shares too much likeness (as well as some difference) to be anything more than a Judaeo-Christian myth. The Bible's creation is fascinating, but in what we know about the natural world, I don't think it happened the way the book say.

I also have skepticism over the issue of resurrection of Jesus, Muhammad's visitation from Gabriel and where he supposedly got the Qur'an from, or Joseph Smith's visitation and the sudden disappearance of the gold plates. If Joseph Smith had the gold plates that would have been evidence, but only this has been conveniently vanished, so there are no way we can discern if the writings on the plates are genuine or not.

I supposed the possibilities are there, that there may be a god....or more out there, but it don't seem likely since "we" can't see, hear, feel or experience, and until we all have such experience, I am more likely to not believe in their being a god...or more.

Real experience is more important, without it we are only basing on the words of so-called prophets or saints written over couple thousand years....or more.

Such occurrences and skepticism in that almost makes me seemed like an atheist. There are just too many factors in religion and what they believe to be true, leaves more questions than answers. Believing is actually the easy part. Finding out the truth and evidence is neigh impossible. So I will still call myself "agnostic", and keep questionings.

 

[dogsgod]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Huxley coined the term agnostic and defined agnosticism as follows: "... it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism."

[/FONT]Agnostic refers to any proposition. I'm agnostic in that I can't justify the belief that earth has been visited by alien space craft simply because there is no good evidence to support such a proposition that we have been visited.

I'm agnostic in that I can't justify the belief that gods exist because there is no good evidence to support such a proposition.

The proposition that gods don't exist is a non sequitur. That proposition is predicated on those that claim there are gods or a god. If there were no people running around claiming that god/s exist, there would be no one to doubt them, hence no atheists and no reason to apply agnosticism in that sense.

For these reasons I make no distinctions between atheists and agnostics. To consider agnostics as fence sitters is to misunderstand the original meaning of agnostic. Distortions abound.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I'm going to warn you: what I have to say will **** some people off.

Atheism and agnosticism have different definitions but they are functionally the same in that although they may appreciate the shape, color and even the pretty pictures contained in a book, they are unable or unwilling to appreciate the deeper meaning found in its written words. This is an unpopular view, but it was repeatedly validated by its critics in another thread.

Nothing exists in pure isolation; reality does not, as naive scientism supposes, end where the skin begins. A person’s interpretation of the universe will be incomplete unless it covers the interior as well as the exterior and conceal from his eyes the whole to which he belongs. To have subjectively experienced what the rational mind interprets to be the presence of God and then yield to the power of empiricism is to be unappreciative of the greatest gift the universe can bestow. I have nothing but contempt for someone who says they have experienced what their rational mind interprets to be God’s presence and then in deference to objectivity express doubt as to its validity. And I would be a hypocrite if I were to apologized for those feelings.

Science, philosophy and religion must converge in the consciousness of a man and integrated in his individuality if he is to enjoy an increase in consciousness, that is to say in vision.

 

[lunamoth]

I think agnosticism is the only position that can be supported by an objective, material, logical (scientific) approach to the question of "is there more to our existence than we can observe or measure?"

Atheists and theists alike take a stand based upon their subjective experience with respect to the answer to this question.

2c

 

[dogsgod]

I think agnosticism is the only position that can be supported by an objective, material, logical (scientific) approach to the question of "is there more to our existence than we can observe or measure?"

Atheists and theists alike take a stand based upon their subjective experience with respect to the answer to this question.

2c

I beg to differ. Some cannot justify a belief when there is no objective evidence to support a claim, subjective experiences aside.


.

 

[gnostic]

I think agnosticism is the only position that can be supported by an objective, material, logical (scientific) approach to the question of "is there more to our existence than we can observe or measure?"

Well, Huxley was a scientist - a biologist and supporter of Darwin's evolution. The church was still running the science in the university in England. Huxley had with some successes to separating religion from science, making science independent from religious doctrines/dogma. He didn't think they were being objective, relying on too much assumptions about the nature of god being involve with nature. He used evolution as ammunition to demolish theistic academics.

 

[gnomon]

I think agnosticism is the only position that can be supported by an objective, material, logical (scientific) approach to the question of "is there more to our existence than we can observe or measure?"

Atheists and theists alike take a stand based upon their subjective experience with respect to the answer to this question.

2c

I understand what you are saying but atheism does not preclude belief in metaphysical concepts which do indeed imply a belief in more than our oberved existence.

 

[des]

Well of course, these kinds of considerations wouldn't necessarily make you an atheist OR an agnostic. Except for your statement that you don't believe a divine being is likely, you could be an ethical, progressive/liberal Christian; a theist/deist (non-demon); a reform Jew; a pagan; a modern Buddhist or Hindu; etc. (Actually Buddhism is a non-theistic religion); and many other possibilities. These views more express that you don't believe in literal events as written in scriptural texts. Not all religious people see things in the conservative ways that they are discussed in the media.

--des

I have the same problem. The actual term of "agnosticism" doesn't quite fit the bill the way I feel, but nor does "atheism". I think I am in the middle ground of agnosticism and atheism.

Where the supernatural and miracles come in, found in scriptures, I feels skepticism, because it defy natural convention. A lot of that defy natural convention can occur in everyday life, but this doesn't mean it has to do with divine intervention.

The existence of God or any other divine beings seemed unlikely, and possibly the result of early ages where people seek to define natural occurrences to a god, like how fire or where does rain comes from.

The Judaeo-Christian 6-day creation is very interesting, but more of mythological POV, like that of other mythology from other religions. It shares too much likeness (as well as some difference) to be anything more than a Judaeo-Christian myth. The Bible's creation is fascinating, but in what we know about the natural world, I don't think it happened the way the book say.

I also have skepticism over the issue of resurrection of Jesus, Muhammad's visitation from Gabriel and where he supposedly got the Qur'an from, or Joseph Smith's visitation and the sudden disappearance of the gold plates. If Joseph Smith had the gold plates that would have been evidence, but only this has been conveniently vanished, so there are no way we can discern if the writings on the plates are genuine or not.

I supposed the possibilities are there, that there may be a god....or more out there, but it don't seem likely since "we" can't see, hear, feel or experience, and until we all have such experience, I am more likely to not believe in their being a god...or more.

Real experience is more important, without it we are only basing on the words of so-called prophets or saints written over couple thousand years....or more.

Such occurrences and skepticism in that almost makes me seemed like an atheist. There are just too many factors in religion and what they believe to be true, leaves more questions than answers. Believing is actually the easy part. Finding out the truth and evidence is neigh impossible. So I will still call myself "agnostic", and keep questionings.

 

[des]

Well you dont' *** me off, but I do find your views insulting to atheists and agnostics and also highly inaccurate. I do not know of any of the above who don't believe in things which are not observable in a scientific way. For instance, they would feel the aesthetic sense in nature, art, etc. Harris in his books and interviews talks about comtemplation and meditation. They aren't strictly "provable" in a measured way but you can experience altered states and so forth. We tend to put these experiences in terms of prayer, but they could be experienced in other ways.

There is no reason to believe that atheists and agnostics are not altruistic and have no concern for others or that they are immoral (I have heard all those silly arguments).

I think your argument of the truth of existence is colored by your own religious beliefs which are leaps of faith. I don't denigrate these, but I have no problem either with someone who does not take the identical leaps of faith.

--des

I'm going to warn you: what I have to say will **** some people off.

Atheism and agnosticism have different definitions but they are functionally the same in that although they may appreciate the shape, color and even the pretty pictures contained in a book, they are unable or unwilling to appreciate the deeper meaning found in its written words. This is an unpopular view, but it was repeatedly validated by its critics in another thread.

Nothing exists in pure isolation; reality does not, as naive scientism supposes, end where the skin begins. A person’s interpretation of the universe will be incomplete unless it covers the interior as well as the exterior and conceal from his eyes the whole to which he belongs. To have subjectively experienced what the rational mind interprets to be the presence of God and then yield to the power of empiricism is to be unappreciative of the greatest gift the universe can bestow. I have nothing but contempt for someone who says they have experienced what their rational mind interprets to be God’s presence and then in deference to objectivity express doubt as to its validity. And I would be a hypocrite if I were to apologized for those feelings.

Science, philosophy and religion must converge in the consciousness of a man and integrated in his individuality if he is to enjoy an increase in consciousness, that is to say in vision.

 

[Willamena]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Huxley coined the term agnostic and defined agnosticism as follows: "... it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism." [/FONT]

Agnostic refers to any proposition. I'm agnostic in that I can't justify the belief that earth has been visited by alien space craft simply because there is no good evidence to support such a proposition that we have been visited.

I'm agnostic in that I can't justify the belief that gods exist because there is no good evidence to support such a proposition.

The proposition that gods don't exist is a non sequitur. That proposition is predicated on those that claim there are gods or a god. If there were no people running around claiming that god/s exist, there would be no one to doubt them, hence no atheists and no reason to apply agnosticism in that sense.

For these reasons I make no distinctions between atheists and agnostics. To consider agnostics as fence sitters is to misunderstand the original meaning of agnostic. Distortions abound.

I think you misrepresent Huxley's position, and agnosticism (as does the writer of the Wikipedia article). It is not the certainty of the proposition which is in question, that needs evidence, but the certainty of 'objective truth' of the proposition. It is 'objective truth' itself that requires evidence, not God, except as in 'God is Truth' --"that great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe..."

"That my personality is the surest thing I know may be true. But the attempt to conceive what it is leads me into mere verbal subtleties. I have champed up all that chaff about the ego and the non-ego, noumena and phenomena, and all the rest of it, too often not to know that in attempting even to think of these questions, the human intellect flounders at once out of its depth..."

That is truly an agnostic stance.

 

[dogsgod]

I think you misrepresent Huxley's position, and agnosticism (as does the writer of the Wikipedia article). It is not the certainty of the proposition which is in question, that needs evidence, but the certainty of 'objective truth' of the proposition. It is 'objective truth' itself that requires evidence, not God, except as in 'God is Truth' --"that great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe..."

"That my personality is the surest thing I know may be true. But the attempt to conceive what it is leads me into mere verbal subtleties. I have champed up all that chaff about the ego and the non-ego, noumena and phenomena, and all the rest of it, too often not to know that in attempting even to think of these questions, the human intellect flounders at once out of its depth..."

That is truly an agnostic stance.

OK, I'm agnostic in that I can't justify the belief that gods exist because there is no good evidence to support the objective truth of such a proposition.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

An extremely large, complex and highly automatic-appearing mechanism naturally conceals the intelligence behind it from any and all inhabiting intelligences very far below the level of the Originator. Therefore, is it inevitable that universe mechanisms would appear mindless to lower orders intelligences such as man. Looking for evidence outside the inner life is a reflection of predisposed expectations rather than a desire to know the truth of God's existence.

 

[des]

Hey this sounds like the "clockwork universe". I don't think any scientists subscribe to this theory anymore, as the universe is quite a lot more dynamic than the clockwork suggests. I think in order to interest skeptics you are going to have to use science that is current.

Clockwork universe concept is nicely summarized here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe_theory

--des

An extremely large, complex and highly automatic-appearing mechanism naturally conceals the intelligence behind it from any and all inhabiting intelligences very far below the level of the Originator. Therefore, is it inevitable that universe mechanisms would appear mindless to lower orders intelligences such as man. Looking for evidence outside the inner life is a reflection of predisposed expectations rather than a desire to know the truth of God's existence.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Hey this sounds like the "clockwork universe".

Here's a quote you might like:

Materialism is there, but it is not exclusive; mechanism is there, but it is not unqualified; determinism is there, but it is not alone.

 

[des]

Hey this sounds like the "clockwork universe". I don't think any scientists subscribe to this theory anymore, as the universe is quite a lot more dynamic than the clockwork suggests. I think in order to interest skeptics you are going to have to use science that is current.

Clockwork universe concept is nicely summarized here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe_theory

--des

An extremely large, complex and highly automatic-appearing mechanism naturally conceals the intelligence behind it from any and all inhabiting intelligences very far below the level of the Originator. Therefore, is it inevitable that universe mechanisms would appear mindless to lower orders intelligences such as man. Looking for evidence outside the inner life is a reflection of predisposed expectations rather than a desire to know the truth of God's existence.