• 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!

atheism has to face the fact that it's agnostic

Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
disciple said:
Atheism, as a 'disbelief', is great, but it's also necessarily agnostic. An atheist is still in belief/disbelief choice, without knowing for sure.


every atheist is an agnostic.
Click to expand...
Except those who aren't. Some of us atheists actually know what it is we don't believe in.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
disciple said:
Atheism, as a 'disbelief', is great, but it's also necessarily agnostic. An atheist is still in belief/disbelief choice, without knowing for sure.
every atheist is an agnostic.
cheers.:)
Click to expand...
I can't speak for every atheist, but I'm one of those agnostics too.
Gods are such a silly concept. But I cannot prove the universe isn't that silly.
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
disciple said:
right, but, really, I made this thread with just that one technical point, it's not like you have to say 'agnostic' as well now lol/
Click to expand...
There is nothing agnostic about the atheist claim that "I don't believe in (fill in blank here)."
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
disciple said:
That's another thing, I don't really think you have to put 'agnostic' before theist, even if unsure, I mean, you sure can, but is it really saying anything more about what you believe than straight 'theist'??
Click to expand...

That's the implication. It seems like your argument is based on the premise that all knowledge is tentative, so it should apply equally to every knowledge claim.

In everyday conversation, I think that if I would describe myself as an atheist, people would take that to mean that I'm about halfway between full acceptance and full rejection of the existence of gods, not the reality: that I'm pretty well convinced that god claims are unreasonable, but I recognize that hard solipsism and other issues create a theoretically non-zero but negligible (for most practical purposes) likelihood that every single conclusion I make might be wrong.

If we're being more pedantic, I'd say that depending on the definition of "agnostic" we're using, it may not apply to me. I'm not convinced that the question of the existence of gods is beyond our ability to investigate it, so I don't think I could be rightly called a hard agnostic.
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
In everyday conversation, I think that if I would describe myself as an atheist, people would take that to mean that I'm about halfway between full acceptance and full rejection of the existence of gods...
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think the majority of people would take that to mean that you don't believe in god/gods.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
That's the implication. It seems like your argument is based on the premise that all knowledge is tentative, so it should apply equally to every knowledge claim.

In everyday conversation, I think that if I would describe myself as an atheist, people would take that to mean that I'm about halfway between full acceptance and full rejection of the existence of gods, not the reality: that I'm pretty well convinced that god claims are unreasonable, but I recognize that hard solipsism and other issues create a theoretically non-zero but negligible (for most practical purposes) likelihood that every single conclusion I make might be wrong.

If we're being more pedantic, I'd say that depending on the definition of "agnostic" we're using, it may not apply to me. I'm not convinced that the question of the existence of gods is beyond our ability to investigate it, so I don't think I could be rightly called a hard agnostic.
Click to expand...


I'm being outrageously pedantic. I think that must be what people are struggling with, it's too technical for casual net chat.
Actually I agree with your position in it's logic, though I lean towards theism or perhaps a very light agnostic.
I think the problem here is the lack of very clear definitions, I mean, we usually just subscribe (I do at least) the "basic" meaning to label.
 
The_Evelyonian

The_Evelyonian

Old-School Member
disciple said:
Atheism, as a 'disbelief', is great, but it's also necessarily agnostic. An atheist is still in belief/disbelief choice, without knowing for sure.


every atheist is an agnostic.

cheers.:)
Click to expand...

This isn't exactly new information. Most atheists (myself included) also identify as agnostic.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
The_Evelyonian said:
This isn't exactly new information. Most atheists (myself included) also identify as agnostic.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a tad redactive, redundant, and unsolvable. Couple that with the fact that most people wont change their minds, and you can see why i'm trying to keep it as light as possible.
But, I think, someone had to make this thread, these terms are..........confusing, it seems.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Willamena said:
Okay. What is the point?
Click to expand...

Let me put it this way, I understand your position, but if the terminology isn't appropriate for the position, then perhaps some other option is better?? I'm in the same situation, it has nothing to do with me being wishy-washy, it's lack of good terminology.
So, I can put 'Syncretic' next to religion, okay but with the atheism/theism/agnostic terms it's a bit sketchy imo.
Plus, why not discuss the terms..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top