• 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!

Can you be a theist and an atheist at the same time?

L

Logikal

Member
Jumi said:
Definition of atheism in English:
noun
[mass noun]Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Definition of agnostic in English:

noun
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

Logically these two are not exclusive. Although in your hood you may believe it so.

You still haven't provided any sources for your definitions when you've been asked although you ask that of others. Why is that?
Click to expand...

I can think as a man by myself. I do not need hand holding or crutches nor do I need to be spoiled. I have specifically stated no philosophic text would use the lame definition in the dictionary. Quote a PhD in philosophy that is serious with that definition. Philosophers addressing OTHER philosophers would not use the dictionary definition. Why is that? It is not MY fault you think the dictionary is an authority. That is YOUR choice and YOUR belief. If it were so good specialist would use the same source, but the reality is THEY don't.

Are you a human that believes that after looking up some word in the dictionary or Wikipedia YOU become an EXPERT in the subject? So if you look up Quantum Physics in either the dictionary or Wiki you will be equivalent to a PhD in Quantum Physics? If you do think that you need help. Obviously there is MORE to the subject that that dictionary entry or wiki entry, yes or no?
 
Last edited:
Jumi

Jumi

Well-Known Member
Logikal said:
I can think as a man by myself. I do not need hand holding or crutches nor do I need to be spoiled. I have specifically stated no philosophic text would use the lame definition in the dictionary. Quote a PhD in philosophy that is serious with that definition. Philosophers addressing OTHER philosophers would not use the dictionary definition. Why is that? It is not MY fault you think the dictionary is an authority. That is YOUR choice and YOUR belief. If it were so good specialist would use the same source, but the reality is THEY don't.
Click to expand...
I can do both. I'm not answering your insults until you provide sources you so much require of others. In my opinion you just believe your definitions to be true. It may be good in your hood, but I don't care much for discussing with someone who just throws insults and doesn't even back his beliefs up while requiring it from others.

Logikal said:
Are you a human that believes that after looking up some word in the dictionary or Wikipedia YOU become an EXPERT in the subject? So if you look up Quantum Physics in either the dictionary or Wiki you will be equivalent to a PhD in Quantum Physics? If you do think that you need help. Obviously there is MORE to the subject that that dictionary entry or wiki entry, yes or no?
Click to expand...
Obviously you read something into my writing that isn't there and you don't care what I think. We're done here.
 
D

Deidre

Well-Known Member
Logikal said:
Your opinion is objectively wrong! I have stated specifically the logical relation to the three terms THEIST, ATHEIST, and AGNOSTIC as CONTRARIES. Do any of you know what contrary means? It means you can not be rationally serious and say these things at the same time. If one is TRUE the others CANNOT also be true simultaneously. You can hope and believe what ever you like but rational people try not to look bad publically and write things that make little sense.

It is like I am a murder suspect for the killing of Joe SMOE and my statements to the police are as follows: "I did commit the murder", "No I did not commit the murder (and had nothing to do with it)", and finally "I heard he was murdered but I am not sure who did the murder." Can someone explain how can I rationally intermix the statements? Does anyone even care about logical relations or are you mostly just emotions?
Click to expand...

Actually, atheism is a position of belief, whereas agnosticism is a position of knowledge. In truth, theists can be agnostic, and so can atheists. Because theism and atheism are just positions of belief (or lack of belief)
 
Jumi

Jumi

Well-Known Member
In case of the murder trial example we might have an alternative involuntary manslaughter argued. The jury might be convinced that there was a murder(theists) and there would be those that aren't convinced a murder happened and vote in favor of something else like an accident(atheists). An agnostic wouldn't claim to knowledge about either, for example based on limitations of what can be known about the case. You would have agnostics in both groups, they could even vote a murder happened if they like the prosecution and how the case has been handled or dislike the defendant. It could go the other way around also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top