Can You have Complete Faith in God and Simultaneously Believe You Could Conceivably Be Wrong?

[Katzpur]

Yes. It's called "agnosticism."

I don't believe most people who are "absolutely convinced that there is no God" would describe themselves as agnostic.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I do.

I believe in God, but admit that I could be 100% wrong. Sorry for generalizing, but it appears not many theists do and most atheists I've met have never admitted that they could be wrong as well.

Hi...I'm an atheist. l could be wrong. Nice to meet you.

 

[StarryNightshade]

Hi...I'm an atheist. l could be wrong. Nice to meet you.

Nice to meet you too.

 

[Thrice Great]

I am NOT using positive and negative as pseudonyms for 'good' and 'bad'
Positive statement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Easy Notes-English Grammar: POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE STATEMENTS

Well then I am completely at a loss as to what you are getting at with this . . .

No evidence that god exists. And yet not believing in God has the same validity as believing in God? That is some messed up logic. You believe in the celestial teapot?

Follow closely this time . . .
I have no evidence that god exists but I know that he does = theist
I have no evidence that god exists but I know that he doesn't = atheist

Neither have any evidence but hold to a rock solid truth

I'm an atheist. That doesn't mean I can prove there's no God. It means I see no reason to believe in a God. It would be both reasonable and rational to say I don't believe there are blue aliens on the third planet in the closest galaxy. Maybe there are, but I have ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to believe it. Until I do, I don't believe it. That's all atheism is.

Then you would admit that you could be wrong and that god could exist?

If you want to limit your knowledge strictly to only the things you have personally verified for fear of a conspiracy theory, be my guest. I'll stick with rationality.

We're not limiting our 'knowledge' we're limiting our ability to spew out empirical evidence without personal experience (a.k.a. talkin' out yer ****)

Question? Sure. Don't take contrary positions as some sort of misguided attempt to prove superior intelligence though.

I'll have to ask you to elaborate on this?

Being an Agnostic means neither believing nor disbelieving in deities. An Agnostic Theist is what your describing. Look it up if you do not believe me. Its not hard.

How I do hate all these labels nowadays :help:

Yes. It's called "agnosticism."

I thought it was too?

I don't believe most people who are "absolutely convinced that there is no God" would describe themselves as agnostic.

Agnostic Theist, agnostic atheist . . . wtf, all the bases are covered aren't they?

Agnosticism is the view that the truth of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#cite_note-Hepburn-1

Agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge

Agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.

 

[crossfire]

Agnosticism is the view that the truth of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#cite_note-Hepburn-1

Agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge

Agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.

I can honestly state that I believe that redefining atheism as "lack of belief in deity" is an attempt to hijack agnosticism. There's always transtheism.

 

[Titanic]

Well then I am completely at a loss as to what you are getting at with this . . .
Follow closely this time . . .
I have no evidence that god exists but I know that he does = theist
I have no evidence that god exists but I know that he doesn't = atheist

Neither have any evidence but hold to a rock solid truth

Then you would admit that you could be wrong and that god could exist?

We're not limiting our 'knowledge' we're limiting our ability to spew out empirical evidence without personal experience (a.k.a. talkin' out yer ****)

I'll have to ask you to elaborate on this?

How I do hate all these labels nowadays :help:

I thought it was too?
Agnostic Theist, agnostic atheist . . . wtf, all the bases are covered aren't they?

Agnosticism is the view that the truth of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#cite_note-Hepburn-1

Agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge

Agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.

That is what I said. Neither believing nor disbelieving.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well then I am completely at a loss as to what you are getting at with this . . .
Follow closely this time . . .
I have no evidence that god exists but I know that he does = theist
I have no evidence that god exists but I know that he doesn't = atheist

First facepalms, and now condescension. Interesting.
So, the celestial teapot is a reference to Russell's teapot. A philosophical explanation of why it's a logical fallacy to equate the burden of proof on a believer and non-believer.

Your definitions of theist & atheist are also skewed to support your argument.

THEIST - belief that at least one god exists.
ATHEIST - rejection of the belief that at least one god exists.

Neither have any evidence but hold to a rock solid truth

An atheist's 'rock solid truth' is that they have no reason to believe in God.

Then you would admit that you could be wrong and that god could exist?

Of course.

We're not limiting our 'knowledge' we're limiting our ability to spew out empirical evidence without personal experience (a.k.a. talkin' out yer ****)

What a ridiculous premise. Hellenistic astronomy established that the earth was round in approximately 300 BC. How does that fit with your theory of personal experience being the only evidence of value?

Newton said

If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

You disagree?

I'll have to ask you to elaborate on this?

Ok. On the one hand, you are suggesting that I should question the earth being round since I havent been into space and seen this for myself. Nevermind that it can be rationally deduced.
On the other, you question a sceptical position in relation to theism, and propose a neutral position as more correct.

Sometimes people confuse contrariness and intelligence.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I can honestly state that I believe that redefining atheism as "lack of belief in deity" is an attempt to hijack agnosticism. There's always transtheism.

I'd generally describe myself as an atheist, pure & Simple, but the only purpose of a label is short hand communication. For myself, l don't believe in a deity. I don't claim I can prove there is no deity, and would question anyone with that view. Give that basic world view whatever label you like.

Most common ones I've heard are weak, negative or agnostic atheism. Or maybe a 6 on Dawkins little ranking chart.

 

[crossfire]

I'd generally describe myself as an atheist, pure & Simple, but the only purpose of a label is short hand communication. For myself, l don't believe in a deity. I don't claim I can prove there is no deity, and would question anyone with that view. Give that basic world view whatever label you like.

Most common ones I've heard are weak, negative or agnostic atheism. Or maybe a 6 on Dawkins little ranking chart.

I don't have any problem whatsoever with you calling yourself an atheist. More power to you.

I do have a problem with atheists wanting to rebrand self-professed agnostics as atheists, especially on the grounds of lack of beliefs. I don't lack beliefs, as I will illustrate. (And it ties in with the topic of this thread.)

• If you observe an effect with no traceable cause, it would be reasonable to believe in an unknown cause, and hence, agnosticism--belief in unknown.
• If you observe a causeless effect, rationality breaks down, and you are just left with an even greater unknown--greater agnosticism or even perplexity.
• Living with uncertainty can be difficult for some, while others might despise uncertainty. I just happen to relish uncertainty, and believe in it mightily. I delight in not knowing, as it increases my capacity to learn.

 

[Sunstone]

There's always transtheism.

How are you defining "transtheist"?

 

[Sunstone]

Doubt is part of the journey of faith, as Fowler has shown. But I think you have the paradigm backwards. One cannot have utter faith in something whose existence is doubted. But one can have a lack of faith in something whose existence is totally believed.

Interesting distinction! Thanks!

 

[crossfire]

How are you defining "transtheist"?

The answer to the question regarding a creator deity is mu.
(Much like the Buddhist view.)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't have any problem whatsoever with you calling yourself an atheist. More power to you.

I do have a problem with atheists wanting to rebrand self-professed agnostics as atheists, especially on the grounds of lack of beliefs. I don't lack beliefs, as I will illustrate. (And it ties in with the topic of this thread.)

Ahh...got ya. Slightly misunderstood your point.
I actually agree with you. Personally, as stated, I'm not as interested in the label as the belief. It's probably pretty enlightening if a person tries to 'claim' you to 'their side'. Kind of a strange way to look at the world.

And agnosticism is a label applied to a pretty diverse group, which makes understanding why someone is agnostic even more important.

 

[Reverend Rick]

So an Agnostic admits there is a possibility a God exists, where an Atheist does not?

To me an Atheist is relying on a belief just like any religious person does.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So an Agnostic admits there is a possibility a God exists, where an Atheist does not?

To me an Atheist is relying on a belief just like any religious person does.

Belief in what?
l see no reason to believe in God. That's pretty much it. What is it l am faithfully believing in based on a lack of belief in God?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Belief in what?
l see no reason to believe in God. That's pretty much it. What is it l am faithfully believing in based on a lack of belief in God?

LOL lewis, an Agnostic has it right, we just don't know one way or the other for sure.

Saying there is or there is not a God requires a degree of faith that what one believes or does not believe is true beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

LOL lewis, an Agnostic has it right, we just don't know one way or the other for sure.

Saying there is or there is not a God requires a degree of faith that what one believes or does not believe is true beyond a reasonable doubt.

To be honest, if I thought agnosticism was the most rational position, I'd be agnostic.
In simple terms my weak atheism (crap term...hopefully conveys some meaning) is due to placing religion in particular and God to a somewhat lesser degree in among everything else I make judgement calls on in my life. If someone told me l could become more intelligent, happier and more long-lived by moving to a subzero climate, I don't pack up the house. And I ask for evidence from a sceptical position.

 

[Sculelos]

If God is real I have significant reason to only believe in the Christian God Jehovah and Jesus Christ.

If God is not real life is just a cruel joke that has no meaning or a meaning unclear and none of it matters anyways.

So understanding both of these things I have far more reason to believe and follow Christ above and beyond anything else for if that pursuit is meaningless then I might as well end my life now because nothing else would mean anything either.

 

[Me Myself]

You cant have absolute faith in God without having absolute faith in your capacity to recognise true knowledge.

If you dont have absolute faith in your ability to recognise true knowledge, then your faith in God cannot be absolute.

I honestly doubt must if anyone has that uch faith on their own infalibility

 

[nash8]

Your question spurred me into thinking about the difference between faith and belief; I looked up a random definition on: -http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/faith-and-belief-51736.html
(which may or may not be a good definition of the two words) - but it seems to "work" for me..

Belief = The personal knowledge of truth. The undoubtable.
Faith = Willing something to be true, and acting as if it is, without evidence.

The only problem with these two answers is that it makes faith sound rather lacking, whilst (theologically), belief is something that sounds quite unattainable.

As I am going through a rather nasty stage of doubt at the moment, it isn't helpful...

Wow, that's an interesting definition of faith and belief. It would seem that one would need "faith" to have any type of "belief". You would have to have faith that your personal knowledge of truth is undoubtable. Then if you throw a little quantum physics about human perception affecting reality, it really gets weird.