A person who says he's a theist says "I believe God exists". A person who says he's an agnostic theist says "I don't know if God exists but I believe so."
-
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!
Double Minded Atheist
- Thread starter g2perk
- Start date
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Thank you for confirming that theists are confused.
Right. Those say the same thing.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Other people have the courage to accept uncertainty, instead of clutching at metaphysical straws like "God".
No they don't. The person who says he's a theist doesn't mention whether he's an agnostic or gnostic theist. The person who says he's an agnostic theist tells us specifically that he doesn't know.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Again...
if ''atheism'' merely means lack of belief, then you could not have an agnostic theist, /the definition you are using means that that the agnostic does not have belief.
That would make /according to your definitions,
an agnostic theist, , actually, an atheist theist.
-because you do not have a delineation between the ''agnostic'' definition, and one of your ''atheist'' definitions.
Your definitions, /and words thusly,, literally can not be used, logically.
An agnostic theist doesn't know but believes.
An agnostic doesn't know, an atheist doesn't believe. Simple as that.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Right, according to the faulty definitions, which don't work. /As you've noticed.
That is why 'Theism' , has to indicate a position, /not belief or non-belief.
''Belief'', is also being used incorrectly, as a ''belief'', does not indicate evidence to something, or whether the person believes they ''know'' it to be true.
These definitions being presented are faulty all around, basically.
Correct. It indicates belief in the existence of at least one god.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Yes..therefore?
McBell
Unbound
Rather interesting, but accurate description theism.
All of the things you mention are based on assumption (I'd say faith) in self as physical being. I find the same holds true for (my) own self in night dreams. All of which you mention, I can do / have done in night dreams. Therefore really (objectively) existing?
At the fundamental level, I understand it as same faith, and just really determination of own self value/reality/existence. The notion of a deity outside of me/us, over yonder somewhere (not sure where that would be), is something I am at least skeptical about, but probably closer to atheist. Perhaps even strong atheist in that regard. Given that I am a strong theist, then I wouldn't think to present (a) God that is in that vein, nor even sure how it would be presented (and not explained as 'something else'). As I understand / know God to be within, then when I read assertions of 'never been presented with,' it shows up as irrational to me. For, through you (or us), God can interact with the physical world, God can measure things in the physical world, God can verify this physical world.
McBell
Unbound
Your refusal to learn something out side your little box is your problem.
Not mine.
Correct. Theism doesn't require knowledge only belief. Never said it did.
No, they simply believe. Stop using the word "know" when talking about theists. Theism is about belief, gnosticism/agnosticism is about knowledge. Stop mixing apples and oranges.
Of course there is a difference. A person can say "I believe" another person can say "not only do I believe, I'll go as far as to say I know." Big difference.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Actually they don't. But to your credit, @ArtieE is also making an arbitrary distinction between the belief in Theism, and the ''know'' in what would be I suppose a gnostic position.
Lol
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
No, there really isn't a big difference, there, if you already have a word, ''agnostic'', to describe people who aren't sure.
What is "belief in Theism"? Theism is the belief.
Yes, knowing is the gnostic position. Either knowing gods exist or knowing gods don't exist.
Just for clarification: The word "agnostic" describes people who don't know. The word "atheist" describes people who don't believe. A person who says he's an agnostic says "I don't know." He says nothing about what he believes. A person who says he's an atheist says "I don't believe". If he wanted specifically to say "I don't know" he would have said "I'm an agnostic" or "I'm an agnostic atheist".
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Someone who doesn't know can't actually also dis-believe. They also could not actually believe. It's a contradiction. The 'Theism', implies believing in surety, /basically what you seem to calling ''knowing'// otherwise it's merely agnosticism ,/neither theism or atheism.
The problem is that you are differentiating between 'belief', and 'know', and yet, that differentiation is not inherent in the words themselves, //ie we believe what we know, we believe what we think we know