Ignorance rather than Knowing(ism)

[Jayhawker Soule]

Oh, I see - you're using a specific, and incomplete definition of the word "atheist". That explains it.

It's Humpty-Dumptyism. Curiouser and curiouser ...

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Oh, I see - you're using a specific, and incomplete definition of the word "atheist". That explains it.

I am agnostic - I do not know whether god(s) exist.
I am an athest - I do not believe that god(s) exist, because there isn't sufficient evidence for me to believe so.
I do not insist anything.

You can obviously continue to base arguments on your own definitions of words, but I've gotten sucked into enough semantical arguments for a lifetime on this board, and am done with those.

Hmmm....how ironically contrary. However, I hope that you find these words (not my own) useful in future debates on this forum and elsewhere:
Agnostic – Noun –
1. – a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. - a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study
Atheist – Noun –
1. - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods

P.S. - I really do mean it. I hope you find these useful. There is no malice involved. I just hope for more efficient and precise communication; given that this is a religious education forum, then major terms like Atheist and Agnostic should be well grounded. They are NOT equal.

You demonstrate no such knowledge - only anger.

To the latter - No. But perhaps some amusement, and a little frustration.

To the former - My sentence demonstrated understanding (which you apparently missed :sorry1: ) ".... I could note that the theological epistemology is insufficient, and therefore I need not (and can not) make any form of binary deist ontological commitment. "
But it seems that I must clarify....

Epistemology is the study of how some thing has been examined up to this point. What sources are existent, what each has had to say on the subject. How current thinking on a subject formed from preceding thoughts…etc…
Or, since you clearly don’t believe my words, I'll quote the definitions:
- Noun - The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

Ontology (at least as used here) is the study of how, and even if something has come into existence or continues to exist.
- Noun - the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence, or being as such.

Therefore: as I have said…..
the theological epistemology is insufficient (there’s not enough known about God or gods), and therefore I need not (and can not) make any form of binary deist ontological commitment (for me (or anyone) to (reasonably) come down in a yes or no fashion, firmly for the existence of God, or to deny the existence of God.)

QED.

If we're still talking figuratively, I am sitting firmly behind a desk, one that I built myself and behind which no one else could sit, even if they wanted to.

Now I’m curious. If I may be so bold; please, expand on those.

P.S. - What is "knowing(ism)"?

Till tomorrow. But for now....I'm late. I'm late. For a very important date.....

 

[themadhair]

Atheist – Noun –
1. - One who [SIZE=+1]disbelieves[/SIZE] or denies the existence of God or gods

FIFY
Is it not incredibly hypocritical to make comments hoping for efficient and precise communication immediately after you deliberately misplaced emphasis on a definition you quoted????

Did you bother reading the definitions you quoted? Agnosticism is an opinion on the knowability of things, atheism is an opinion on the existence of a specific thing(s). You are right that these concepts are not the same, but you are incorrect in trying to imply they are mutually exclusive.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ostic-doesnt-fall-between-theist-atheist.html

 

[Daemon Sophic]

FIFY
Is it not incredibly hypocritical to make comments hoping for efficient and precise communication immediately after you deliberately misplaced emphasis on a definition you quoted????

Did you bother reading the definitions you quoted? Agnosticism is an opinion on the knowability of things, atheism is an opinion on the existence of a specific thing(s). You are right that these concepts are not the same, but you are incorrect in trying to imply they are mutually exclusive.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ostic-doesnt-fall-between-theist-atheist.html

Yes it would be; but fortunately (since I despise hypocrisy) I did not. I highlighted "denies" because that is the less vague, yet effectively synonymous term. But......I will address "disbelieves" now. “Disbelieve” is a verb. It is an active process, regardless of claims to the contrary in the thread you repeatedly link to.
Furthermore, there is no “logical” binary set of conclusions. It is in fact ternary (at least). And thus yes…..atheism and agnosticism ARE mutually exclusive. And I repeat.....I fundamentally disagree with ATS's suppositions in the other thread. In his first line of his OP he states....

...... Being a theist is the one which requires a positive statement, being an atheist does not.

As I've shown, this is not in keeping with English language definitions. In truth, atheism does require a negative statement. :yes:
ATS has created his own two mutually exclusive mathematical subsets. Unfortunately, he has encompassed a small, third, mutually exclusive subset (agnostics) within his second group (atheists) through his own personal use of the English language (which, I repeat, does not conform to the dictionary). With these flawed subsets he has wittingly or unwittingly driven his argument to its own inevitable, "logical" conclusion.

"If ya ain't with us, yer agin us!" :cover:

And FYI; Yes I did read the quoted definitions before posting them.

 

[themadhair]

“Disbelieve” is a verb. It is an active process, regardless of claims to the contrary in the thread you repeatedly link to.

It can mean to withhold or lack belief. Just because you ignore this meaning doesn’t make it untrue.

Furthermore, there is no “logical” binary set of conclusions. It is in fact ternary (at least). And thus yes…..atheism and agnosticism ARE mutually exclusive.

You are not a theist. The word to describe that is ‘non-theist’. We have this word ‘atheist’ which means ‘non-theist’. This really is a binary set. Agnosticism doesn’t concern belief of existence at all – it concerns belief in knowability.

The best analogy is with numbers. Theism is analogous to positive numbers while atheism is everything not a positive number. 0, which is neither positive nor negative, is part of the atheist set. This zero is also not agnosticism since agnosticism is addressing a different, but related, question.

As I've shown, this is not in keeping with English language definitions.

Only if you ignore very important meanings of the words used in those definitions. The word ‘atheist’ is composed of two words – ‘a’ meaning ‘not’ and ‘theist’ meaning ‘theist.’ It means ‘not-theist.’ That is what the word means and, if you stop discarding the range of meanings of words used in the definition, you would see this is what the definition implies.

In truth, atheism does require a negative statement.

I lack belief ≠ I believe in non-existence.

ATS has created his own two mutually exclusive mathematical subsets.

ATS didn’t create anything. The two sets are theist and non-theist. We happen to have a word meaning non-theist.

Unfortunately, he has encompassed a small, third, mutually exclusive subset (agnostics) within his second group (atheists)

You do know there are agnostic theists right? Agnostic theism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And FYI; Yes I did read the quoted definitions before posting them.

Then why did you miss very key meanings contained within that definition?

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ostic-doesnt-fall-between-theist-atheist.html
^ That is the proper thread for this discussion.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

....snip....
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ostic-doesnt-fall-between-theist-atheist.html
^ That is the proper thread for this discussion.

Right you are. This should be in the other thread.

 

[notsure]

I decided to call myself "notsure" on this site because I thought it was the most honest representation of my view of religion. It does not mean that I am ignorant, "wishy-washy" or any other label that someone else decides to throw on people who are not sure or agnostic. All that my name means is that I accept the fact that I do not know for sure that God is or isn't real. Now I tell my friends that I believe in God as much as i believe in Fairies because what better reason is there to believe in God? People have written about Fairies all throughout history too and that does not make them real. So that is my question for all you on this board - Explain to me the difference between believing in God and believing in any other "Mythical" creature. You know what... I think I'll take my Fairies instead.

 

[Luminous]

I don't know either way; there isn't any evidence to suggest either way; so why would I believe there is? Q: Do I believe there is gum on the left corner of your desk? A: Of course not - why would I?

yes your point is good. but it doesn't anwer the question. is there Gum there or not? just because you dont know, and you can't find out, doesn't mean there isn't.

 

[Luminous]

You mean somewhat like knowing "ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about" the distinction between ontology and epistemology?

distinctions between definitions? those things are just imaginary ideas. they are nouns yes. but they are not part of physical existance. i know about YHWH, and i know about Amanteratsu and about Thor and Horus and Vishnu, etc etc etc. is ontology a polytheistic god? perhaps epistemology is a physical being as well? they are just ideas. and agnostics accept that. agnostic does not imply there is no answer on all issues. which is what you imply by saying we cannot "believe" in ontology or epistemology, because we do not know. all we have is experience, and clearly there is no reason to not care about the merits of ontology or epistemology as they are clearly observable and easily understood/imagined.(glory be upon these manifestations of His noodley appendages )

 

[Luminous]

[/color]
I see, thank you. My question, though, was simply in regard to your line that proposed belief of one person, pondering in their agnosticism that they didn't know "the correct philosophy".

im guessing your asking if agnosticism is truth. it is. the only thing i know for certain, is that i know nothing else for certain; i can infer it is impossible and i would still be considered Agnostic(against the claim to know, usually about unscientific matters) but i dont, because i don't know that's true for sure.

 

[Luminous]

That's the argument for irreligion. If it's held up for agnosticism, isn't it agnosticism founded in ignorance?

oh i see, your saying he's not trying hard enough to see if they're gum on the desk. yes he did imply that. but trust me. he might be ignorant when it comes to the wonders of His noodley gum. but not when it comes to religion. i mean he is in "religious forums" so clearly he is "trying to see if that gum is there". there is no ignorance in Daemon Sophic. im sure some people just don't care about God's existance, and deam It unexistant (these are called apathetic nontheists). however because Agnosticism implies an UNDERSTANDING it negates your implication of Ignorance. I could explain further... you imply irreligion is equal to ignorance, and that all agnostics are irreligious, but so are some anti-agnostics. but you are filling yourself with fallacy to imply that all agnostics are equal to ignorance, clearly anti-agnostics are all filled with ignorance, because they disagree. plus they are filled with ignorance being as anti-agnostics are just agnostics that hope they know, but they don't, and yet they don't want to see their agnosticism. one's agnosticism has nothing to do with one's want to know Truth. we are ALL agnostic, some confess it, others hope its not true. and my brother is a religious Agnostic who is fund of going to church. I used to be a fundamentalist agnostic. so clearly i was Very religous. i believed if anything, only confessed agnostics would be saved. and all other's would cease to exist, or go to their corresponding damnation (hell for faith in christ only christians, purgatory for good catholics, reincarnation for Hindus, non-existance for atheists, etc) see, i had a theistic-Agnostic Religion. on part of your implacation that irreligious is equal to ignorance, i disagree. you are fallacious when making that accusation. plus, uninterested people cannot defend themselfs here being as they wouldnt be interested in "religious forums", you are picking on an unrepresented group. im getting deja-vu, i must have writen something like this before.

 

[Luminous]

But while you're looking for desk, you've no desk at which to sit firmly behind. No insult is intended, just an honest appraisal between a person and their desk.

so agnostics are the only people standing?
please stop incinuating negative things; this is DIR. only quesitions please. if you wanted to make a fool of yourself while mocking Truth you should have not made it in a DIR section.

 

[Luminous]

Oh, I see - you're using a specific, and incomplete definition of the word "atheist". That explains it.

I am agnostic - I do not know whether god(s) exist.
I am an athest - I do not believe that god(s) exist, because there isn't sufficient evidence for me to believe so.
I do not insist anything.

You can obviously continue to base arguments on your own definitions of words, but I've gotten sucked into enough semantical arguments for a lifetime on this board, and am done with those.

his using the common definition of the anti-agnostic sect of atheism: i KNOW there is no God. clearly you are Agnostic and atheist. but its better if we make it so that agnostic atheists are simply agnostic. and agnostic thiests are simply agnostic. so just stop lumping your self with the anti-agnostic sect and no one will insinuate you are anti-agnostic. if you call your self atheist/theist then others will think you are anti-agnostic.

 

[Luminous]

Each of us can do no less. To declare otherwise is knowing(ism).

anti-agnosticism.

 

[Luminous]

You demonstrate no such knowledge - only anger.

: thanks for the laughs i got when i read that irrelevant random fallacious statement. peace be upon you brother, and your anti-agnostic stance will always torment you because it is fallacious.
:beach:

 

[PhAA]

Is "agnosticism" founded in ignorance, or gnosticism? Why or why not?

For those who might puzzle at the question, there is the agnostic who says "I don't know" because he has no clue, and the agnostic who says "I don't know" because he has in his grasp a clue.

Definition of agnosticism sometimes vary depending on who you ask. But I think the general accepted definition is that the existence or non-existence of a god is not (yet) and (currently) cannot be proven or disproven.

It is not founded in ignorance because as the previous posts said, Agnostics acknowledge that they do not know. This is because they don't agree with blind faith

 

[gnostic]

If you look at Huxley's position, you will see he wasn't ignorant about religion or with the bible.

He just didn't see it have any place in science classrooms. He used his agnosticism, as well as his knowledge in science and position in the university, to separate religion from science in Britain education, and he was right to do so.