themadhair
Well-Known Member
Atheist/theist and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive. The only time I ever complain about the term is when some eejit uses it to mean middle-ground.
-
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!
So I was watching the latest Pat Condell video....
- Thread starter MarkQuinn
- Start date
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
Exactly. Agnosticism is pretty much atheism. The only difference is the degree of uncertainty. With agnosticism, it leans towards 50% (there might be a god, there might not be - nonetheless, no reason to believe). With atheism, it leans towards 100% (there might be a god, but there probably isn't - therefore, no reason to believe).
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
I consider myself an anti-theist atheist. I too do not claim to know with certainty.
I have no problem with people speaking in general, vague terms of what they believe. For example, "I believe in a higher power." That's great - fine by me. I see no reason to believe in one, so we'll agree to disagree. But when they start adding more and more details "I believe in God who sacrificed Himself on Earth for us to remove the burden of sin from us, etc, etc." These are specific claims about something they don't know and can't possibly know. They are making these specific claims with no substantiation.
That's the point where I become anti-theist. That's the point where I rip their claims apart. When someone spouts BS they do not know and cannot verify, I call them on it. The extent of my beliefs are "I see no reason to believe in a God as no evidence has surfaced to support the existence of a God. I believe God probably does not exist."
When some theist makes a lot of specific claims about their God, trying to convince me and then saying it's all down to faith, I become a vehement anti-theist. Why should I buy into their BS if they're giving me no reason to and literally admitting they have no evidence, or using ****tily-constructed "arguments" like "If there was no proof, it wouldn't be faith!"? Exactly! We don't NEED faith.
I don't get specific about my beliefs because I admit I don't know. But I'm also heavily against those who claim to know, too. I have just as much trouble with an atheist claiming "There definitely is no God" as a theist claiming "There is a God". Both are equally irrational.
I have no problem with people speaking in general, vague terms of what they believe. For example, "I believe in a higher power." That's great - fine by me. I see no reason to believe in one, so we'll agree to disagree. But when they start adding more and more details "I believe in God who sacrificed Himself on Earth for us to remove the burden of sin from us, etc, etc." These are specific claims about something they don't know and can't possibly know. They are making these specific claims with no substantiation.
That's the point where I become anti-theist. That's the point where I rip their claims apart. When someone spouts BS they do not know and cannot verify, I call them on it. The extent of my beliefs are "I see no reason to believe in a God as no evidence has surfaced to support the existence of a God. I believe God probably does not exist."
When some theist makes a lot of specific claims about their God, trying to convince me and then saying it's all down to faith, I become a vehement anti-theist. Why should I buy into their BS if they're giving me no reason to and literally admitting they have no evidence, or using ****tily-constructed "arguments" like "If there was no proof, it wouldn't be faith!"? Exactly! We don't NEED faith.
I don't get specific about my beliefs because I admit I don't know. But I'm also heavily against those who claim to know, too. I have just as much trouble with an atheist claiming "There definitely is no God" as a theist claiming "There is a God". Both are equally irrational.
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
Oh and by the way. Pat Condell is my God.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Crap, gosa, shoite, rubbish and a steaming pile of inaccurate bollix.
Pay attention because this is really is quite simple.
Atheism/theism are concerned with whether or not you believe god(s) exist.
Agnosticism/gnosticism are concerned with whether or not you think such a belief is knowable.
Basically agnosticism is taking the position that god(s) (non)existence is unknowable. It is not mutually exclusive with either theism/atheism. You can have agnostic theists, agnostic atheists, gnostic theists and gnostics atheists.
Get it?
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
Yeah, that's right. I never said they were mutually exclusive. I was talking about degree of certainty. Agnostics believe God is unknowable so many regard God existing or not existing as a pretty much equal 50/50 shot. An agnostic theist thinks that God might exist, but we will probably never know. An agnostic atheist thinks that God might not exist, but we will probably never know.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Their may be agnostics who view the probability as being 50/50, but that has absolutely nothing to do with agnosticism which holds that the question is unknowable. Try again.
Danarch
Robot!
Not all agnostics have the view that the knowledge is unknowable. This is about as logical as I personally could assume.
.
I like the way this looks. It kinda seems to take the theist out of the atheist. I just can't seem to believe anything without definitive knowledge.
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
By that definition, I would be considered an atheistic agnostic.
However, I don't much care for the term "agnostic" because of the baggage that comes with it. It makes it seem like I could be either way in terms of whether or not there is a deity. I like to make it perfectly clear so I brand myself an "anti-theist atheist".
However, I don't much care for the term "agnostic" because of the baggage that comes with it. It makes it seem like I could be either way in terms of whether or not there is a deity. I like to make it perfectly clear so I brand myself an "anti-theist atheist".
Danarch
Robot!
Hey whatever works man. Perhaps just simply "anti-theist". Atheism is a belief structure no matter how its proposed. "Weak agnostic" dosent sound very charming, but it sums up my stance exactly.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
I lack a belief in things that I do not have sufficient evidence for. Due to this I lack a belief in god(s).
Please point out the belief structure in the above.
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
I think what he means to say is "I lack a belief in God" is the exact same as saying "I believe God does not exist". I think his point is you can believe God exists or believe God doesn't exist. And a lack of belief is you haven't made up your mind. So either way, it's a belief.
He can correct me if I'm wrong.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
I what (s)he is trying to get but I simply think the idea is wrong. Skepticism, for example, isnt belief. Not knowing something isnt a belief. Not having sufficient information to believe something, so you retain a skeptical approach, isnt a belief. Part of the reason I pointed this out was because it cuts into a much larger fallacy which involves putting forth the contention that rejecting something utterly devoid of supporting evidence requires just as much blind belief as accepting that something. If this conversation continues that is where it will end up.
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
I'll agree with that.
Bloomdido
Member
It is possible to deconstruct the belief in (insert your god here) quite easily. It then becomes an issue of belief or faith (what is the difference?). Pat, for me, says it as it is. I worry about Islam because it is so demanding of its followers. There seems to be no middle ground. Either you believe or you are a kafir. No-one can leave without risk or threat. I visit the council of ex-muslims website from time to time to get a perspective for what it must be like to have been brought up in Islam and to have escaped.
To the people who say that Pat needs to hear like minded people to underpin and validate his beliefs, it's really not like that. When a person sees the absurdity of organised religion and can undestand its impact on followers and wider society, it is impossible to remain quiet.
To the people who say that Pat needs to hear like minded people to underpin and validate his beliefs, it's really not like that. When a person sees the absurdity of organised religion and can undestand its impact on followers and wider society, it is impossible to remain quiet.
Danarch
Robot!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-2
It seems i was mistaken. I was unaware that atheism also covers the lack of belief. I stand corrected.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
You have no idea how happy this makes me feel right now, or how many folks share your previous misconception.
Danarch
Robot!
There is a small difference between "lack of belief" and "belief of lack". It seems atheism encompasses both, when I was always was of a mind that it was only a belief of lack, that is to say the belief of the absence of a deity. What gets even more confusing is that an agnostic also shares a lack of belief, and that includes the belief of lack of an atheist.:areyoucra:areyoucra
Ok, just reading what I said is making me dizzy
