So where do agnostics fall when it comes to "Either you accept the proposition a God exists, or you do not."
-
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!
The Folly of Atheism
- Thread starter usfan
- Start date
So where do agnostics fall when it comes to "Either you accept the proposition a God exists, or you do not."
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
They're exactly the same, either atheists or theists. Agnosticism regards knowledge, not belief, so it is not a position "between" theism and atheism, which deal with belief. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
LOL i know bro. I swear they are worst than some theists. At least the theist, while sometimes wrong, at least can blame his impulse to "preach" on his religion while atheists, can't blame anyone since nothing outside of their own desires matter.
Im pretty sure agnostics would disagree with you there.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Many have. Many others agree. It's not a question of their position, it's merely acknowledging that the terms "atheism" and "theism" have much broader definitions or applications than a lot of people realize. Nothing need change if an agnostic suddenly realizes that their stated position could more accurately be deemed "agnostic atheism" or "agnostic theism". I see no reason why people have such a weird phobia regarding nomenclature.
OK well, this back and forth is honestly a waste of time. You got something you want to ask me or just to try and convince me that i must fall in one of your predefined groups?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Is there really a need to get defensive? I'm simply pointing out that atheism and theism are broad terms, and agnosticism and atheism/theism are not mutually exclusive.
Why are you so averse to simply falling under a very broad label?
Not getting defensive, simply trying to see if there's anything worth continuing this "discussion" for and it seems the answer is no.
I don't want a label as it serves no purpose right now. If you want to apply a label just to be able to get past through getting to know a person then, please move on.
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
Because the Dawkins sliding scale atheist to theist is pure atheist rhetoric
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
How so?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I am always intrigued at the attention given to philosophical beliefs, and the dogmatic confidence some have in those beliefs. Many religious beliefs are examined, criticised, ridiculed & psychoanalyzed in this forum, but not much is given to atheism The title may put some off, but since the 'folly of religion' is a constant topic here on the forum, i thought it only fair to consider the folly of atheism.
And, since there is a disproportionately high number of vocal, proactive atheists here, a light hearted look at atheism should be welcome relief from the seriousness and intensity that some display.
A false dilemma
A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option. (from wiki)
The dilemma presented is usually like this:
'If you cannot prove God's existence, then He does not exist!'
But, there are other possibilities, not just the 'either/or' of this dilemma.
1. God may have reasons, unknown to us, for not presenting a conspicuous presence.
2. God may reveal to some, but leave others wondering.
3. The Majesty and holiness of God may be too much for sinful man to observe, so God waits, to give opportunity to be reconciled.
4. Something has blinded the awareness of humans, so they are unable to perceive spiritual reality.
5. God does not reveal Himself, because He does not exist.
We do not have enough evidence, individually, to categorically declare one of these possibilities as 'truth!', and dismiss all others. Therefore, this argument is fallacious, based on a false dilemma.
Weirdly enough, I was just reading about fallacies: Rhetological Fallacies – A list of Logical Fallacies & Rhetorical Devices with examples — Information is Beautiful
Both believer and atheist have them. Guess which one goes with which person.
Appeal to Authority
Claiming something is true because an 'expert', whether qualified or not, says it is.
Which is justified by personal experience rather than universal facts. At the same time saying it is true for all even though it's for only a few.
Appeal to Common Practice
Claiming something is true because it's commonly practiced.
I heard this: "God must be true. Why would most religions believe in god if it were not?"
Appeal to Ignorance
A claim is true simply because it has not been proven false (or false because it has not been proven true). and “Nobody has proved to me there is a God. So there is no God.”
This works with both atheist and believer
Appeal to Incredulity
Because a claim sounds unbelievable, it must not be true.
“The eye is an incredibly complex biomechanical machine with thousands of interlocking parts. How could that exist without an intelligent designer?”
Appeal to Tradition
Claiming something is true because it's (apparently) always been that way.
“Marriage is the union between man and women. Therefore gay marriage is wrong.”
Appeal to Consequences
of a Belief
Arguing a belief is false because it implies something you'd rather not believe.
Appeal to Nature
Making your claim seem more true by drawing a comparison with the "good" natural world.
“Of course homosexuality is unnatural. You don't see same-sex animals copulating.”
Both sides have it's fallies
Not all non-believers are atheists. You can be a non-believer in ghosts but still be a theist.
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
**** off,, your well aware of other terms used for atheists
That is by far the most childish post I've seen on RF
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
What is childish about it?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
But you're already admitting you belong to a label - secularist.
What is it about the labels "atheist" or "theist" that you are averse to? It's only not worth discussing this if you're just going to refuse to answer those questions.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
What does Dawkins' sliding scale of atheism have to do with anything?
What a ridiculous and malicious charactuire you have been taught and have agreed to mindlessly purvey.
This is the kind of bigoted hate speech that makes me an anti-theist. I am an atheist, and prefer that your religion no longer taught weak and susceptible minds to hate. I find your beliefs offensive, and say meh to your claim of any relationship to the Golden Rule. Try living it instead of just giving it lip service as you serve your religious hatreds to the world.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
What a terrible thing to say, and it is just so untrue. As I have said in the past, atheists do good works and they do not do good works for any reward in heaven. All believers do not do good works for a reward in heaven, but that cannot be separated out since believers believe they will go to heaven.
Anyhow, I want to share with you what I just got finished writing to an atheist on my forum with whom I have been conversing for over five years.
I said: A person who is spiritually evolved shows forth love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice, and that is observable in his behavior.
He said: Then an atheist who shows this would also be "spiritually evolved."
I said: Good observation. That is true, and there are a lot of atheists who are spiritually evolved. I know many of them from the RF forum. All humans have a spirit (soul), so all humans can be spiritually evolved. A belief in God is not necessary to be spiritually evolved (loving, merciful, kind, truthful, and just).
He said: Then an atheist who shows this would also be "spiritually evolved."
I said: Good observation. That is true, and there are a lot of atheists who are spiritually evolved. I know many of them from the RF forum. All humans have a spirit (soul), so all humans can be spiritually evolved. A belief in God is not necessary to be spiritually evolved (loving, merciful, kind, truthful, and just).
As far as desires are concerned, atheists do not have a corner on that market. In fact, I would say that believers are pretty much in the same ball park in that regard, as I certainly do not see many believers denying their desires, even though they are enjoined to by their religions. That reminded me of something I read:
"This cycle is the cycle of favor and not of justice. Therefore, those whose deeds are clean and pure, even though they are not believers, will not be deprived of the divine mercy; but perfection is in faith and deeds. Undoubtedly, a person, who is not a believer, but whose deeds and morals are good, is far better than one who claims his belief in words but, who, in actions, is a follower of satan. The Blessed Beauty says, 'My humiliation is not in my imprisonment, which, by my life, is an exaltation to me; nay rather, it is in the deeds of my friends, who attribute themselves to us and commit that which causes my heart and pen to weep!'"
(Attributed to 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Star of the West, vol. 9, issue 3, p. 29)
Or we can simply have evolved without any "soul" or "spiritual" component as loving, merciful, kind, truthful and just people simply because such behaviors increases chances of well-being and survival when living in a society. If theists need a god to tell them not to lie or steal or murder how "spiritually evolved" can theists be?
Last edited:
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Yes, what you said is true, it is possible if there is no God and all religions are man-made.
Most people need to have a fear of God in order for act morally.
“The first word which the Abhá Pen hath revealed and inscribed on the first leaf of Paradise is this: “Verily I say: The fear of God hath ever been a sure defence and a safe stronghold for all the peoples of the world. It is the chief cause of the protection of mankind, and the supreme instrument for its preservation. Indeed, there existeth in man a faculty which deterreth him from, and guardeth him against, whatever is unworthy and unseemly, and which is known as his sense of shame. This, however, is confined to but a few; all have not possessed, and do not possess, it. It is incumbent upon the kings and the spiritual leaders of the world to lay fast hold on religion, inasmuch as through it the fear of God is instilled in all else but Him.” Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, pp. 27-28
If nobody believed in God, you'd find out how quickly society deteriorated. That does not mean that everyone has to believe in God, as some people can be moral without a God belief. However, even those people have been affected by a society in which most people believe in God so the teachings of religion such as the Golden Rule have come to them by osmosis.