The term "Agnostic", is it viable? Problematic?

[Prophet]

You seem to me to be confusing atheism as a truth claim with atheism as a belief. Dawkins, for instance, accepts that atheism as a truth claim -- that is, "It is demonstrable there is no god" -- is problematic and most likely false, while yet at the same time expressing his strong belief that there is almost certainly no god.

By that logic, Dawkins' expressions of strong belief in the form of attacks upon faith are necessarily faith-based which is an ominously hypocritical position to find one's self in.

 

[Prophet]

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive - atheism/theism speaks to what you believe, whilst agnosticism/gnosticism speaks tomwhat you know (or claim to know).

Atheism is atheism, forget about the weak/strong nonsense. I like most atheists am agnostic. Apologists label atheism 'weak' to diminish it, don't fall for it.

Well, I hope it showed that I wasn't calling the agnostic atheist position "weak" to diminish it. I was merely pointing out that if one claims to be an agnostic atheist yet openly mocks believers and attacks religion wantonly, he shows his position of agnosticism to be one he holds merely for the benefit of the appearance of reasonability and is, in actuality, behaving as though his atheism was a positive claim.

 

[Prophet]

Perhaps, but not necessarily, I think. It's quite possible to be staunchly anti-religious, and yet believe in god. Its aIso possible to be religious and yet disdain almost all religions.
A weak atheist can allow for a non-interventionist god (for example) and yet find the concept of revealed religions ridiculous, and contrary to all evidence.

People too often equate weak atheist with wavering or weak atheistic belief when there is no correlation.

Didn't Jesus pretty much always save his worst denouncements for the religious? I have no problems with a principled stance against fundamentalist religion. You could say it is a stance that is almost hardwired into me by a childhood of religious brainwashing and the rage that followed when I realized I had been lied to. This stance is quite evident in my backlog of posts.

 

[Sunstone]

By that logic, Dawkins' expressions of strong belief in the form of attacks upon faith are necessarily faith-based which is an ominously hypocritical position to find one's self in.

Is it? Are they? Or are you committing a gross straw man argument? For instance, Dawkins' "faith" that there is no god is not the same thing as his knowledge that some religious people have committed heinous acts in their name of their religion. For you to suggest that his beliefs about deity are on the same epistemic grounds as his knowledge of religions suggests to me that you are not taking this issue seriously.

 

[Prophet]

Is it? Are they? Or are you committing a gross straw man argument? For instance, Dawkins' "faith" that there is no god is not the same thing as his knowledge that some religious people have committed heinous acts in their name of their religion. For you to suggest that his beliefs about deity are on the same epistemic grounds as his knowledge of religions suggests to me that you are not taking this issue seriously.

I said "attacks on faith". By faith, I mean "belief in God". For example, Richard Dawkins told his sycophants to treat those who possess belief in God with disrespect.

I did not say "attacks on injustices committed in religious context". If that's what Dawkins were actually doing he'd be a great humanitarian. No, he just uses these injustices to his benefit as ammunition while pretending they are his impetus. Like an atheist Jesse Jackson scoring another photo op.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What are your thoughts on the term agnostic, is it problematic, does it imply wishy-washiness?

I don't see problems with "weak" agnosticism ("right now, based on my own perspective, I don't know whether God exists"). I think "strong" agnosticism ("the question of God's existence is fundamentally unanswerable") is illogical, since it makes assumptions about "unknown unknowns": answers that lie so beyond the scope of knowledge now that we don't even know about the questions yet. No one is in a position to say whether one of these "unknown unknowns", once known, will speak to the existence of God... but hard agnosticism purports to be in just this position.

 

[TheGunShoj]

So, what constitutes this "knowing" of the Gnostic that eludes any knowing by atheists and theists?

I'm not sure I exactly follow the question. In my opinion, no one is gnostic, since you can't prove or disprove the existence of god, people only claim to know. You mostly see this in theists because they claim to have a personal relationship with God which gives them the insight to 'know'.

If you are a gnostic theist than means you know and believe god exists.
If you are an agnostic theist that means you believe but don't know for sure.

Gnostic atheists claim to know that there is no god for certain.
Agnostic atheists don't believe in any gods but don't claim to know for sure.

Does this answer your question?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Didn't Jesus pretty much always save his worst denouncements for the religious? I have no problems with a principled stance against fundamentalist religion. You could say it is a stance that is almost hardwired into me by a childhood of religious brainwashing and the rage that followed when I realized I had been lied to. This stance is quite evident in my backlog of posts.

Well, that's kinda my point though. An anti-theistic position doesn't indicate strong atheism. Not at all.
It's entirely possible for Dawkins to be a weak atheist, and be a raging anti-theist. And it's entirely possible to judge religion based on the actions and influences those religions have on the material plane.

 

[Bunyip]

Well, I hope it showed that I wasn't calling the agnostic atheist position "weak" to diminish it.

What I said was that APOLOGISTS use that silly distinction to diminish atheism.

I was merely pointing out that if one claims to be an agnostic atheist yet openly mocks believers and attacks religion wantonly, he shows his position of agnosticism to be one he holds merely for the benefit of the appearance of reasonability and is, in actuality, behaving as though his atheism was a positive claim.

That doesn't make sense mate.You can claim to be an agnostic atheist, and attack religion wantonly without that meaning that you are making a positive claim. Why would you imagine that attacking religion makes atheism a positive claim?

 

[Prophet]

Well, that's kinda my point though. An anti-theistic position doesn't indicate strong atheism. Not at all.
It's entirely possible for Dawkins to be a weak atheist, and be a raging anti-theist. And it's entirely possible to judge religion based on the actions and influences those religions have on the material plane.

In my thinking, a principled stance against wrongs committed in religious context does not equate to an anti-theistic viewpoint. Nowhere in Jesus' teaching do we see anything like, "You guys are such pieces of excrement that God must not be real." Now that would be anti-theist. And that is exactly the reasoning that Dawkins employs when he uses wrongs committed in a religious context as ammunition in attacks against theists.

 

[Prophet]

That doesn't make sense mate.You can claim to be an agnostic atheist, and attack religion wantonly without that meaning that you are making a positive claim. Why would you imagine that attacking religion makes atheism a positive claim?

I could claim to be a horse. Yet my typing this response to you gives you good reason to doubt the veracity of my claim. Richard Dawkins can claim to be an agnostic atheist who is merely ignorant of deity. Yet his advice to his followers that they should intellectually bully those who dare believe in deity gives me good reason to doubt the veracity of his claim.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In my thinking, a principled stance against wrongs committed in religious context does not equate to an anti-theistic viewpoint. Nowhere in Jesus' teaching do we see anything like, "You guys are such pieces of excrement that God must not be real." Now that would be anti-theist. And that is exactly the reasoning that Dawkins employs when he uses wrongs committed in a religious context as ammunition in attacks against theists.

Well...that's an interesting contention.
I agree in terms of how anti-theism is commonly used, but there are plenty who would argue the common usage is not it's only usage, and that anti-theism in and of itself has no linkage to the quality of logic underpinning a person's reasoning.

 

[Bunyip]

I could claim to be a horse. Yet my typing this response to you gives you good reason to doubt the veracity of my claim. Richard Dawkins can claim to be an agnostic atheist who is merely ignorant of deity. Yet his advice to his followers that they should intellectually bully those who dare believe in deity gives me good reason to doubt the veracity of his claim.

So what? What has that got to do with the definition of atheism? Proving the non-existence of an immaterial being is not possible, Dawkins simply does not claim to have knowledge that it is impossible to have anyway. Advocating that people should ridicule religion does not in any way challenge his agnostic atheism.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I could claim to be a horse. Yet my typing this response to you gives you good reason to doubt the veracity of my claim. Richard Dawkins can claim to be an agnostic atheist who is merely ignorant of deity. Yet his advice to his followers that they should intellectually bully those who dare believe in deity gives me good reason to doubt the veracity of his claim.

Not me. I don't agree with him, but I don't see any logical flaw in his position.
As far as I am aware, his comments regarding ridiculing religion are related to specific claims made by religions which are unsupported by evidence. Could be wrong on that, I'm not a massive fan of Dawkins, really, so don't study his stuff much.

What he's NOT claiming is that he can prove there is no God. Nor can he prove there is no celestial teapot. He has no reason to believe in God, hence he's an atheist. He has no ability to disprove all God-concepts, hence he's agnostic.

If was rating himself on a scale, he's be very, very CLOSE to strong atheism, I believe. But not actually a strong atheist. My contention is that no-one is really a strong atheist.

 

[Prophet]

Well...that's an interesting contention.
I agree in terms of how anti-theism is commonly used, but there are plenty who would argue the common usage is not it's only usage, and that anti-theism in and of itself has no linkage to the quality of logic underpinning a person's reasoning.

I think I disagree with you. In my mind, any agenda driven search for truth (be it pro-theism, anti-theism, etc.) absolutely has linkage to the quality of logic underpinning a person's reasoning in regards to that agenda. If the first responsibility of your reasoning is proving your agenda correct, how could you ever reason clearly? How could you not fall prey to confirmation bias? How could you ever fairly consider evidence that contends with your agenda? How could you ever fully consider the implications of your own belief? How could you live an examined life?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think I disagree with you. In my mind, any agenda driven search for truth (be it pro-theism, anti-theism, etc.) absolutely has linkage to the quality of logic underpinning a person's reasoning in regards to that agenda. If the first responsibility of your reasoning is proving your agenda correct, how could you ever reason clearly? How could you not fall prey to confirmation bias? How could you ever fairly consider evidence that contends with your agenda? How could you ever fully consider the implications of your own belief? How could you live an examined life?

Rigorous application of skepticism.

 

[Prophet]

Not me. I don't agree with him, but I don't see any logical flaw in his position.
As far as I am aware, his comments regarding ridiculing religion are related to specific claims made by religions which are unsupported by evidence. Could be wrong on that, I'm not a massive fan of Dawkins, really, so don't study his stuff much.

As far as I am aware, he has prescribed that his followers publicly mock believers without regard to atrocities committed or specific silly claims made by said believers. When he is set against a believer of a particular religion, any past atrocities committed or silly claims made in said religion's name merely become convenient tools for his establishment of moral and rational superiority.

But maybe we both have no idea what we are talking about with regard to Richard Dawkins.

What he's NOT claiming is that he can prove there is no God. Nor can he prove there is no celestial teapot. He has no reason to believe in God, hence he's an atheist. He has no ability to disprove all God-concepts, hence he's agnostic

If was rating himself on a scale, he's be very, very CLOSE to strong atheism, I believe. But not actually a strong atheist. My contention is that no-one is really a strong atheist.

I believe there are no rational grounds can be cited in one's growth from "weak" atheism to very close to "strong" atheism. I believe this growth must necessarily be faith based.

 

[Skwim]

I'm not sure I exactly follow the question.

You said that gnostics can say they know god exists, and implied that theists and atheists can only say they believe there is/is no god. So, my question---to rephrase--- is; why can gnostics know god exists, but theists and atheists cannot? They can only believe he does/does not. What is it about this knowing that god exists that theists are unable to grasp?

In my opinion, no one is gnostic, since you can't prove or disprove the existence of god, people only claim to know.

So there really is no such a person as a gnostic. Then why even bring (make) them up?

You mostly see this in theists because they claim to have a personal relationship with God which gives them the insight to 'know'.

So, theists really can go beyond believing, and achieve a knowing that god exists. Sure wish you'd make up your mind before posting.

If you are a gnostic theist than means you know and believe god exists.
If you are an agnostic theist that means you believe but don't know for sure.

Gnostic atheists claim to know that there is no god for certain.
Agnostic atheists don't believe in any gods but don't claim to know for sure.

Now you're just fabricating types of believers, or at least making moot distinctions.

 

[Bunyip]

As far as I am aware, he has prescribed that his followers publicly mock believers without regard to atrocities committed or specific silly claims made by said believers. When he is set against a believer of a particular religion, any past atrocities committed or silly claims made in said religion's name merely become convenient tools for his establishment of moral and rational superiority.

But maybe we both have no idea what we are talking about with regard to Richard Dawkins.



I believe there are no rational grounds can be cited in one's growth from "weak" atheism to very close to "strong" atheism. I believe this growth must necessarily be faith based.

But we do not 'grow' from weak to strong atheism. We are just atheist. The imaginary position that Christian apologetics identifies as 'strong atheism' is not superior to atheism or 'weak atheism', itis just a strawman.

 

[Prophet]

You said that gnostics can say they know god exists, and implied that theists and atheists can only say they believe there is/is no god. So, my question---to rephrase--- is; why can gnostics know god exists, but theists and atheists cannot? They can only believe he does/does not. What is it about this knowing that god exists that theists are unable to grasp?

So there really is no such a person as a gnostic. Then why even bring (make) them up?

So, theists really can go beyond believing, and achieve a knowing that god exists. Sure wish you'd make up your mind before posting.

Now you're just fabricating types of believers, or at least making moot distinctions.

God is known through Self-realization. Jesus said:

When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty.

Self-realization is to know you are part of a body that includes all life, even the beings you may regard as enemies. Jesus said:

You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.