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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
OK. Just wondering, because I've only ever had conversations about atheism over the internet. Maybe brushed on the subject a few times, but that's about it. I've heard this definition a lot, but I'm just not sure how prominent it is in the real world and outside of religion/atheism specific discussion spots. I've wondered if maybe it's taken root because of online apologetics.
Who knows? I leave my own views and opinions open for doubt and analysis, always. Currently, I take a stand for what I believe now.
Hell already did freeze over.Sorry, have to go now don't know when I'll be back. When hell freezes over or you guys get the point. Whichever comes first...
We can't know that, as it has no truth value.
The notion of "insufficient communications" does not require some quantifiable measurement to satisfy. It is an abstract expression in this way.
Unlike with deism, theism, atheism, etc., agnosticism doesn't have some ancient root nor was it coined using Greek or Latin prefixes and words; that is, despite the Greek γνῶσις, the term "agnostic" is actually based on the modern term "gnostic" used to describe the (then believed to exist) group of early Christians defined by an intimate knowledge of god (turns out this categorization is so problematic that some have advocated dropping the term altogether). Huxley coined the term "agnostic" to mean "not having a gnostic-like knowledge of god". He coined it because other intellectuals he associated with were constantly after him to define his position (atheist, deist, theist, whatever) but he couldn't because there was no term for "I don't know" with respect to the existence of God. So he made one. As it was an extremely useful term, it entered into common language.
Truth-values are a mathematical/logical notion:
Theists believe their god(s) actually exist.
A "gnostic theist" claims that god(s) exist and believes that god(s) exist. An "agnostic theist" doesn't claim that god(s) exist just believes they do. The definition of claim is "state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof." Nothing in there about belief.
Is that a serious question? Because of course a theist doesn't have an absence of belief just a presence.
The definition of a theist is a person who believes. The definition of a gnostic is a person who knows. I don't see the point in rewriting the definition of theism.
So according to you a person can say he's an agnostic meaning he doesn't know if gods exist but a person can't say he's an atheist meaning he doesn't believe gods exist...?
I can say 1+1 equals horse. I can define atheism to mean a belief in pink unicorn-dragons, theism to mean a belief that circles are squares, and deism to mean the belief that I'm god. However, what I can say and what is meaningful, practical, or communicable are different things altogether.
You mean; Don't believe God exists. Which is not a claim is it?
I so do love it when people dismiss some several thousands years of intellectual tradition, up to and including the 20th and 21st century (and both believers and non-believers) with the "argument" that the whole thing is silly. To paraphrase:
There is either truth to the statement "there is either a god or not a god", or there isn't. It's that simple (cue infinite regress).
Whether you are going to argue there is or isn't a god or gods, I suggest
You are describing two degrees of the same thing here. So then an agnostic is really just a wimpy atheist. Either that or an atheist is simply an arrogant agnostic.
Yes its all crap, don't make a big thing about it.
Wrong. It is quite certainly true that rocks and weeds don't believe god exists. It is just as certainly true that they can't believe god doesn't exit. Proper negation is essential. It can be said of anything incapable of belief that, for any claim X, that thing doesn't believe X (this includes statements like "crows are black" and "crows aren't black", because a rock doesn't believe either statement is true, while it is impossible for anybody to logically believe that one statement is true but believe the other isn't).
Time was, physics didn't have "interpretations". There were not families of interpretations for Newtonian mechanics, electromagnetism, etc. There are, however, families of interpretations of quantum mechanics. Most physicists would agree that they don't believe gravitation to exist. Few would say they believe gravitation doesn't exist (gravity is perhaps the unsolved problem of modern physics).