Athiesm, Agnostisism, and Ingrid's Mom

i disagree. i see three positions on the matter of belief:

1> belief in the existence of god

2> belief in the non existence of god

3> no belief on the matter


the second category is where some of my crack pot high school buddies fit in. clearly the 3rd option is intellectually safer than the 2nd, but they choose to neglect the null hypothesis. anyway, i looked it up on the wiki and #2 seems to be a strong athiest, which is what i think most people mean in colloquial conversation when they say athiest.

Chip argues black and white.

I think its even less black and white with one shade of grey as you describe

Theres many people who WANT there to be a God. But have lost/ never had Faith.

Some have a hope but not enough to be a beleif also.


Its very hard to understand an intangible such as belief in God.

If Ingrids mom falls in the forrest and there is no one there to see it will she still say " I've fallen and can't get up" ?

He has a thing for my mom.

and uh... confirmed agnostic.

I see your point, although I don't agree with it 100%. Some agnostics believe that the existence of a higher sentience is probable, but are averse to attempting to define it. I think this can be applied to some theists as well.

Many who believe in god don't claim first hand knowledge. They will tell you that their belief comes from feelings, reliance on scripture, or simply wanting to believe it.

Therefore, they are "not knowing" as well. The only theists I see as non-agnostic are those who claim first hand, personal experience(s) with a divine entity.

Where is Huxley when you need him?

I agree (sorta).

Speaking as a confirmed atheist that was brought up strictly Christian, I feel that most folks that label themselves as agnostic are "secret believers" IMO, and thus actually theists not atheists.

That being said, the whole point of the word "anostic" is supposed to be the grey space in between the black and white positions. So Nolan is right there I think.

.

Yes, good point, Nolan. It's always difficult to discuss this in terms of proper use of language because to most people the language is insperable from the politics of it, hence the invention of the term "agnostic" as a way to avoid being perceived as falling into one camp or another. The way "agnostic" is typically used is itself a fallacy, unless you believe it's possible to both believe and disbelieve at the same time. Someone who believes there is a higher sentience but doesn't claim to be able to define it (a very reasonable position) is still a theist. Someone who is unconvinced but would be open to the idea if a reasonable level of evidence were presented is an atheist, and the vast majority of atheists fall into that category.

The "argument from ignorance" fallacy (that all propositions must either be known to be true or false, or that lack of proof is proof) applies only to "strong atheism" which represents only a tiny fraction of atheists. What gets my goat is the argument that all atheism is a leap of faith in the same way that theism is (which I got the impression was the basis of Jua's "neener neener" comment about atheists), because it's a misrepresentation of atheism in its most common form, and is muddled even further by the false assertion that agnosticism is a kind of "stand alone" middle ground. That's pure politics. It is not possible to both believe and disbelieve something at the same time.

You are correct, and that's why it irritates people like me... strong atheism is only a tiny minority of atheists. The vast majority of atheists are "weak" or "agnostic." Believers tend to paint all atheists as being "strong atheists" when in fact very few are.

Can you point a brother out to this comment, Chip?

It was nothing really. In a thread in general someone posted a link to the descritpion of the argument from ignorance fallacy. Juani quoted it and said he would send it to all the atheists he knows. That's all.

Aww, I get my Religion = Shared Psychotic Delusion argument all riled up for nuttin?

*blink*

just some quick definitions....

Originally these words meant:

theist - person who belives in the existance of one or more gods
atheist - (the prefix "a" is negating) is a person who belives that there are no gods

gnostic - person who believes that god can be understood through knowlege
agnostic - person who belives that the nature of god is unknowable

Through common useage the word agnostic has come to mean someone who is uncertain about the existance of god, although that was not the original meaning. This association came about because agnostics claimed that, becauase god is unknowable, chruches can not dictate what the gods do or do not want us to do. Therefore, belivers in organized religions label them as atheists.

Personally, I believe that humans invented gods as an evolutionary adaptation that allows us to perform more efficiently as a collective. Those people who are able to act coheisvely are more likely to reproduce successfully and therefore a genetic and cultural pre-disposition to theism is perpetuated to the next generation.

For those who are intersted in thought provoking radio media collage, check out Over The Edge, which airs on KPFA in Berekely, CA and is archived on the web at: SerpentX archive For many many hours of programs about the theory I just mentioned check out the 2004 archive and the episodes titled "its all in your head"

I think people should be free to belive what they like with a few caveats:
1) minimal harm to others (this is the toughest one to enforce)
2) understanding that no matter what you believe, there will be those who believe it is funny to point at you and giggle

Z

yeah it's not about religion at all. athiesm, agnosticism, and maybe by necessity, theism too. but not religion. hopefully not. that's just too messy to discuss on forums.

ingrid's mom on the other hand...

Is Ingrid's mom a MILF??

I agree, especially with the last sentence, which is what I think Dianne was getting at.

Sort of a having your cake and eating it too type of thing, and most likely politically driven. I have seen people employ both edges of that agnosticism sword, and it makes me none too happy, to be sure.

Personally, I was raised and confirmed Lutheran, even taught bible class to 5 year olds for a couple of years in high school when my mom fell ill and couldn't continue. Many people are shocked to hear that about me.

The church I belonged to was very open, and actively encouraged us to follow our own minds and hearts. Within ten years of living on my own as an adult, and reading many articles and books - everything from Kafka to Hawking to Sagan to sci-fi (Yay for Niven!) to string theory to Von Daniken to Dr. Suess (haha!), I formulated my belief set. I am agnostic, however, my own brand.

Warning: tangent follows -

I believe that there is a high probabilty that other "species" exist out there - some possibly much older and therefore more advanced than we - but I would stop short of labeling them as "gods". This is why I don't see myself as a theist. So maybe none of the terms fit me...

I do believe that if we ever made "contact" some folks would view them as "gods", not unlike the way Native Americans (supposedly) viewed European explorers. I do not include myself among those folks, which further complicates the issue for me of what I "am".

and with a blink zuzu layed everything bare.

that makes a lot of sense zuzu, and resonates with me because i did not like associating myself with the term athiest, though i'm not a theist either. i don't believe or disbelieve in god, but i do believe that god/Truth is inaccessibile.

i was actually going to make a diatribe about why the wiki and is dangerous, but then your post illustrates it clearly enough.

Here's one for you theologists. I'm not one and am barely keeping my head above water in this thread. Is belief in creationism a requirement to being a theist???

?? You say this as if it hasn't already happened!?

Oh it has, just don't tell anyone!

Or maybe it was just the pot and premium vodka!

If it hasn't, I'd have no valid explanation for what i'm doing here, and would have to start worshiping Baby Jeeves or whatever his name is.

What Would Jeeves Do?

Take us around the park Jeeves, you know how I love the park!

I agree somewhat that Agnosticism is Atheism Lite.

When I was younger, I was a hard Atheist. Based on my observations, I came up with my assumptions quickly and was a bit stubborn on going back on them. Well, assumption is the mother of all fuckups, and in my late teen years, my life almost ended due to my habit of assuming things before asking myself if I had enough evidence to make that assumption.

After this ordeal, I began to re-evaluate a lot of my practices. The thought that turned me from a hard Atheist into an Agnostic is that there is not enough evidence presented to me yet to assume what the origin of life on earth was. Abiogenesis? Divine touch? Bacteria off a candy bar wrapper that some alien dropped off on Earth? I will say one thing though- if there is a God, he/she/it forgot about us a loooong time ago.

i don't think the creationism is required at all. in fact, if interpreted metaphorically, i find a few of the creation stories to be congruent with the big bang and evolution theory. if there is a god, would it not be part of god's design to have the universe unnfold according to the design?

Good post Zuzu. Everyone is either gnostic or agnostic and theist or atheist. You can't just be agnostic, and being an atheist doesn't exempt you from being an agnostic (or vice versa). Use of the word agnostic as if claiming it means you don't have to decide which side of the belief/disbelief scale you fall on is a bit of intellectual dishonesty. Use of the word atheist as if all atheists are gnostic is a misuse of the word atheist and is also a bit of intellectual dishonesty.

"I believe in the Christian (or insert relevant faith here) God" = gnostic theist

"I believe there is a higher power but don't claim to know its nature" = agnostic theist

"I am not convinced there is a god but could be some day if sufficient evidence is shown to me" = agnostic atheist

"I believe there is no god and no amount of evidence could ever convince me" = gnostic atheist