Athiesm, Agnostisism, and Ingrid's Mom

i dont think so at all. i think you are to involved with a binary view of it. if you are agnostic to the degree that you believe Truth is inaccessible, then the question of whether there is or isn't a god becomes meaningless because it is unanswerable. this is very different from what you stated earlier, where you said it is impossible to believe and disbelieve simultaneously. it is the opposite in a sense. it is a position where you neither believe or disbelieve.

western dialectic often creates a linguistic trap. i hate it more than the wiki.

Does anyone know if there's a Retarded Design theory, in which life on earth is too complicated to spring up on it's own, so a really retarded creature made us? I'd sign on to that one, I think.

hahahahaha. hey everyone, look what zuzu believes.
teee heee hee

Very interesting idea there Jauani. I'll have to ponder that for a bit.

If you don't think the question is answerable then obviously you don't believe, ergo you are without belief, aka atheist.

an agnostic does not seek evidence. an agnostic has ruled out the possibility for evidence if, according to the agnostic, the true nature of the universe is inherently inaccessible. knowing something requires the ability to assimilate it. a subset can not assimilate the whole. so i find there is a problem with the wiki association of weak athiesm and agnosticism.


a gnostic athiest has reached the conclusion that there is no god through lack of concrete evidence for god, which is misinterpreted as evidence for no god. if evidence was presented, a gnostic believing that truth is accessible, would have to accept it. this does not mean to say that the gnostic athiest doesn't also believe that there will never be such evidence

not answerable in my lifetime, anyway. when i die, maybe i will find an answer

Interestingly enough, I am a buddhist, so technically speaking i am an atheist. One of the struggles of the wester notion of transcendet deities is that the term athiest necessarily seems aspiritual. And there is a difference beteween spiritualism and theology.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

"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."

-------

Ditto the Lutheran church I chose to raise our daughters in.

I once interviewed a female Episcopal priest, who had a 17-year-old son who didn't go to anything except the youth group, and who was still trying to figure out what he really believed.

I loved what she told me about this, and have taken it as one of my basic tenets as well. It went something like:

"What a person believes or doesn't believe at any given point is not as important as that they are on their own spiritual journey."

Their faith journey, she meant, which can actually never be completed. She meant, what is important is that a person thinks of these issues and things larger than we normally think about, rather than the exact nature of their current thoughts.

I feel everyone who even thinks about these things is on their own spiritual journey, and in that journey they may be agnostic, or atheist - or not. And everyone's spiritual journey is different, and open-ended. I tend to think of atheists as people on a spiritual journey. (One that might last through several lifetimes.)

coco

Even us Athiests who think "spritual" is hogwash?

As an atheist, this whole assumption that atheists are agnostic seems wrong to me.

Yes, I cannot prove that the God revered by Western societies does not exist. But equally I cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist. That does not mean I am a Santa Claus agnostic. Perhaps there is a Santa Claus, but the likelihood of his existing is pretty remote, remote enough for me not to consider it as a possibility. One thing I am sure of is that if there were a controlling sentience that had created the universe, it certainly wouldn't be an old man with a beard or anything at all resembling the Christian conception. Or indeed, anything that human beings could relate to at all, in the same way that we are unable to relate to viruses.

I am constantly amazed by the human capacity for believing nonsense. Pyramids erected by aliens, ghosts, UFOs, pyramid selling schemes, Scientology, Spiritualism, fairies, angels, all of us seem to actually have a need to believe at least one piece of utter rubbish. It is difficult to come to terms with the fact that one day we will cease to exist, so it is easy to understand how religion can sometimes provide comfort - the problem is, our world is currently seeing the problems that religion can cause. Is the death and destruction caused by religion since Roman times and probably long before worth the psychological crutch it can provide?

My own feeling is that it isn't. You might disagree.

Yes, actually it does. The implication you're rejecting is the result of politically motivated misuse of the word agnostic. You do not have knowledge of the existence of Santa, therefore you are agnostic.

That in itself is actually a bit of a misuse of the term, since "gnosis" refers to intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths. Since the english language is so pliable and susceptible to contamination by its flexible usage, I don't know if gnostic or agnostic can properly be used to describe knowledge of non-spiritual matters. Is there a linguist in the house?

Not quite right, for many Atheism is itself an act of faith and hence a belief (although not belief in god).

If you are without belief you would be a Nihilist.

Z

In all my years of associating with atheists I have yet to meet a gnostic atheist, although there must be some out there somewhere.

Since it is impossible to *prove* that god does not exist (can't prove a negative), if you really believe that god does not exist then it requires faith.

I'm not sure I fully understand your use of gnostic/agnostic with atheism. To me, both terms presuppose the existance of god and are only distinctions on the nature of god.

you say:


I don't buy either of these, real evidence negates the need for any belief wether you were theist or atheist to start. If actual provable evidence existed then there would be no need for faith at all.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you could try:

"I don't believe that god exists, but I will concede that god could exist in some form that I have not previously considered" = "agnostic" atheist

"I don't belive that god exist in any form I would ever recognise as a god" = "gnostic" athiest

although I still don't like using gnostic/agnostic in this way since it is a corruption of the meaning IMHO.

By my definitions, though I would consider myself a "gnostic" atheist. (if that's close enough, you can put one tic mark on your wall now )

Z

It requires no more faith for me to believe there is no god than it does for me to believe there is no santa claus. Absurd claims without evidence to support them do not require a leap of faith to disbelieve. It's the default position for any rational person regarding extraordinary claims, precisely because it's impossible to prove a negative.



They are also known as strong and weak atheism. "I do not have firsthand knowledge that god exists, therefore I do not have belief that god exists." That is agnostic (weak) atheism. "I know that god does not exist." That is gnostic (strong) atheism, and that does require a leap of faith because it claims knowledge that isn't possible to actually have with absolute certainty.



All that's required to be a gnostic is to claim to have first hand knowledge that there either is or isn't a god or gods. All that's required to be agnostic is to admit you don't have first hand knowledge one way or the other. Either of those positions can fit a theist or an atheist.



The first one is good. Not sure about the second one. A gnostic atheist asserts definitive knowledge that there is no god in the same way a believer asserts that they know there is one. I suppose it gets muddy when you start debating the definition of "god." hehe. It's a fun semantic argument anyway because our language is so abused and imprecise.



Interesting. If you're truly a gnostic atheist you're the first I've met. I suspect you're probably not, though. I prefer weak and strong, but I bring up gnostic/agnostic when people use the term agnostic to say they neither believe or disbelieve. I consider that merely a political position for the benefit of their audience, not an honest assessment of their beliefs. I think that most people who claim to be agnostics do so as a way to qualify their disbelief and distinguish themselves from atheists. "I don't believe in your god, but I'm not with those people. Don't hurt me!" Only belief is belief. Everything else is disbelief, even "I don't know."

Of course I could be the one misusing the language, but this is how I understand it.

I consider myself a agnostic or weak atheist, even though I think the likelihood of there being a god about the same as the likelihood that tiny invisible farm animals are performing Cats in my nasal passages. If I was presented with irrefutable proof of god's existence (or the farm animals in my nose) then I would have to accept it. It doesn't really matter that I believe with 99.99999% certainty that it will never happen.

hmm, your definition of a stong athiest is such an absurd position that there doesn't seem to be any reason to even bother defining it. What purpose does it serve?

But yes, by your definition I am a weak atheist and by my definition you're a strong atheist

from here its either arguing definitions (boring) or else a discussion of how do we "know" anything. but I'd rather not get into that, since discussions on that topic tend to get really silly fast. hehehe

Was an interesting discussion, though.

Z

Well, no more absurd than theism really I think a strong atheist would be one who doesn't allow for the possibility that they might be wrong... a position that's quite common among theists.

Definitely. The fact that you think it is hogwash is part of your personal journey. For purposes of discussion, we might next discuss what qualifies as spiritual. Any thought you have about such things - even that they don't exist - is where you are on your own personal path. A path which has no determined ending. The important thing is that it is your path.

coco

"One thing I am sure of is that if there were a controlling sentience that had created the universe . . . "

Maybe there is a sentience that IS the universe, rather than controlling it.

A sentience that was born or not born when the universe was born or not born, and that travels the universe within the unverse that is itself, and consists of billions of separate entities that are capable of being one and communicating as one, on one. And always have and always will.

coco

I believe I'll have another slice of pie, thank you.

I agree with this 100%, Zuzu - but I also feel that humans invented god(s) as a means of explaining what they could not at the time. I also think that the belief in god(s) gives some individuals the strength they need to overcome adverse times that they would otherwise be unable to manifest.

If a man is in a forest, and there is no woman there.......Is he still wrong?
hehe