To believe or not to believe - that is the quesiton. [Archive]

RJT

10-07-2005, 08:50 PM

Howsabout this challenge. There seem to be quite a few agnostics and atheists on the forum. They seem to agree on one thing, religion is bunk.

Yet, they don’t seem to agree on the fundamental item of any of the Religions. That is, if God exists or not. I suggest these two camps (atheists and agnostics) discuss, debate and argue about it between themselves. When they come up with an answer they agree to, then come talk to us believers. Then show us how logical we should be.

Until all the “geniuses” agree to what to believe (think) how are we mortals supposed to know? Please, we are looking for guidance from you. Get back to us ASAP.

10-07-2005, 08:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
When they come up with an answer ..

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe that's the point. Atheists/agnostics aren't quick to come up with nice tidy little answers to unanswerable questions.

chezlaw

10-07-2005, 08:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Howsabout this challenge. There seem to be quite a few agnostics and atheists on the forum. They seem to agree on one thing, religion is bunk.

Yet, they don’t seem to agree on the fundamental item of any of the Religions. That is, if God exists or not. I suggest these two camps (atheists and agnostics) discuss, debate and argue about it between themselves. When they come up with an answer they agree to, then come talk to us believers. Then show us how logical we should be.

Until all the “geniuses” agree to what to believe (think) how are we mortals supposed to know? Please, we are looking for guidance from you. Get back to us ASAP.

[/ QUOTE ]

They do basically agree that they don't know if god exists (and nor does anyone else). The disagreement about aethiest and agnostic is normally a minor difference in what they mean by the word 'belief'

chez

RJT

10-07-2005, 08:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When they come up with an answer ..

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe that's the point. Atheists/agnostics aren't quick to come up with nice tidy little answers to unanswerable questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if the two camps are going to live in glass houses, then, please at least shut the curtains.

Aytumious

10-07-2005, 09:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When they come up with an answer ..

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe that's the point. Atheists/agnostics aren't quick to come up with nice tidy little answers to unanswerable questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if the two camps are going to live in glass houses, then, please at least shut the curtains.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would we waste our time debating each other on minor details about our unbelief when ultimately the difference between our perspectives is minor?

RJT

10-07-2005, 09:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When they come up with an answer ..

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe that's the point. Atheists/agnostics aren't quick to come up with nice tidy little answers to unanswerable questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if the two camps are going to live in glass houses, then, please at least shut the curtains.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would we waste our time debating each other on minor details about our unbelief when ultimately the difference between our perspectives is minor?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought Atheists believe (think) there is no god. I also was under the impression that Agnostics either think there is a possibility of one in some form or another or don’t take any stance.

This is minor?

10-07-2005, 09:10 PM

RJT

10-07-2005, 09:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When they come up with an answer ..

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe that's the point. Atheists/agnostics aren't quick to come up with nice tidy little answers to unanswerable questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if the two camps are going to live in glass houses, then, please at least shut the curtains.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe it doesn’t. I have no way to know for sure if it does or not make sense when I guess I have no idea the difference between atheists and agnostics. If there is none then I do know I should probably throw my dictionary away.

chezlaw

10-07-2005, 09:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I thought Atheists believe (think) there is no god. I also was under the impression that Agnostics either think there is a possibility of one in some form or another or don’t take any stance.

This is minor?

[/ QUOTE ]

RJT, I think this is a false target. In general they believe 1) there is no reason to believe in god and 2) that they cannot prove god doesn't exist.

The rest is minor because its essentially a different use of language.

chez

RJT

10-07-2005, 09:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought Atheists believe (think) there is no god. I also was under the impression that Agnostics either think there is a possibility of one in some form or another or don’t take any stance.

This is minor?

[/ QUOTE ]

RJT, I think this is a false target. In general they believe 1) there is no reason to believe in god and 2) that they cannot prove god doesn't exist.

The rest is minor because its essentially a different use of language.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying there are no atheists - only agnostics?

purnell

10-07-2005, 09:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Please, we are looking for guidance from you. Get back to us ASAP.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. Is the deaf guy asking the blind guy for directions here, or the other way around?

I do not worship anything. My opinion is that early humans invented gods in order to make sense of their chaotic environment.

I think it is impossible to prove that any or all gods do not exist, but the particular mythologies I have seen all seem a bit absurd to me. Thus I don't worship anything.

I state with confidence that god does not exist. I think the meaning of life is life itself, and nothing more (why do we need more?). I am not dispirited by the knowledge that life is the product of random forces, an aberration, an isolated pattern found in a random distribution. Life is (or puts on a good show of it), and that's enough for me.

chezlaw

10-07-2005, 09:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought Atheists believe (think) there is no god. I also was under the impression that Agnostics either think there is a possibility of one in some form or another or don’t take any stance.

This is minor?

[/ QUOTE ]

RJT, I think this is a false target. In general they believe 1) there is no reason to believe in god and 2) that they cannot prove god doesn't exist.

The rest is minor because its essentially a different use of language.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying there are no atheists - only agnostics?

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's what agnostic means then yes (bit reluctant to give a straight yes because we've had trouble agreeing on a definition in the past)

chez

RJT

10-07-2005, 09:32 PM

From Webster’s New World Dictionary (handiest one):

Atheist: rejects all religions * and denies the existence of God.
Agnostic: a person who thinks it is impossible to know whether there is a God or a future life…**

* I think we are all agreed with the religion part here.

** We believers (least I do) realize this to. Guess we believers are agnostics too. We just chose to believe certain things that we know are impossible to know.

So, now that we have proven that all our differences are minor, what do we talk about on the forum?

Aytumious

10-07-2005, 09:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought Atheists believe (think) there is no god. I also was under the impression that Agnostics either think there is a possibility of one in some form or another or don’t take any stance.

This is minor?

[/ QUOTE ]

RJT, I think this is a false target. In general they believe 1) there is no reason to believe in god and 2) that they cannot prove god doesn't exist.

The rest is minor because its essentially a different use of language.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying there are no atheists - only agnostics?

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's what agnostic means then yes (bit reluctant to give a straight yes because we've had trouble agreeing on a definition in the past)

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I am an atheist in the same way that I am an a-unicornist. I'm not agnostic about unicorns and likewise for a concept for which there can be no proof.

RJT

10-07-2005, 09:33 PM

chezlaw

10-07-2005, 09:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
From Webster’s New World Dictionary (handiest one):

Atheist: rejects all religions * and denies the existence of God.
Agnostic: a person who thinks it is impossible to know whether there is a God or a future life…**

* I think we are all agreed with the religion part here.

** We believers (least I do) realize this to. Guess we believers are agnostics too. We just chose to believe certain things that we know are impossible to know.

So, now that we have proven that all our differences are minor, what do we talk about on the forum?

[/ QUOTE ]

I get the impression that some folk believe there is a reason to believe that there is a god.

chez

10-07-2005, 09:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought Atheists believe (think) there is no god. I also was under the impression that Agnostics either think there is a possibility of one in some form or another or don’t take any stance.

This is minor?

[/ QUOTE ]

RJT, I think this is a false target. In general they believe 1) there is no reason to believe in god and 2) that they cannot prove god doesn't exist.

The rest is minor because its essentially a different use of language.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying there are no atheists - only agnostics?

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's what agnostic means then yes (bit reluctant to give a straight yes because we've had trouble agreeing on a definition in the past)

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe like different denominations in my Religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, just like it except none of the made up bullsh!t.

RJT

10-07-2005, 09:39 PM

Far be it from me to call one an atheist rather than agnostic (or vice versa). Sounds like you guys use the words synonymously. Learn something new everyday.

10-07-2005, 09:42 PM

wiki:

"Atheism, in its broadest sense, is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods, thus contrasting with theism. This definition includes both those who assert that there are no gods and those who have no beliefs at all regarding the existence of gods. However, narrower definitions often only qualify the former as atheism, the latter falling under the more general term nontheism.

Although atheists often share common concerns regarding evidence and the scientific method of investigation and a large number are skeptics or humanists, there is no single ideology that all atheists share. Additionally, many atheists are not entirely irreligious; there are atheists who are religious or spiritual despite their lack of belief in gods.

RJT

10-07-2005, 09:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, just like it except none of the made up bullsh!t.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish I had the passion for my religion that you have against religion. Ironic.

10-07-2005, 09:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, just like it except none of the made up bullsh!t.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish I had the passion for my religion that you have against religion. Ironic.

[/ QUOTE ]

You wanted this type of response based on this thread you created, and I'll bet you wanted it just for a comment like that.

RJT

10-07-2005, 09:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
wiki:

"Atheism, in its broadest sense, is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods, thus contrasting with theism. This definition includes both those who assert that there are no gods and those who have no beliefs at all regarding the existence of gods. However, narrower definitions often only qualify the former as atheism, the latter falling under the more general term nontheism.

Although atheists often share common concerns regarding evidence and the scientific method of investigation and a large number are skeptics or humanists, there is no single ideology that all atheists share. Additionally, many atheists are not entirely irreligious; there are atheists who are religious or spiritual despite their lack of belief in gods.

[/ QUOTE ]

So unless one knows what a certain atheists thinks in particular, it is kind of like talking to a believer if one does not know if he is a Jew or a Catholic and only knowing that he is a believer in something.

RJT

10-07-2005, 09:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, just like it except none of the made up bullsh!t.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish I had the passion for my religion that you have against religion. Ironic.

[/ QUOTE ]

You wanted this type of response based on this thread you created, and I'll bet you wanted it just for a comment like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I honestly thought there was a difference between athiests and agnostics. I wish I was as good at game theory as you suggest.

10-07-2005, 09:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wiki:

"Atheism, in its broadest sense, is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods, thus contrasting with theism. This definition includes both those who assert that there are no gods and those who have no beliefs at all regarding the existence of gods. However, narrower definitions often only qualify the former as atheism, the latter falling under the more general term nontheism.

Although atheists often share common concerns regarding evidence and the scientific method of investigation and a large number are skeptics or humanists, there is no single ideology that all atheists share. Additionally, many atheists are not entirely irreligious; there are atheists who are religious or spiritual despite their lack of belief in gods.

[/ QUOTE ]

So unless one knows what a certain atheists thinks in particular, it is kind of like talking to a believer if one does not know if he is a Jew or a Catholic and only knowing that he is a believer in something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Atheism means a-theism. i.e., against theism. So, yes, naturally the term does not specify everything someone thinks, just that they are against theism. Kind of like how the term "male" doesn't specify my politics. Is this all really that difficult?

10-07-2005, 09:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, just like it except none of the made up bullsh!t.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish I had the passion for my religion that you have against religion. Ironic.

[/ QUOTE ]

You wanted this type of response based on this thread you created, and I'll bet you wanted it just for a comment like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I honestly thought there was a difference between athiests and agnostics. I wish I was as good at game theory as you suggest.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, you could have just asked that question rather than your mocking original post -- ("Until all the “geniuses” agree to what to believe (think) how are we mortals supposed to know? Please, we are looking for guidance from you. Get back to us ASAP.")

RJT

10-07-2005, 10:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, just like it except none of the made up bullsh!t.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish I had the passion for my religion that you have against religion. Ironic.

[/ QUOTE ]

You wanted this type of response based on this thread you created, and I'll bet you wanted it just for a comment like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I honestly thought there was a difference between athiests and agnostics. I wish I was as good at game theory as you suggest.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, you could have just asked that question rather than your mocking original post -- ("Until all the “geniuses” agree to what to believe (think) how are we mortals supposed to know? Please, we are looking for guidance from you. Get back to us ASAP.")

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was a valid point. Pardon my ignorance of atheism/agnosticism. From previous posts here on the forum, I got the impression that there was a difference. I think I have edified someof us enough regarding some misconceptions about (my )religion (not saying the edification amounted to anything of importance) that I am entitled to a faux pas.

Can we agree on this: That to believe that “there is absolutely no possibility of a God” is as “silly” a thinking as how agnostics view what believers think (them silly) about their religion?

10-07-2005, 10:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, just like it except none of the made up bullsh!t.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish I had the passion for my religion that you have against religion. Ironic.

[/ QUOTE ]

You wanted this type of response based on this thread you created, and I'll bet you wanted it just for a comment like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I honestly thought there was a difference between athiests and agnostics. I wish I was as good at game theory as you suggest.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, you could have just asked that question rather than your mocking original post -- ("Until all the “geniuses” agree to what to believe (think) how are we mortals supposed to know? Please, we are looking for guidance from you. Get back to us ASAP.")

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was a valid point. Pardon my ignorance of atheism/agnosticism. From previous posts here on the forum, I got the impression that there was a difference. I think I have edified someof us enough regarding some misconceptions about (my )religion (not saying the edification amounted to anything of importance) that I am entitled to a faux pas.

Can we agree on this: That to believe that “there is absolutely no possibility of a God” is as “silly” a thinking as how agnostics view what believers think (them silly) about their religion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read some of my prev posts and I have already stated that such a statement cannot be supported. Unfortunately, theists like you seem to want to use that as some sort of argument for their side, which is absurd.

10-07-2005, 10:30 PM

Agnostics are atheists who haven't come out of the closet yet. Think homosexuals in the 1950's.
Either that, or they are 99.9999999% sure there is no god, but they are hedging their bets "just in case"
I think agnostics are gutless, and I probably have more disdain for them than I do for "true believers". Theists (in whatever denomination) just don't know any better, which is sad, but more palatable than people who profess to be agnostic or theists for public consumption but know better.

chezlaw

10-07-2005, 10:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Agnostics are atheists who haven't come out of the closet yet. Think homosexuals in the 1950's.
Either that, or they are 99.9999999% sure there is no god, but they are hedging their bets "just in case"
I think agnostics are gutless, and I probably have more disdain for them than I do for "true believers". Theists (in whatever denomination) just don't know any better, which is sad, but more palatable than people who profess to be agnostic or theists for public consumption but know better.

[/ QUOTE ]

See RJT, its pointless. This whole thread so far followed by a post that uses different meanings of athiest/agnostic to reach a dubious conclusion.

chez

RJT

10-07-2005, 11:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
See RJT, its pointless. This whole thread so far followed by a post that uses different meanings of athiest/agnostic to reach a dubious conclusion.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez,

It is indeed difficult to discuss things with one who won’t state anything specific. Kind of like Judo, in Judo the hero doesn’t actually ever attack just divert the opponent. Kid likes to do that. He seems to divert the question/discussion to: Well you guys do/say this. It is not my place to define atheists/agnostics. I used the friggin’ dictionary. That obviously was an error on my part.

I will ask this, before I get into another discussion with an A (I’ll just use the letter for now to mean whatever it is we are talking about atheist/agnostics), do you(said person) believe in the possibility of a god or that it is not at all possible. Like I would advise A’s to do when talking religion: Are you Jewish or Christian, if Christian what denomination, etc. Or better yet, to not even begin to discuss things with folk who are not interested in furthering the conversation as you are, chez. From now on I’ll just say to those not interested in serious conversation, “You are right.”

Oh,well, such is life.

RJT

RJT

10-07-2005, 11:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Agnostics are atheists who haven't come out of the closet yet. Think homosexuals in the 1950's.
Either that, or they are 99.9999999% sure there is no god, but they are hedging their bets "just in case"
I think agnostics are gutless, and I probably have more disdain for them than I do for "true believers". Theists (in whatever denomination) just don't know any better, which is sad, but more palatable than people who profess to be agnostic or theists for public consumption but know better.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems you are like god, Jasper109. Some in this thread seem to think believers (thinkers)like you do not exist.

RJT

10-07-2005, 11:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It is indeed difficult to discuss things with one who won’t state anything specific.... Kid likes to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I say a lot of things that are specific, but you are asking for unfounded beliefs on faith (since the questions are unanswerable), and I'm sorry if I don't have many of those to offer.

RJT

10-07-2005, 11:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Read some of my prev posts and I have already stated that such a statement cannot be supported. Unfortunately, theists like you seem to want to use that as some sort of argument for their side, which is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kid,

Actually it is almost the contrary. I have much more respect for those who say what it is they think. I have no interest in changing one’s view. (I leave that to David S.’s mission.) Nor do I feel any need to defend my view. Until (unless) someone can show my view to be impossible, I remain the Christian that I am (as I understand my religion.).

RJT

RJT

10-07-2005, 11:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is indeed difficult to discuss things with one who won’t state anything specific.... Kid likes to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I say a lot of things that are specific, but you are asking for unfounded beliefs on faith (since the questions are unanswerable), and I'm sorry if I don't have many of those to offer.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I can say Kid is this: you seem to agree that it is hard to defend the statement “there is not God, period”. You also seem to suggest that there are no such folk who feel such. Then I read Jasper109. What am I to think? Thus my OP.

RJT

10-08-2005, 12:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
All I can say Kid is this: you seem to agree that it is hard to defend the statement “there is not God, period”. You also seem to suggest that there are no such folk who feel such. Then I read Jasper109. What am I to think? Thus my OP.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

When did I suggest such a thing??????????????????????

RJT

10-08-2005, 12:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All I can say Kid is this: you seem to agree that it is hard to defend the statement “there is not God, period”. You also seem to suggest that there are no such folk who feel such. Then I read Jasper109. What am I to think? Thus my OP.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

When did I suggest such a thing??????????????????????

[/ QUOTE ]

When you criticized my OP. You suggested the topic was ridiculous. I should say, that is how understood you.

From this what you said:

[ QUOTE ]
You wanted this type of response based on this thread you created, and I'll bet you wanted it just for a comment like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this:

[ QUOTE ]
You know, you could have just asked that question rather than your mocking original post

[/ QUOTE ]

chezlaw

10-08-2005, 12:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
See RJT, its pointless. This whole thread so far followed by a post that uses different meanings of athiest/agnostic to reach a dubious conclusion.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez,

It is indeed difficult to discuss things with one who won’t state anything specific. Kind of like Judo, in Judo the hero doesn’t actually ever attack just divert the opponent. Kid likes to do that. He seems to divert the question/discussion to: Well you guys do/say this. It is not my place to define atheists/agnostics. I used the friggin’ dictionary. That obviously was an error on my part.

I will ask this, before I get into another discussion with an A (I’ll just use the letter for now to mean whatever it is we are talking about atheist/agnostics), do you(said person) believe in the possibility of a god or that it is not at all possible. Like I would advise A’s to do when talking religion: Are you Jewish or Christian, if Christian what denomination, etc. Or better yet, to not even begin to discuss things with folk who are not interested in furthering the conversation as you are, chez. From now on I’ll just say to those not interested in serious conversation, “You are right.”

Oh,well, such is life.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Its very noticable that people are very reluctant to explain what they mean which is a shame as we would achieve a lot more if people took more time to discover what they were discussing before they spent much time discussing it.

I used to think there were three reasons for this reluctance:

Debating tactic to win an argument unfairly.
Feeling that its a waste of time.
Fear that explaining a position clearly will only serve to make clear why it is irrational.

Recently I have had to add a fourth possibility, the DS view that it overcomplicates things (I don't understand what he means by this but I don't expect him to explain as it would overcomplicate things).

chez

RJT

10-08-2005, 12:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
3)Fear that explaining a position clearly will only serve to make clear why it is irrational.

4) Recently I have had to add a fourth possibility, the DS view that it overcomplicates things (I don't understand what he means by this but I don't expect him to explain as it would overcomplicate things).

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting 3 and 4 are different? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

chezlaw

10-08-2005, 12:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is indeed difficult to discuss things with one who won’t state anything specific.... Kid likes to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I say a lot of things that are specific, but you are asking for unfounded beliefs on faith (since the questions are unanswerable), and I'm sorry if I don't have many of those to offer.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I can say Kid is this: you seem to agree that it is hard to defend the statement “there is not God, period”. You also seem to suggest that there are no such folk who feel such. Then I read Jasper109. What am I to think? Thus my OP.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on be fair, no-one is suggesting that all irrational people are theists (ok you can probably find some nutter who does insists that, but that goes to illustrate the point about being fair)

chez

chezlaw

10-08-2005, 12:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3)Fear that explaining a position clearly will only serve to make clear why it is irrational.

4) Recently I have had to add a fourth possibility, the DS view that it overcomplicates things (I don't understand what he means by this but I don't expect him to explain as it would overcomplicate things).

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting 3 and 4 are different? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I have faith /images/graemlins/wink.gif

chez

10-08-2005, 12:22 AM

I just don't understand what we are debating.

A

Hundreds of thousands of verifiable scientific observations.

vs

B

Faith

Can one of you give me ONE EXAMPLE of a miracle that the Catholic church deems a prerequisite for sainthood?

joel2006

10-08-2005, 12:26 AM

RJT- I am both an 'atheist' and an 'agnostic' although I refer to myself as a 'nontheist'. Although this may seem confusing it actually isn't. I was raised in an Evangelical Christian environment where I was taught that 'atheists' are people who say there is no god. However upon meeting and talking with actual atheists I found that their own definition of an atheist is often different and more literal, that is-an atheist is one without belief. Some (very few) say there is no god, a position that ironically must be taken on faith since there is no way of proving it. But most of them for many different reasons simply chose not to believe. An agnostic is one who does not 'know' whether or not god exists, and according to the strict defintion of 'atheist, all agnostics are without belief and thus atheists. But a 'no god' atheist would differentiate herself from agnostics. Although in my experience most believers think of atheists as the opposite of themselves (there is no god) this is a minority position amongst most atheists, a position far more popular with believers. I personally do not believe in God, mainly because firstly I have no problem with the universe being random, secondly I refuse to take anything so important on 'faith' (that is-without any evidence) and thirdly I have no need for the emotional and psychological comfort the idea of god provides for most people. I won't even bring up the fact that the most common arguement used for the authenticity of the Bible is a circular one (it is the word of god because it says it is) What other people believe is their business, as far as I'm concerned. One of the things that drove me away from Christianity is the lack of verifiable truth of so many core concepts and the utter disregard for truth that many ministers have. To me 'truth' is self-evident, it can withstand any and all challenges and if this is the case then faith should be irrelevant. But almost all religions are based on faith, which precludes the need for verification of any of their most important claims, whatever they may be.

RJT

10-08-2005, 12:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is indeed difficult to discuss things with one who won’t state anything specific.... Kid likes to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I say a lot of things that are specific, but you are asking for unfounded beliefs on faith (since the questions are unanswerable), and I'm sorry if I don't have many of those to offer.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I can say Kid is this: you seem to agree that it is hard to defend the statement “there is not God, period”. You also seem to suggest that there are no such folk who feel such. Then I read Jasper109. What am I to think? Thus my OP.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on be fair, no-one is suggesting that all irrational people are theists (ok you can probably find some nutter who does insists that, but that goes to illustrate the point about being fair)

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No, chez,

But I am suggesting, as was the point of my OP, that if I was agnostic I would be more interested and probably feel that I would have an easier time convincing Atheists (in the way , I used the word) that their position is very narrow minded.

Thus, my glass houses reference. To (somewhat) mix metaphors: Clean your own house first. Then tackle (another mixed metaphor) us believers.

RJT

10-08-2005, 12:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Clean your own house first. Then tackle (another mixed metaphor) us believers.

[/ QUOTE ]

One could just as easily say: convert every theist to Christianity, then tackle us atheists.

10-08-2005, 12:32 AM

Joel,

I think I agree with everything you said. LOL

chezlaw

10-08-2005, 12:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't understand what we are debating.

A

Hundreds of thousands of verifiable scientific observations.

vs

B

Faith

Can one of you give me ONE EXAMPLE of a miracle that the Catholic church deems a prerequisite for sainthood?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you accuse agnostics of being gutless when we are referring to those who believe:

1) there is no reason to believe in god
2) they cannot prove god does not exist.

and suggesting that is the what is generally believed by those who call themselves athiest or agnostic, the main difference between them being a confusion over the meanings of agnostic/athiest.

chez

RJT

10-08-2005, 12:48 AM

Joel,

It appears that I am (was) as ignorant of the terms atheist and agnostic as many here are of some things we believers think. Thanks for you response.

[ QUOTE ]
Some (very few) say there is no god, a position that ironically must be taken on faith since there is no way of proving it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This quote above was basically the point of my OP.

How ‘bout this: an agnostic is an apathetic atheists - just joking.

P.s. You are correct that one needs faith to understand what religion is all about. One must realize before studying any religion that at one point one has to jump with faith. You are not interested in that avenue. As are most here. But, for those who are interested, it is not like the simplified version most of us learn in Sunday school. That is what is frustrating here sometimes. Those who want to argue the minutia. I worked (am working) it backwards. I like the concept, now I see what (how it )works viz a viz my intellect (or lack thereof).

RJT

joel2006

10-08-2005, 12:57 AM

RJT- I never said nor do i accept the statement that one needs faith to understand what religion is all about. I think I have an excellent understanding of that without faith. However one clearly needs faith to "accept" what religion is all about, but that is a very different thing. By accepting the dictionary definition you made a simple but understandable error. You forgot or did not realize that approx 96% of all americans believe in god (according to M. Shermer in "How We Believe"). Since dictionary definitions are based on common usage and believers are the overwhelming majority of americans, it is their usage that is recorded in the dictionary, not the term as used by the tiny minority of actual atheists.

RJT

10-08-2005, 12:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clean your own house first. Then tackle (another mixed metaphor) us believers.

[/ QUOTE ]

One could just as easily say: convert every theist to Christianity, then tackle us atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was my understanding (assumption) that this whole religion thing was started when David S. suggested that religion is bunk and referred believers to hear what fellow geniuses think. Therefore I say “Mommy, they started it.”

Whether that is the case or not, the tone of many agnostics here just seems to be so militant. I thought it odd is all. Perhaps, it is just me reading things wrong.

RJT

10-08-2005, 01:01 AM

Right, I used the wrong word. Good catch.

Trantor

10-08-2005, 01:07 PM

There need no be a difference.

An agnostic holds the view that the existance or non-existance of God cannot be proved.

An atheist holds the positive belief that God doesn't exist.

These two views are not mutually exclusive.

It also to be noted that a person can be a theist (eg Christian) and also be an agnostic. In fact, It my understanding that Christian belief is founded on faith and that it is perhaps considered blasphemous to ask or want God to prove his existance because it should be through faith that you come to Him. That is, I had assumed Christianity is an agnostic/theist religion, but I digress.

chezlaw

10-08-2005, 01:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There need no be a difference.

An agnostic holds the view that the existance or non-existance of God cannot be proved.

An atheist holds the positive belief that God doesn't exist.

These two views are not mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that people who claim to be athiests often don't hold a positive belief that god doesn't exist. Earlier the definition from wiki was posted
[ QUOTE ]
"Atheism, in its broadest sense, is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods, thus contrasting with theism

[/ QUOTE ]
Infering what someone believes because they call themselves athiest or agnostic is so prone to cause confusion that it would be a lot easier to avoid them as labels.

chez

RJT

10-08-2005, 01:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There need no be a difference.

An agnostic holds the view that the existance or non-existance of God cannot be proved.

An atheist holds the positive belief that God doesn't exist.

These two views are not mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

All atheists are agnostic. All agnostics are not atheists.

Isn’t that what I said (thought) to begin with?

[ QUOTE ]
It also to be noted that a person can be a theist (eg Christian) and also be an agnostic. In fact, It my understanding that Christian belief is founded on faith and that it is perhaps considered blasphemous to ask or want God to prove his existance because it should be through faith that you come to Him. That is, I had assumed Christianity is an agnostic/theist religion, but I digress.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your understanding is the same as mine. In fact all religions are agnostic.

I said something similar in an above post:

"We believers (least I do) realize this to. Guess we believers are agnostics too. We just chose to believe certain things that we know are impossible to know."

purnell

10-08-2005, 01:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
the tone of many agnostics here just seems to be so militant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alot of non-believers see themelves as tiny islands of sanity in a sea of madness.

Trantor

10-08-2005, 01:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Infering what someone believes because they call themselves athiest or agnostic is so prone to cause confusion that it would be a lot easier to avoid them as labels.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true. I have found the the same, personally, with people who call themselves Christian.
The following is copied from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/393479.stm

(The point of the quote is the last paragraph)

QUOTE

For many people, the word "heretic" conjures images of witch-hunts and burnings at the stake, Joan of Arc and the Spanish Inquisition.

But strange as it may seem, the term could be making something of a comeback, if a proposal at the Church of England synod makes it into law.

Ronald Pearse explains his belief in God
Tribunals would be held - behind closed doors - to ask allegedly heretical priests if they believed in the central tenets of the Church.

It is some years since David Jenkins, then Bishop of Durham, hit the headlines for saying he did not believe in the physical resurrection of Christ, or the virgin birth.

But the bishop was not alone in thinking things which Church authorities find unpalatable.

There is in particular one group, called Sea of Faith, which has attracted names such as "Godless vicars" and "atheist priests". It claims it has up to 50 vicars and some Roman Catholic priests in its membership, as well as rank and file church members.

[ image: Anthony Freeman, who lost his job in 1994]
Anthony Freeman, who lost his job in 1994
It is easy to see why the organisation has been controversial. Although it has about 700 members in the UK, it draws on several denominations and also other religions. But what binds the members together is that they share the view that religion is a "human creation".

Some of its members go further and believe that God is also a human creation - a metaphor for human values such as love and forgiveness.

In other words, some of them believe there is no such thing as God in the traditional sense of an independent being.

The group is all the more controversial because some of its members decide to stay within the Church, even as vicars, and to continue to call themselves Christians.

UNQUOTE

RJT

10-08-2005, 01:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Infering what someone believes because they call themselves athiest or agnostic is so prone to cause confusion that it would be a lot easier to avoid them as labels.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true. I have found the the same, personally, with people who call themselves Christian.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not incorrect, Trant.

RJT

10-08-2005, 02:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the tone of many agnostics here just seems to be so militant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alot of non-believers see themelves as tiny islands of sanity in a sea of madness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to worry, purnell. John Nash (A Beautiful Mind) eventually figured out he was insane, too. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Trantor

10-08-2005, 02:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Your understanding is the same as mine. In fact all religions are agnostic.

I said something similar in an above post:

"We believers (least I do) realize this to. Guess we believers are agnostics too. We just chose to believe certain things that we know are impossible to know."

[/ QUOTE ]

I got the impression from an earlier post of yours (earlier than my first one which prompted mine) that you thought belivers and agnostics were on two sides of a divide.

QUOTE
Can we agree on this: That to believe that “there is absolutely no possibility of a God” is as “silly” a thinking as how agnostics view what believers think (them silly) about their religion?
UNQUOTE

Maybe you meant to comment on how _atheists_ view what believers think?

Trantor

10-08-2005, 02:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
An agnostic is one who does not 'know' whether or not god exists, and according to the strict defintion of 'atheist, all agnostics are without belief and thus atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not correct. An agnostic believes it is not possible to prove, in principal, whether God exists or not. Hence an agnostic can either positively believe in God, positively believe God doesn't exist or have no belief either way.

RJT

10-08-2005, 02:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Your understanding is the same as mine. In fact all religions are agnostic.

I said something similar in an above post:

"We believers (least I do) realize this to. Guess we believers are agnostics too. We just chose to believe certain things that we know are impossible to know."

[/ QUOTE ]

I got the impression from an earlier post of yours (earlier than my first one which prompted mine) that you thought belivers and agnostics were on two sides of a divide.

QUOTE
Can we agree on this: That to believe that “there is absolutely no possibility of a God” is as “silly” a thinking as how agnostics view what believers think (them silly) about their religion?
UNQUOTE

Maybe you meant to comment on how _atheists_ view what believers think?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Using the word atheist and agnostic how I originally use it (as you do), I am saying that agnostics agree (with us believers) that it is silly for atheists to say “there is absolutely no possibility of a God”. Likewise the same agnostic would say it is silly that believers think “ X religion is silly because…” (Btw, I do not address in my statement you quoted what believers think about “no possibility” or “no God”)

The divide is dependent on the context:

1) When we are talking the possibility of a God. Divide looks like this -

Atheists/ agnostics and believers

Atheist give it no possibility. Agnostics and believers give it some possibility.

2) When we are talking about belief in a God or belief that there is no God, the divide looks like this -
Atheists, believers/agnostics

Now atheists and believers are on the same side of the divide. They believe each their own way. Agnostic take no stance on believing there is a God or believing there is no God.

RJT

10-08-2005, 02:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
An agnostic believes it is not possible to prove, in principal, whether God exists or not

[/ QUOTE ].

That’s how I understand the word agnostic.

[ QUOTE ]
Hence an agnostic can either positively believe in God,

[/ QUOTE ]

That's how I understand the word believer.

[ QUOTE ]
positively believe God doesn't exist

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s how I use the word atheist.

[ QUOTE ]
or have no belief either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s how I understand the word agnostic.

Trantor

10-08-2005, 03:07 PM

I think your definitions and conclusions in this post are _not_ as I understand them. Note: I will use your term "believer" for theist as that is how you use the term, I think. (You could say an atheist is a believer ( in atheism) but let's not get too bogged down here!)

An agnostic believes it is not posible to prove or disprove the existance of God, _in principle_. An agnostic can however believe in God(be a beliver) or believe there is no God (be an atheist). An agnostic can also believe in neither viwpoint (and so is also an atheist in some definitions).

A person may be an non-agnostic and believe it is possible to prove (or demonsrate with certainty, or some similar statement) that God does or does not exist.

Your example 1) then becomes:

1) When we are talking the possibility of a God. Divide looks like this -

Atheists(agnostics and non-agnostic) and believers (agnostics and non-agnostic)

Atheist (but only the non-agnostic ones) give it no possibility. Agnostics (including atheist agnostics) and believers(agnostic or non-agnostic) give it some or 100% possibility."

You see how the definitions I think are proper affects the statements you make, hence I conclude you are not, in fact, using these terms in the same way I am.

Trantor

10-08-2005, 03:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An agnostic believes it is not possible to prove, in principal, whether God exists or not

[/ QUOTE ].

That’s how I understand the word agnostic.

[ QUOTE ]
Hence an agnostic can either positively believe in God,

[/ QUOTE ]

That's how I understand the word believer.

[ QUOTE ]
positively believe God doesn't exist

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s how I use the word atheist.

[ QUOTE ]
or have no belief either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s how I understand the word agnostic.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I have posted in another reply, on this basis the following statement you made makes no logical sense and hence my confusion over just how you are using the terms:

"
1) When we are talking the possibility of a God. Divide looks like this -

Atheists/ agnostics and believers

Atheist give it no possibility. Agnostics and believers give it some possibility.
"

Simply put (!) an athesist does _not_ necessarily "give it no possibility" as you said in the previous post I quote above. An agnostic atheist will give it some possibility (whilst believing it is not the case). You seem in this later quote to assume an atheist cannot be an agnostic.

I'm not sure it changes any conclusions but I wanted to reply to this rather fine but I consider important distinction.

RJT

10-08-2005, 04:09 PM

I got you. I stand corrected again.

I made the same error (that you just corrected) that I think many do about believers. We (believers) have faith there is a God, most accept the possibility that there isn't but serves not purpose(to the beliver) to live ones life as if it really is a possibility.

---

Getting back to the definitions.

I think we (you and I) agree to each characterization. The trouble I was having before (not with your posts) was that some on the board seem not to distinguish atheists and agnostics (I assume now it is because there really are so few "atheists") - that is they seem to say atheists sometimes when they mean to say agnostics. From now on I will ask to the person what they mean when they call themselves atheists or agnostics - if it is relevant to the point of the particular discussion.

RJT

10-08-2005, 04:13 PM

You are again correct. And this is my confusion. I simply think it would be easier if we use the term atheist to mean one who believes there is no God. Believer to mean one who believes there is. And an agonostic to mean one who takes no stance as neither is knowable.

Technically an agnostic can be any of the three, but what is the point of that as a word?

Maddog121

10-08-2005, 05:15 PM

How about all the Christians come up with an agreement on what to believe? I doubt it would be managed without much bloodshed.

bocablkr

10-08-2005, 05:50 PM

I have always defined an atheist as one who says there is no possibility of a god and an agnostic as one who is not sure.

You made the following statement - Can we agree on this: That to believe that “there is absolutely no possibility of a God” is as “silly” a thinking as how agnostics view what believers think (them silly) about their religion?

I do not agree. Silly or not, whether I can prove it or not, I don't care - “there is absolutely no possibility of a God”. This has been debated endless times here - that since it can't be 'proven' that there is not a god then you can't be certain there isn't one. Well, I for one am certain. Anyone else certain or am I the only one?

chezlaw

10-08-2005, 05:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An agnostic is one who does not 'know' whether or not god exists, and according to the strict defintion of 'atheist, all agnostics are without belief and thus atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not correct. An agnostic believes it is not possible to prove, in principal, whether God exists or not. Hence an agnostic can either positively believe in God, positively believe God doesn't exist or have no belief either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

From Wiki, note the agnostic theist at the end who believes in god but may not be an agnostic /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence of deities is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped to judge the evidence.

Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but isn't necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgement until more evidence is available.

Apatheism—the view that the whole question of God's existence or nonexistence is beneath consideration or concern.

Apathetic agnosticism—the view that the whole question of God's existence or nonexistence cannot yet be properly answered, and therefore one should free oneself from a fruitless search.

Ignosticism—the view that the concept of God as a being is scientifically meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences, therefore it cannot be usefully discussed as having existence or nonexistence.

Model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. Note that this branch of agnosticism differs from others in that it does not focus upon the question of a deity's existence.

Agnostic theism-the view of those who do not claim to know God's existence, but still believe in his existence. Whether this truly is agnosticism is disputed.

chez

RJT

10-08-2005, 05:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I have always defined an atheist as one who says there is no possibility of a god and an agnostic as one who is not sure.

You made the following statement - Can we agree on this: That to believe that “there is absolutely no possibility of a God” is as “silly” a thinking as how agnostics view what believers think (them silly) about their religion?

I do not agree. Silly or not, whether I can prove it or not, I don't care - “there is absolutely no possibility of a God”. This has been debated endless times here - that since it can't be 'proven' that there is not a god then you can't be certain there isn't one. Well, I for one am certain. Anyone else certain or am I the only one?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually Cab, I don’t believe any of the stances are silly. But, for those who throw taggers at religion, I suggested they throw ‘em at folk like you, too. That was my point.

bocablkr

10-08-2005, 06:04 PM

Never been called Cab before. I try not to throw 'taggers' at religious people though I must admit I do not understand them.

RJT

10-08-2005, 06:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Apathetic agnosticism

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, chez, I thought of this first (see my post above) . Man, I guess there is nothing new under the sun.

RJT

chezlaw

10-08-2005, 06:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have always defined an atheist as one who says there is no possibility of a god and an agnostic as one who is not sure.

You made the following statement - Can we agree on this: That to believe that “there is absolutely no possibility of a God” is as “silly” a thinking as how agnostics view what believers think (them silly) about their religion?

I do not agree. Silly or not, whether I can prove it or not, I don't care - “there is absolutely no possibility of a God”. This has been debated endless times here - that since it can't be 'proven' that there is not a god then you can't be certain there isn't one. Well, I for one am certain. Anyone else certain or am I the only one?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually Cab, I don’t believe any of the stances are silly. But, for those who throw taggers at religion, I suggested they throw ‘em at folk like you, too. That was my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does sound silly but it doesn't look any different in meaning to all the other non-theist folk. There's a recognition that he doesn't know there's no god and that he has no reason to believe there is a god.

What actual form does this certainty take, is it any difference to those who say thay aren't certain because they require proof for certainty.

chez