Do Agnostics exist?

[PeteAtoms]

You didn't express it correctly then. You said "agnostic/atheist". This notation means both and.

Ok, well that's just bad grammar or whatever on my end. Sorry.


I think this post clears that up.

 

[Navarre]

This definition is extremely borderline. You refer to religion as if there is only the Christian religion out there. Get rid of saints and prophets and you have the real definition

No, I don't, I was not reffering specifically to the Christian paradigm. Prophets are in all religions, and I used "saint" in the meaning of "spiritually enlightened person", whatever the faith. I was just too lazy to write "or spiritually enlightened persons" after "saints", since it was evident in the context for me.

 

[onedreamer]

Prophets aren't in all religions.

 

[trader/warrior]

I am agnostic.
If you know what is agnosticism, why did you even ask that question ?

I admit that that was a terribly leading question

No. An agnostic would not answer no to the first question, but "I don't know".
You can be a so called agnostic atheist, but you are still atheist, and not agnostic.

How can you not know wether you believe in god? Belief in god is the belief that he exists and if you do not know wether he or any other god exists you do not believe in god. For the last time atheism does NOT require certainty that god does not exist, and if you define it otherwise, most atheists are no longer atheists to you.

My message isn't getting through, it feels like i've answered the same question 10 times.
I guess all it boils down to definition. I think almost all self described atheists use the same definition as me though. And I still don't see the point for at least 90% of agnostics to distinguish themselves at all from atheists.

 

[onedreamer]

Ok, well that's just bad grammar or whatever on my end. Sorry.


I think this post clears that up.

Bad form in that post too. You wrote that agnostics believe that God exists but don't know for sure. That's incorrect: agnostics believe *you* (impersonal, humanity as whole) can't tell (it's not an opinion, it's a matter of fact) if God exists or not.

 

[PeteAtoms]

Bad form in that post too. You wrote that agnostics believe that God exists but don't know for sure. That's incorrect: agnostics believe *you* (impersonal, humanity as whole) can't tell (it's not an opinion, it's a matter of fact) if God exists or not.

I wrote that "agnostic theists" believe in god but don't know if it exists or not for sure.

Per theism, an agnostic theist believes that the proposition at least one deity exists is true, but, per agnosticism, believes that the existence of gods are unknown or inherently unknowable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

I never addressed the issue of a "pure" agnostic in the post.

 

[onedreamer]

@Pete, sorry I misread what you wrote.

How can you not know wether you believe in god?

How can you believe in something that you can't define ? Describe me God, and I tell you if I believe in it or not. "God" is a meaningless word, an agnostic can't tell you he believes in God or not. An agnostic believes in what can be proven, since the existance of God isn't proven, but at the same time the non existance of God isn't proven, I fail to see how the answer to that question could be yes or no.

For the last time atheism does NOT require certainty that god does not exist

yes, it does require it.

and if you define it otherwise, most atheists are no longer atheists to you.

I don't define words. The vocabulary does an excellent job at it.

I think almost all self described atheists use the same definition as me though. And I still don't see the point for at least 90% of agnostics to distinguish themselves at all from atheists.

Most people describe the USSR as Russia, UK as England, and USA as America. This doesn't make them right though, they are still wrong.

 

[Navarre]

Prophets aren't in all religions.

Being agnostic means you're refusing the so-called revealed wisdom, the one acquired by prophetic means. Religions where nobody claimed to be enlightened by a spiritual mean are of no concern for the agnostic, but you'd have a hard time finding one. Even most non-theist religions like Buddhism have at least one person who brought the knowledge of the faith to humans, and can be described as prophets in the wider sense. Where this person pulled his knowledge from is irrelevant at best, as long as he can't prove that he tells the truth.

I still don't see the point for at least 90% of agnostics to distinguish themselves at all from atheists.

Agnosticism is an intellectual reasonment. Atheism is a belief (or absence of belief if you define it that way).

Knowledge (and lack of) != Belief (and lack of).

Moreso, you can have agnostic theists and agnostics atheists. We distinguish these two different things because they're not the same, it's that simple.

And again : there is no right or wrong definition of atheism, not believing or refusing to believe, there's only the definition you choose. Most believers will choose the first one, most agnostics will use the second one, but none is right or wrong, they just have different meanings for the same word. Anyone's claiming his definition is the right one is wrong until everyone accords on what atheism is really, which hasn't been done yet.

According to the first definition, agnostics are atheists. According to the second one, they're not. Both propositions are true inside their own reference framework.

 

[Gustave5436]

Atheists don't believe in the existence of god, and agnostics make no claim on knowing the truth of whether god exists one way or the other.

And since most theists insist that their chosen deity is an absolute truth, it follows that most agnostics must be atheists, rather than theists.

And again : there is no right or wrong definition of atheism, not believing or refusing to believe, there's only the definition you choose. Most believers will choose the first one, most agnostics will use the second one, but none is right or wrong, they just have different meanings for the same word. Anyone's claiming his definition is the right one is wrong until everyone accords on what atheism is really, which hasn't been done yet.

According to the first definition, agnostics are atheists. According to the second one, they're not. Both propositions are true inside their own reference framework.

Technically, I would say that actively believing God does not exist would be called "antitheism" or something of that nature; "a" simply means "not," so "atheist" means "not theist." Theists believe in God, so atheists, therefore, do not have such a belief. "anti" means "against" or "opposite," however, so an "antitheist" would not only lack belief in the existence of God, but actively believe in its nonexistence.

 

[trader/warrior]

How can you believe in something that you can't define ? Describe me God, and I tell you if I believe in it or not. "God" is a meaningless word, an agnostic can't tell you he believes in God or not. An agnostic believes in what can be proven, since the existance of God isn't proven, but at the same time the non existance of God isn't proven, I fail to see how the answer to that question could be yes or no.

You must have heard about a good number of gods. Jesusdude, Allah, zeus, odin, baal or just simple deism. Most of these have certain commands or rules that they say will improve your life or give you some kind of salvation. Why do you disregard them? Dont you Believe?

There is nothing between belief or nonbelief. You have not seen any evidence for any god existing and therefore do not believe in god. If you were to get evidence for the existence of god tomorrow your newfound belief would be in contrast to your previous nonbelief, even though you were open to new evidence or that god can exist but be unknowable and unprovable that doesn't change the fact that you lacked belief in the existence of some specific god untill you were given evidence and that nonbelief is called atheism.

yes, it does require it.



I don't define words. The vocabulary does an excellent job at it.



Most people describe the USSR as Russia, UK as England, and USA as America. This doesn't make them right though, they are still wrong.

Check out this page http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm
There is no consensus in different dictionaries about the definition of atheists. But according to your definition Richard Dawkins himself isnt atheist.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I have yet to see convincing evidence that Agnostics do exist, and have yet to see convincing evidence that they don't. In the end, we have no way of knowing.

 

[Defiant47]

Disclaimer: I have not read the thread yet.

I lack belief in God. I am an atheist.
I believe divinity is unknowable and it is impossible to properly acquire belief in God. I am a strong agnostic.

 

[onedreamer]

Anyone's claiming his definition is the right one is wrong until everyone accords on what atheism is really, which hasn't been done yet.

Claiming ? Look up in a vocabulary at the etimology of the word. Atheist is someone without a God, there isn't any doubt in the definition. Now, since in the course of time this kind of people wasn't exactly well seen, they elaborated that "without a God" doesn't mean that they deny its existance, or whatever else. The truth is that in its original acception this word is supposed to define someone who doesn't believe in God's existance. I have nothing against different opinions and self definitions of your credo (a whole lot of words were invented to define credos, but you can make a new one if so you like), but I am against manipulating words meanings and claiming that words have no meanings except the one you give to them. If this was even remotely true, we two would not be able to communicate in this moment.

And since most theists insist that their chosen deity is an absolute truth, it follows that most agnostics must be atheists, rather than theists.

agnostics are neither atheists nor theists.

 

[onedreamer]

Check out this page http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm
There is no consensus in different dictionaries about the definition of atheists. But according to your definition Richard Dawkins himself isnt atheist.

Richard Dawkins was born more than 2 thousands years after the word atheist. Why should I care what is his definition of this word ?

You must have heard about a good number of gods. Jesusdude, Allah, zeus, odin, baal or just simple deism. Most of these have certain commands or rules that they say will improve your life or give you some kind of salvation. Why do you disregard them? Dont you Believe?

There is nothing between belief or nonbelief. You have not seen any evidence for any god existing and therefore do not believe in god. If you were to get evidence for the existence of god tomorrow your newfound belief would be in contrast to your previous nonbelief, even though you were open to new evidence or that god can exist but be unknowable and unprovable that doesn't change the fact that you lacked belief in the existence of some specific god untill you were given evidence and that nonbelief is called atheism.

You are wrong, you confuse faith with belief.

 

[warpus]

While strong/weak atheism comes from Georges H. Smith's work on implicit/explicit atheism, others philosophers like Nagel reject, as I do, the definition of atheism being merely "absence of theism", and acknowledge only explicit atheism as true atheism.

That's just silly.

I don't believe in God - and you're saying that I'm not an atheist?

Most would say that I am indeed an atheist.

Agnosticism is an intellectual reasonment. Atheism is a belief (or absence of belief if you define it that way).

See, you're getting confused.

If you put belief in atheism, it becomes strong atheism. The sort of atheism that best describes me involves a lack of belief only.

 

[Dale]

Anyone's claiming his definition is the right one is wrong until everyone accords on what atheism is really, which hasn't been done yet.

Atheism is the rejection of the belief in deities. That is the accepted definition.

 

[Lillefix]

I like to make fun of the fact that religious people like to split because of small details in their theology. But looking at how heated this debate about the definition of two words has become, it's not that strange anymore.

Personally I don't care.

 

[trader/warrior]

Richard Dawkins was born more than 2 thousands years after the word atheist. Why should I care what is his definition of this word ?

Atheist originated in two Greek roots:
"A" which means "without" or "not"
"Theos" which means "deity"

You are wrong, you confuse faith with belief.

Could you explain further? How can you not believe and at the same time not not believe? Even if you "dont know" that does mean that you do not believe and how you can not see that I don't understand.

Edit @lillefix: Join me in uniting the fractured groups of the Non-religious under the banner of Glorious Atheism! Resistance is futile! The etymology is on our side!

 

[onedreamer]

Could you explain further? How can you not believe and at the same time not not believe? Even if you "dont know" that does mean that you do not believe and how you can not see that I don't understand.

I'm sorry that you don't understand it, but at best it means that you don't understand it, not that agnostics don't exist.
I do not have an opinion on the existance of "God" because I do not know what is God. As far as I can tell, I may believe in the existance of a God, but I may also not, that's because I do have opinions, but until I know what is God, I cannot apply any of my opinions on the matter. Fact is that unlike what you think, the majority of educated people is agnostic and not atheist. Atheists are faithful people just as a Theists, the first ones are of the opinion that God doesn't exist, and this opinion is based on thin air, the second ones believe that God exists, and their opinion is also based on thin air (but they call it faith).

 

[Navarre]

I have provided enough sources and explainations for anyone truely wanting to learn what agnosticism is about and why it's not to be confused with atheism, so I'll just get out of this thread and let the usual trolling continue.

Have fun going nowhere.