Atheist vs. Agnostic

  • 130 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for deactivated-5a79221380856
deactivated-5a79221380856

13125

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#101 deactivated-5a79221380856
Member since 2007 • 13125 Posts
Yet, you are effectively telling those people that they ought not to trust their senses and experiences in life, but rather that they should trust your word instead.GabuEx

Actually, that's the complete opposite of what I'm saying. They should trust in their senses and experiences. What they shouldn't trust in is what they fill in place of their senses and experiences; what they allow the imagination to do for them. And I'm not saying they should trust my word. I'm saying they should trust reason.

Avatar image for itsTolkien_time
itsTolkien_time

2295

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#102 itsTolkien_time
Member since 2009 • 2295 Posts
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]Yet, you are effectively telling those people that they ought not to trust their senses and experiences in life, but rather that they should trust your word instead.Genetic_Code

Actually, that's the complete opposite of what I'm saying. They should trust in their senses and experiences. What they shouldn't trust in is what they fill in place of their senses and experiences; what they allow the imagination to do for them. And I'm not saying they should trust my word. I'm saying they should trust reason.

I rather like imagination. It makes for an interesting life, and it's the only reason that we as people can do anything at all, even on a daily basis. All of us writing are or have been using our imagination. It's the only reason that we are capable of speech. Believe what you believe.
Avatar image for GabuEx
GabuEx

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#103 GabuEx
Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

Actually, that's the complete opposite of what I'm saying. They should trust in their senses and experiences. What they shouldn't trust in is what they fill in place of their senses and experiences; what they allow the imagination to do for them. And I'm not saying they should trust my word. I'm saying they should trust reason.

Genetic_Code

Yet if their reason leads them to a belief in God, you're basically telling them that they're doing it wrong, given that you asserted that any human using their reason would realize that God is a myth.  And evidently there are people for whom this is the case, given that the entire title of "deist" was coined entirely to describe those who have arrived at a belief in a supernatural entity purely through reason.

So... I suppose I just don't understand which you're asserting that people should do: should they use reason, or should they disbelieve in God despite their reason telling them not to do so?

Avatar image for ChiliDragon
ChiliDragon

8444

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#104 ChiliDragon
Member since 2006 • 8444 Posts
I rather like imagination. It makes for an interesting life, and it's the only reason that we as people can do anything at all, even on a daily basis. All of us writing are or have been using our imagination. It's the only reason that we are capable of speech. Believe what you believe.itsTolkien_time
You reminded me of one of my favourite C.S. Lewis quotes, from one of his Narnia books, The Silver Chair
Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things-trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow.Puddleglum
It makes a lot more sense in the context of the story, but I didn't feel like typing in the entire chapter. :)
Avatar image for itsTolkien_time
itsTolkien_time

2295

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#105 itsTolkien_time
Member since 2009 • 2295 Posts
[QUOTE="itsTolkien_time"]I rather like imagination. It makes for an interesting life, and it's the only reason that we as people can do anything at all, even on a daily basis. All of us writing are or have been using our imagination. It's the only reason that we are capable of speech. Believe what you believe.ChiliDragon
You reminded me of one of my favourite C.S. Lewis quotes, from one of his Narnia books, The Silver Chair
Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things-trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world Puddleglum

Ah, thanks! I wasn't thinking about it at the time, but I do like C.S. Lewis, and I have read the Narnia series. I go against most people my age in saying that they, and some other Lewis works, are very good. He presented many ideas in very strange fashions. Plus he was a one time friend of J.R.R. Tolkien. :D
Avatar image for btaylor2404
btaylor2404

11353

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 0

#106 btaylor2404
Member since 2003 • 11353 Posts
I don't see the "hate" when someone says their Agnostic.  Aren't we all supposed to be learning and growing?  But to your question I'm an Atheist, a fairly "strong" one, and those that care about me know and accept it.
Avatar image for jackelhunter
jackelhunter

598

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#107 jackelhunter
Member since 2005 • 598 Posts

Is supernatural revelation the God actually appearing or a miracle or something like that? 

The definition of agnostic according to dictionary.com is a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. 

I believe that some sort of god/creator/sentient force or something like that does exist, but i do not know, and we might not ever know in our lifetimes, that it exists.  What the hell do I call myself?  The closest thing I can think of is an agnostic weak theist? or agnostic weak deist?  I think the difference between strong and weak is that strong means "we will never know in our lifetimes", yet weak means "we might know".  If that is true, why would one ever be strong?  That is a pretty bold claim, its like saying "we will not discover X in science in my lifetime".  How do you know that?  

This is getting really confusing.

Avatar image for GabuEx
GabuEx

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#108 GabuEx
Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

Is supernatural revelation the God actually appearing or a miracle or something like that? 

jackelhunter

Supernatural revelation is generally defined as any situation where a supernatural being directly conveys information to us.  It's usually used to differentiate between the case where a human arrives at a conclusion about the way things are purely through inference based on the evidence available.

The definition of agnostic according to dictionary.com is a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. 

I believe that some sort of god/creator/sentient force or something like that does exist, but i do not know, and we might not ever know in our lifetimes, that it exists.  What the hell do I call myself?  The closest thing I can think of is an agnostic weak theist? or agnostic weak deist?  I think the difference between strong and weak is that strong means "we will never know in our lifetimes", yet weak means "we might know".  If that is true, why would one ever be strong?  That is a pretty bold claim, its like saying "we will not discover X in science in my lifetime".  How do you know that?  

This is getting really confusing.

jackelhunter

I would probably say you sound like an agnostic deist, assuming you do indeed reject that we have received some form of supernatural revelation.

As for the difference between weak and strong, it's basically the difference between "I think that there is a God, but I don't know" and "there is a God".

Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#109 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

 

As for the difference between weak and strong, it's basically the difference between "I think that there is a God, but I don't know" and "there is a God".

GabuEx

Surely that's the difference between agnosticism and gnosticism. I disagree and  think the difference is expressed thusly:

"Weak" or "negative" has no belief that x exists

"Strong" or "postive" believe firmly that x does not exist.

I don't think these adjectives would apply to the terms "gnosticism" or "agnosticism" - but rather to "theism" and "atheism".

 

Avatar image for GabuEx
GabuEx

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#110 GabuEx
Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

Surely that's the difference between agnosticism and gnosticism. I disagree and  think the difference is expressed thusly:

"Weak" or "negative" has no belief that x exists

"Strong" or "postive" believe firmly that x does not exist.

I don't think these adjectives would apply to the terms "gnosticism" or "agnosticism" - but rather to "theism" and "atheism".

RationalAtheist

What would the differentiator between weak and strong theism be, then?

Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#111 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

What would the differentiator between weak and strong theism be, then?

GabuEx

Since I'm neither gnostic or theist, I have tremendous trouble in relating agnosticism with faith, since faith would seem to "override" any agnosticism on the part of the faithful.

So I suppose a difference between a weak (or negative) and strong (or positive) theist is this to me:

A weak theist accepts establishment faith, without feeling the need to question or engage in it. (This is the situation in the UK, where most people who have a "Christian" faith (70% last census). don't actively practice Christianity in their communities).

A strong theist justifies and proclaims their faith. Strong theists would convey their faith to others and openly celebrate it.

 

That being said, I propose that "strong" (positive) and "weak" (negative) are better terms to describe the absence of a belief than the holding of a belief, as they have been used to classify types of atheism. For instance, is a "negative theist" a realistic proposition?

This does expose a more interesting point that I've been wrestling with, which is - what does gnosticism mean? I use gnosticism here as I think you intend, to define the "known" or absolute from the "unknown" or objective and relative agnostic. Isn't that sort of gnosticism implicit in faith? 

 

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#112 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts

I don't have the time to read and respond to everything I want to in this thread, so I'll just respond to the original question supplied in the OP.


I personally have not experienced much discrimination for being a non-theist (more on why I chose this instead of atheist or agnostic later), except for my girlfriend's mother. My girlfriend and I have been dating for almost seven (7) months now, and I have yet to meet her mother. I've met almost every one of her family members on her dad's side (including her dad, who left when she was 2) and about 3/4's of the family on her mother's side.

My girlfriend's mother is a fundamentalist evangelical Mennonite... which causes some problems when you try to explain varying points of view to her... and has caused some serious issues between my girlfriend and her mother (not exactly something I wish to discuss here) but suffice to say, it is causing serious emotional stress for my girlfriend.

I've met my girlfriend's oldest aunt on her mother's side, whom according to my girlfriend is even more religious than her mother... which is odd given that her aunt said I was a very sweet guy and was "a keeper." And my girlfriend's mother could see this on Facebook. Her sister wrote this about me, and still, she refuses to even meet me. Only because my girlfriend mentioned my position regarding religion early on in our relationship (at the time, I referred to it as "agnostic atheist") to her mother, and this caused her to begin fearing for the sanctity of my girlfriend's soul.

For Christ's sake... I'm in university, working towards a double major in Asian Studies and Religion. I'm probably going to go back a little later, finish my Honours in Religion and then move onto graduate studies in Religion and probably get my Masters in Religion (and then a doctorate so I can become a professor). I have a very high interest in religion, but I'm not religious myself. I have yet to find any faith that has been created (defunct or surviving) that I can agree with and accept. So I still don't understand the hostility towards my lack of faith in the Christian God... and find it quite insulting. Not only towards me, but my girlfriend as well.

Anyways, enough of my rant. Onto the important part of why I'm doing this post.


In society, that is, Western society, specifically Canada and the United States, I get the general feeling that being a member of a religion is "important" to the general public, and anyone who isn't a member of some kind of religion (that is, a "normal" one), is seen as a social outcast and not a productive member of society (more so in the US than in Canada, but I still see it quite often in Canada, we have Bible-thumpers up here too).

When it comes to labelling oneself as an "atheist," you are generally afforded the position of "oh, so you believe affirmatively that God doesn't exist?" Which is highly presumptive. Not all atheists are irreligious, and not all share a affirmative belief. When it comes to labelling oneself an "agnostic," you are generally afforded the position of "oh, you are a fence sitter... why not make a choice already?" Which assumes that the position of agnosticism is "refusing to make a choice" and that it somehow reflects the person "doesn't care to know" about the unknowable.

These are usually the generalizations I come across on the internet and in real life. People are not educated about these positions and don't seem to grasp what they really mean.

An "atheist" in proper usage is a person who does not believe in "God" (of the Bible, or other monotheistic and pantheistic traditions; not to say all pantheistic traditions believe in a "God"), "gods" (of polytheistic, or other similar forms of theism), "spirits" (of shamanistic or animist traditions), or the "supernatural" (anything that exists exterior to the physical and empirically verifiable universe). Whether or not they believe this affirmatively or due to a lack of evidence varies between individuals.***

An "agnostic" in proper usage does not exist. To be a true "agnostic" one must know absolutely nothing about any religion at all. They must be completely ignorant of every religious tradition and concept of anything supernatural. Aside from babies, no one can claim they are truly "agnostic." This is why it is so very much incorrectly used as a "position" regarding the belief in God, gods and the supernatural. It is usually described as "we don't know about God" and the like. Which, while somewhat correct, is misinformed. "Agnosticism" and its opposite "gnosticism" are used in regards to a knowledge about a position of a belief. Which means that there are four cIasses of belief regarding "God, gods and the supernatural."

  1. Gnostic theism, you believe in God and "know" this belief to be true.
  2. Agnostic theism, you believe in God, but don't "know" this belief to be true (or cannot prove it and accept that).
  3. Agnostic atheism, you don't believe in God, but don't "know" this belief to be true (because of a lack of evidence to prove either way)
  4. Gnostic atheism, you don't believe in God, and "know" this belief to be true (usually for the same, but opposite reasons as a gnostic theist).

This is why I choose to regard my belief as "non-theistic" (see my post in the "atheist dogma" thread for more info). Since I do not believe in a God, gods or the supernatural, but don't affirm to "know" it to be true (due to a lack of evidence). This allows me to avoid the pitfalls of both the presumptions about atheism (being a affirmative non-belief) and agnosticism (being "fence-sitting" or "choiceless")... which will hopefully help me in the future in avoiding people's misconceptions about atheism and agnosticism.


Notes:

*** = corollary to this, there are actually some atheistic religious traditions, some of which still exist today. Particular sects in Buddhism (Theravada and Zen) are atheistic in their world-view. They do not in any way believe that there are "supernatural" forces out there, that somehow control the universe. They do (in the case of Theravada) however, believe that there are devas (or gods and goddesses) that exist within the universe, but are not like the traditional idea of "gods." They live lives, are subject to karma, die and get reborn through samsara like anyone else. They just live on a different "plane" of existence and arrived at this state due to the "wrong path" of karmic devotion/work (i.e. focusing on obtaining good karma instead of following the "Middle Way" and searching for Nirvana... it is a concept that is derived from Hinduism)

Jainism (from my limited knowledge) is atheistic as well. I am not an expert on Jainism, so cannot espouse more data regarding this, but do know that it is regarded as an atheistic religion.

Avatar image for _Tobli_
_Tobli_

5733

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#113 _Tobli_
Member since 2007 • 5733 Posts
which will hopefully help me in the future in avoiding people's misconceptions about atheism and agnosticism. foxhound_fox

Well, yeah, in my experience the agnostic atheism label is often met with confusion regarding misconceptions regarding the definitions of the two words. 

Jainism (from my limited knowledge) is atheistic as well. I am not an expert on Jainism, so cannot espouse more data regarding this, but do know that it is regarded as an atheistic religion.

foxhound_fox

I remember an atheist experience caller explained some of the fundamentals of jainism once. 

Avatar image for domatron23
domatron23

6226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#114 domatron23
Member since 2007 • 6226 Posts

An "atheist" in proper usage is a person who does not believe in ...... the "supernatural"foxhound_fox

That is often the case but rejecting all things supernatural has nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with naturalism and physicalism.

Avatar image for domatron23
domatron23

6226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#115 domatron23
Member since 2007 • 6226 Posts
Good luck with the girlfriend situation btw foxhound. You can take comfort in the knowledge that you're not the first man with a mother in law that disapproves of him.
Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#116 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

Foxhound, 

Do you think religious peoples' perceptions of your non-theistic belief actually are different to their perceptions of agnostic atheism? Isn't the rejection of god(s) still a headline here?

Also, I do feel for your GF situation.

 

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#117 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts

Foxhound, 

Do you think religious peoples' perceptions of your non-theistic belief actually are different to their perceptions of agnostic atheism? Isn't the rejection of god(s) still a headline here?

Also, I do feel for your GF situation.

 

RationalAtheist

That's the thing, I am trying to find a way of expressing a non-belief without it coming across as "rejection" of God. Since I do not "reject" God, but do not accept any particular concept or established belief about God, since none can be proven or supported in any fashion (and the opposite is also true).

~~~

Thanks domatron.
Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#118 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

That's the thing, I am trying to find a way of expressing a non-belief without it coming across as "rejection" of God. Since I do not "reject" God, but do not accept any particular concept or established belief about God, since none can be proven or supported in any fashion (and the opposite is also true).


~~~

Thanks domatron.

foxhound_fox

 

Doesn't "Skeptical" "Skeptic" or "Skepticism" fit the bill? It does not refute anything and could even imply a line of interest in enquiry. For the faithful, skepticism may be seen as a path to enlightenment, but to an atheist, it could be seen as a rational view. A skeptic isn't necessarily either of those things.

 

Avatar image for Gambler_3
Gambler_3

7736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -4

User Lists: 0

#119 Gambler_3
Member since 2009 • 7736 Posts
I have a similar situation as foxhound as in I dont want to pass off as someone who "knows" that God doesnt exist. I have chosen to label myself as agnostic rather than atheist. I was having a religious discussion with a friend on facebook, he looked at my profile which says "agnostic", he looked up the meaning and threw it at me "one who is sceptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism". That strried up a little controversy:?, had I set atheist on my profile, all hell might have broken loose.:lol:
Avatar image for domatron23
domatron23

6226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#120 domatron23
Member since 2007 • 6226 Posts

I have a similar situation as foxhound as in I dont want to pass off as someone who "knows" that God doesnt exist. I have chosen to label myself as agnostic rather than atheist. I was having a religious discussion with a friend on facebook, he looked at my profile which says "agnostic", he looked up the meaning and threw it at me "one who is sceptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism". That strried up a little controversy:?, had I set atheist on my profile, all hell might have broken loose.:lol:Gambler_3

I know I've allready talked about this with you on the atheistic dogma thread but I'd just like to bring up theissue of how you define agnosticism and atheism again really quick.

Since you are using the word agnostic to mean "one who is sceptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism" what word will you now use to refer to someone who doesn't know whether or not God exists? I mean take myself and Gabu. We both do not know that God exists yet we believe different things on the issue, he that God does exist, I that God does not exist. If we use your definition of agnostic what will we instead use to describe our lack of knowledge without implying anything about our belief?

Essentially what I'm saying here is that in calling yourself an agnostic in regards to your belief you've made the English language even more confusing.

Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#121 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

I think the issue does exist, thanks mainly to US publishers and despite efforts to get the definitions updated.

I remember when I started posting here  (years ago as Diz360) that I was initially ridiculed quite heavily for describing myself as an "agnostic atheist". I could support my view - and did, thanks to my prior interest and research, and reference to the BHA (British Humanist Association) website of the time.

I do note how these terms have changed in recent decades. I do remember atheism being defined in terms of knowledge more than belief - unsurprisingly by the majority faithful of the time in the UK and elsewhere. The definition has now "tightened-up", so there's less "wriggle room"! I guess the interest in understanding one's beliefs and the limits of knowledge makes one search for universally acceptable definitions of their belief.

There are plenty of dodgy alternatives to "atheist"; from "infidel" (too insulting?) to "free thinker" (too self-endulgent?). One things for sure: There's far less division within "atheignosticism" than there is for theism! Despite us having no common interest, its super how we can demonstrate here the numbers of atheists and agnostics that can agree, discuss and question their beliefs openly.

 

 

Avatar image for Gambler_3
Gambler_3

7736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -4

User Lists: 0

#122 Gambler_3
Member since 2009 • 7736 Posts

Essentially what I'm saying here is that in calling yourself an agnostic in regards to your belief you've made the English language even more confusing.

domatron23
As I have said before, english is not my language and I only go by authority. There have been pretty renowned personalities and philosophers who have called themselves agnostics like darwin and carl sagan.

 

Are there any credible scientists/intellectuals who profess atheism as a lack of belief? Richard dawkins and his friends have been calling atheism the belief that God doesnt exist, I havent found a scientist who is professing it as a lack of belief. The only place I see people calling it a lack of belief is the internet...

Avatar image for chopperdave447
chopperdave447

597

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#123 chopperdave447
Member since 2009 • 597 Posts

to be a 100% atheist is unscientific. just because there is no evidence of god existing does not mean we can safely discount the possibility of him existing.

 

Avatar image for chopperdave447
chopperdave447

597

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#124 chopperdave447
Member since 2009 • 597 Posts

I think the issue does exist, thanks mainly to US publishers and despite efforts to get the definitions updated.

 RationalAtheist

pertaining to your sig: what about hinduism? it recognizes and acknowledges any and all religion as a path to truth/god? 

this is probably just a semantical language issue but it kind of bugs me.

Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#125 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts
[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

I think the issue does exist, thanks mainly to US publishers and despite efforts to get the definitions updated.

 chopperdave447

pertaining to your sig: what about hinduism? it recognizes and acknowledges any and all religion as a path to truth/god? 

this is probably just a semantical language issue but it kind of bugs me.

I don't understand your semantical issue. Please feel free to PM me if you'd like some debate on this. 

Avatar image for THUMPTABLE
THUMPTABLE

2354

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#126 THUMPTABLE
Member since 2003 • 2354 Posts

to be a 100% atheist is unscientific. just because there is no evidence of god existing does not mean we can safely discount the possibility of him existing.

chopperdave447

Which god are you talking about?
Avatar image for Frattracide
Frattracide

5395

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#127 Frattracide
Member since 2005 • 5395 Posts

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

Essentially what I'm saying here is that in calling yourself an agnostic in regards to your belief you've made the English language even more confusing.

Gambler_3
As I have said before, english is not my language and I only go by authority. There have been pretty renowned personalities and philosophers who have called themselves agnostics like darwin and carl sagan.

 

Are there any credible scientists/intellectuals who profess atheism as a lack of belief? Richard dawkins and his friends have been calling atheism the belief that God doesnt exist, I havent found a scientist who is professing it as a lack of belief. The only place I see people calling it a lack of belief is the internet...

"Atheist" Comes from Greek. Ἄθεος,or Atheos, roughly means 'without god' ("A" meaning without, or not, and "Theos" meaning god)

Just like there are different types of religion, there are different types of atheism. You can be a "gnostic" atheist. (You affirm there is no god.) or you can be an "agnostic" atheist (You do not affirm there is a god)

In the same way you can be an agnostic or gnostic theist.  (You affirm there is a god or you affirm the existence of a god as probable.)

Gnosticism deals with a level of knowledge on a subject. It is not a description of one's position.    

Weak atheism is the same thing as agnostic atheism. The lack of a belief in a god.

Strong atheism is the same as gnostic atheism. The affirmation of the non existence of a god.

 

 

 

 

Avatar image for chopperdave447
chopperdave447

597

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#128 chopperdave447
Member since 2009 • 597 Posts
[QUOTE="chopperdave447"]

to be a 100% atheist is unscientific. just because there is no evidence of god existing does not mean we can safely discount the possibility of him existing.

 

THUMPTABLE


Which god are you talking about?

 

forget god even, it's unscientific to completely discount the possibility of the supernatural existing simply because there is no evidence for it. true, it is safe to assume that such things don't exist, but all that is is an assumption.

 

there is a reason gravity is still a theory and relativity is still a theory. you cannot omit the possibility that someday some evidence will be discovered counter to this fact.

Avatar image for THUMPTABLE
THUMPTABLE

2354

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#129 THUMPTABLE
Member since 2003 • 2354 Posts
[QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="chopperdave447"]

to be a 100% atheist is unscientific. just because there is no evidence of god existing does not mean we can safely discount the possibility of him existing.

chopperdave447


Which god are you talking about?

forget god even, it's unscientific to completely discount the possibility of the supernatural existing simply because there is no evidence for it. true, it is safe to assume that such things don't exist, but all that is is an assumption.

there is a reason gravity is still a theory and relativity is still a theory. you cannot omit the possibility that someday some evidence will be discovered counter to this fact.


Yes but gravity but does not threaten to you to eternal hell for not believing!
Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#130 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts
forget god even, it's unscientific to completely discount the possibility of the supernatural existing simply because there is no evidence for it. true, it is safe to assume that such things don't exist, but all that is is an assumption.chopperdave447

It is safe to assume a "supernatural" being exists solely because as soon as that being becomes known by us, it ceases being "supernatural." Whatever we come to understand will become "natural" by definition. Technically, you can infer that a supernatural being does not exist solely by the fact the definition makes it impossible.

 

there is a reason gravity is still a theory and relativity is still a theory. you cannot omit the possibility that someday some evidence will be discovered counter to this fact.

chopperdave447

Evolution is "just a theory" too... but that doesn't stop it from being an observable fact in the universe that is very much extant. Unless the composition of the universe changes in the future, there is no way for gravity to stop having an effect. We know gravity exists... the only we don't really understand is how it works on multiple levels (subatomic, macroscopic and cosmic) and interacts within those levels.

Remaining completely "agnostic" to everything isn't exactly the most productive position to hold. Sometimes one just has to accept that some things have been established and the possibility of them changing is impossible. But to claim an absolute would be unfounded.