Deism and Agnosticism

[tradeunionsupporter]

What do Marxists and Atheists think of Deism and Agnosticism ?

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

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

http://www.deism.com/

[Koba1917]

Personally I'm an Ignostic. In the view on Religion me and Deists/Agnostics see religion mostly as the same. Oppressive and useless. I don't agree with them on the concept of 'God' but on religion we mostly agree.

[The Man]

It depends what Marxist, and what Atheist your talking to. Opinions differ.

[skep]

Most "agnostics" are actually atheists who don't understand what atheism and agnosticism is. See this chart:

img823.imageshack.us/img823/711/compassy.png

Calling yourself an "agnostic" isn't a sufficient description. You are either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

As far as deism, I don't see a point. It made sense (I suppose) back when there was no scientific explanation for our existence. After Hubble, Darwin, and Einstein, deism became obsolete.

[MarxSchmarx]

As far as deism, I don't see a point. It made sense (I suppose) back when there was no scientific explanation for our existence.

Whilst I agree deism is stupid, I disagree about your latter point. It never made sense. Just because there wasn't a scientific explanation hardly means that a god must be there by default. Moreover, and this is an important point, as the open-endedness but ubiquity of materialist explanation was known at least as far back as ancient Greece, for example.I'm not enough of a scholar to know whether these arguments were ever made by enlightenment writers against deism when it was all the rage, but I rather suspect somebody somewhere must have pointed out something like this.

[Princess Luna]

I think agnosticism is both, the most rational route and just plain stupid. On one hand its impossible to know for certain if god exists, on the other i fucking hate agnostics who act like there a 50/50 chance God does or doesn't exist, i mean i don't know if god exists in the same way i don't know if radioactive hamsters are building a nuclear bomb beneath my house.

[tradeunionsupporter]

I agree with the posts on this thread.

[Desperado]

Atheism means "without god", agnosticism that we cannot know whether or not there is a god. An agnostic is hence by definition an atheist.

If you are not a theist, you are an atheist. No exceptions. You might be explicit (disagree with the statement "there is a god") or implicit (have not agreed with the statement "there is a god"). All agnostics are implicit atheists (agnosticism is not simply "I do not know", it's "I cannot know").

And most atheists are agnostics without knowing so - I've yet to meet an atheist claiming they can prove the non-existence of a transcendent deity.



img823.imageshack.us/img823/711/compassy.png

Calling yourself an "agnostic" isn't a sufficient description. You are either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.


Not believing in god does not equate with believing there is no god, so no. "Agnostic theism" is a contradiction in terms which vainly and mystically attempts to separate belief from knowing.

[Kamos]

Well, I'm a Marxist and I'm an atheist, and I'm pretty damn sure that no god exists. Like, not exactly 100%, but around 98-99%. Therefore, I suppose I'm not an agnostic at all. As for deism, it's a stupid ideology and I don't see how it was created. I mean, if you think that the god can't do miracles why believe in him?


I agree with the posts on this thread.

Chill, post count doesn't get you anything here.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Can one be a Atheist and a Agnostic at the sametime ?

[Revolution starts with U]

Most agnostics are atheists.
But atheists are just as silly as theists. Why would you even engage someone enough to say "there is no God." Wouldn't it be better just to say "talking about God is nonsense. I can never prove it to you, you have to accept it."

[hatzel]

I mean, if you think that the god can't do miracles why believe in him?

What? :confused: I mean, most people believe in tables and trees and the sun and don't think any of these things can do miracles (except for miracle of holding stuff up off the ground and doing photosynthesis and making a huge amount of energy), so I don't quite get what you're trying to say here...

[Rowan Duffy]

Whilst I agree deism is stupid, I disagree about your latter point. It never made sense.

It made sense to Robespierre when he pushed the Cult of the Supreme Being (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being) in opposition to the Cult of Reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason) as a means by which the working classes could be given a more authoritarian and supreme moral authority which reinforced bourgeois control.

But perhaps that isn't what you meant when you say it "never made sense".

I think deism and the clock-maker analogy is often first step on the way to agnosticism and atheism as it reduces the mystical, personal and communicative aspects of god. However, it can also be cynically manipulated and regressive as we see in the French revolution.

[Rafiq]

What? :confused: I mean, most people believe in tables and trees and the sun and don't think any of these things can do miracles (except for miracle of holding stuff up off the ground and doing photosynthesis and making a huge amount of energy), so I don't quite get what you're trying to say here...

I think he means worship

[Viet Minh]

What do Marxists and Atheists think of Deism and Agnosticism ?

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

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

http://www.deism.com/

Agnostic here


Most "agnostics" are actually atheists who don't understand what atheism and agnosticism is. See this chart:

img823.imageshack.us/img823/711/compassy.png

Calling yourself an "agnostic" isn't a sufficient description. You are either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

I have to disagree, I suspect the majority of Agnostics don't care either way. The rest, if they believe in God (which makes them theist not Agnostic imo) certainly don't 'believe' in a way that any religion would accept them as being religious as such.



As far as deism, I don't see a point. It made sense (I suppose) back when there was no scientific explanation for our existence. After Hubble, Darwin, and Einstein, deism became obsolete.


On the contrary the speculation about alternate universes opened me to the possibility of the existence of far more advanced beings. Did you know scientists created an artifical universe? So although 'God' may not be the traditional creator of all Life as portrayed in the Bible, he may be some super intelligent alien kid and our Universe may be the equivalent of a chemistry set.

[MarxSchmarx]

It made sense to Robespierre when he pushed the Cult of the Supreme Being (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being) in opposition to the Cult of Reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason) as a means by which the working classes could be given a more authoritarian and supreme moral authority which reinforced bourgeois control.


In that case, I think the question becomes: does that make it in any sense true?



I think deism and the clock-maker analogy is often first step on the way to agnosticism and atheism as it reduces the mystical, personal and communicative aspects of god. However, it can also be cynically manipulated and regressive as we see in the French revolution.If the choice is between a for lack of a better term "medieval" personal god and a blind watch maker well I think you have a point.

But I think you touch on the problem with this dichotomy - that is, it is still essentially a reactionary dichotomy, and such can be, as you astutely note, be exploited by opportunists. As such, while I agree that you have a valid point that deism is somehow preferable to the alternative when the alternative is presented as basically animism writ large, when the alternative is seen as outright agnosticism or atheism it looses whatever appeal it had.

[Magón]

Can one be a Atheist and a Agnostic at the sametime ?

No, because an Atheist is someone who rejects religion and the existence of a higher being like God, Shiva, etc. While Agnostic's don't follow a necessary religion's line of thought like Islam, Catholicism, Judaism, etc. but believe in a higher power of some kind.

[Viet Minh]

No, because an Atheist is someone who rejects religion and the existence of a higher being like God, Shiva, etc. While Agnostic's don't follow a necessary religion's line of thought like Islam, Catholicism, Judaism, etc. but believe in a higher power of some kind.

If someone believes in a higher power of some kind they're not agnostic. Agnostics are neutral, they don't believe or disbelieve. They're the philosophical equivalent of a Swiss guy sitting on a fence.

[tradeunionsupporter]

I think Deism is outdated so is Agnosticism Atheism is better.

[hatzel]

better

Define and justify

[ComradeMan]

I think Deism is outdated so is Agnosticism Atheism is better.

Are you saying atheism is the new "black"?

We aren't talking about fashion you know........ ?
:rolleyes:

[Revolution starts with U]

He's saying deism was acceptable for non-theists before the current age. But in this age, it has no place...
At least that's what I think he means. As for me... I'm more willing to accept deist claims then theist ones. The I still think it's all irrelevant.

[Magón]

If someone believes in a higher power of some kind they're not agnostic. Agnostics are neutral, they don't believe or disbelieve. They're the philosophical equivalent of a Swiss guy sitting on a fence.

You can still be agnostic, and of course be neutral over the whole thing, while not believing in a certain god or gods completely. There are plenty of people in the world who consider themselves agnostic, but don't necessarily believe in following a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc., but think there could be a higher power in one of the many different religions.

Not everyone who considers themselves an agnostic, follows a text book definition.