Atheism vs. Agnosticism

[thejambo1]

agnosticism doesnt make sense to me. you either believe or dont,shouldnt be any middle ground.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

agnosticism doesnt make sense to me. you either believe or dont,shouldnt be any middle ground.

There isn't any middle ground, look at the recent thread on agnosticism.

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

Well to be fair agnosticism is the willingness to believe if provided with evidence. As such Agnostics do not believe until then, or at all to be fair because knowledge is the enemy of faith.

Atheism is the refusal to beleive in the extreme typically an educated, studied or reasoned knowledge that there is no actual evidence to support the concept of religious faith but plenty to debunk it's claims.

The growing flexibility of religion in England in particularly since the re-institution of monarchy after the English Civil War eventually led to the moderen general opinion that religious belief is simply not important enough to have to decide on one way or the other.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Well to be fair agnosticism is the willingness to believe if provided with evidence. As such Agnostics do not believe until then, or at all to be fair because knowledge is the enemy of faith.

Atheism is the refusal to beleive in the extreme typically an educated, studied or reasoned knowledge that there is no actual evidence to support the concept of religious faith but plenty to debunk it's claims.

The growing flexibility of religion in England in particularly since the re-institution of monarchy after the English Civil War eventually led to the moderen general opinion that religious belief is simply not important enough to have to decide on one way or the other.

Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s).

Therefore being an Agnostic Atheist is following the scientific method.

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

I was wondering recently how quickly the reasonable and intelligent Atheists would seem stupid religious bigots if they were provided with concrete evidence of a god despite their absolute knowledge that no such thing could exist.

But your very different definition seems to explain it well unfortunately english words are not defined by refinement in debate but instead by the arbitrary choice of the people who coined the word.

In fact you define Atheism the same way that would define Haemophilia as "to love blood" rather than a genetic illness.

Ignoring connotative meaning doesn't impress me. Nor does it make my connotative definition wrong.

before this starts to become an endless circular debate lets get back on topic.

[revolution inaction]

Atheism is the refusal to beleive in the extreme typically an educated, studied or reasoned knowledge that there is no actual evidence to support the concept of religious faith but plenty to debunk it's claims.


I think saying refusal to believe is a bit odd, i would say that atheism means to believe god doesn't exist. Based on the evidence it is the only sane conclusion.


Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s).

Therefore being an Agnostic Atheist is following the scientific method.

the use of agnostic in this way is vary strange, and could be applied to anything scientific not just god.

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

I view Atheism as a refusal to believe in any god. Instead claiming by empirical scientific evidence to know there is no god to a degree of probability that satisfies them. It is in it's way just as radical as religious faith but it is a logical debatable belief based on evidence and reasoning. It is essentially one having reached the exact opposite of a religious person in answer to the question of a god's existance and finding it to their satisfaction.

The difference between this and Agnosticism is that an Agnostic has no such determined belief or claimed knowledge in the non-existance of a god but simply sees no reason to believe in any god at the moment. This may remain the case for the Agnostic's entire life but they will never actually resolve a definate yes or no answer to the question of a god's existance to his own satisfaction.

[Forward Union]

agnosticism doesnt make sense to me. you either believe or dont,shouldnt be any middle ground.

Actually Agnosticism makes perfect sense. If you believe in science you must be an Agnostic toward all scientific propositions. Agnostic comes from the greek word "ignorance" which is valid. It sarts from the assumption that "we don't know" and then we attempt to verify the assumptions or theories with evidence.

In all proposals, theories and claims, we must be initially agnostic. We don't know the answer. We then attempt to verify the claim one way or the other. If we find more and more evidence one way, we chip away at the agnosticism until we reach certainty.

Even Richard Dawkins admits that he is TECHNICALLY agnostic toward God, Faries and Dragons. Because he doesn't know that they don't exist, which is different to not believing in them. On a sale of 1 - 10, 1 being "I know god exists" and 10 being "I know God doesn't exist" he would place himself af 9.9. As would I.

If you know that there is no God I would like to know what evidence you have to support this claim. Saying "I do not believe in God" is the only logical statement one can make. But saying "I believe; there is no God" is a leap of faith.


I view Atheism as a refusal to believe in any god.

Thats Agnosticism or Soft Atheism or whatever you want to call it. Pure Atheism is the claim that it is known that there is no God there is no sceintific data to support this claim. And there never will be because we will never be able to prove a negative.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Actually Agnosticism makes perfect sense. If you believe in science you are an agnostic.

In all proposals, theories and claims, we must be initially agnostic. We don't know the answer. We then attempt to verify the claim one way or the other. If we find more and more evidence one way, we chip away at the agnosticism until we reach certainty.

Even Richard Dawkins admits that he is TECHNICALLY agnostic toward God, Faries and Dragons. Because he doesn't know that they don't exist, which is different to not believing in them. On a sale of 1 - 10, 1 being "I know god exists" and 10 being "I know God doesn't exist" he would place himself af 9.9. As would I.

If you know that there is no God I would like to know what evidence you have to support this claim. Saying "I do not believe in God" is the only logical statement one can make. But saying "I believe; there is no God" is a leap of faith.

And therefore, Richard Dawkins, and both of us, are Agnostic Atheists. Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). It is impossible to know if something does not exist, because this is science as you have described, and certainty is in mathematics, but not science.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

I view Atheism as a refusal to believe in any god. Instead claiming by empirical scientific evidence to know there is no god to a degree of probability that satisfies them. It is in it's way just as radical as religious faith but it is a logical debatable belief based on evidence and reasoning. It is essentially one having reached the exact opposite of a religious person in answer to the question of a god's existance and finding it to their satisfaction.

The difference between this and Agnosticism is that an Agnostic has no such determined belief or claimed knowledge in the non-existance of a god but simply sees no reason to believe in any god at the moment. This may remain the case for the Agnostic's entire life but they will never actually resolve a definate yes or no answer to the question of a god's existance to his own satisfaction.

Atheism is believing that there is no god, or lack of belief in god(s), it doesn't mean "I know that god(s) don't exist".

[Forward Union]

Atheism is believing that there is no god, or lack of belief in god(s), it doesn't mean "I know that god(s) don't exist".

Except "believing that there is no god" is teh same as saying "I know that god(s) don't exist"

The second part of the definition you used; a lack of belief in god(s), is Agnosticism.

My only objection to pure agnosticism is that it puts the claim that God exists on an equal par with the belief that he doesn't exist. And they are NOT equally valid statements.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Except "believing that there is no god" is teh same as saying "I know that god(s) don't exist"

The second part of the definition you used; a lack of belief in god(s), is Agnosticism.

My only objection to pure agnosticism is that it put the claim that God exists on an equal par with the belief that he doesn't exist. And they are NOT equally valid statements.

You are confusing "belief" with "knowing".

Gnostic Theism and Gnostic Atheism will never be correct because proof is in mathematics, not science. Leaving Agnostic Theism and Agnostic Atheism.

But I agree with you, these AREN'T equal, there is no evidence for god, and therefore there is no good reason to believe there is one, leaving Agnostic Atheism the only one that follows the scientific method.

[thejambo1]

nice split, made me the thread starter!!:) anyway you can argue all you want about dawkins et al but i am an atheist and see it as a black and white argument. believe or dont believe, i think agnostics are just hedging their bets big time:)

[wallflower]

I struggle with this one often. It's a tricky question: does God exist? I'm afraid the best I can offer is "yes and no."

Forgive my bluntness on the "no" issue, but believing in a "creator" God who fashioned the world in seven days and looks like a hoary old man in the sky is just stupid. I fear this entity is the "God" you're denying. And I wholeheartedly agree. So-called "sacred" texts are best read as literature. So-called "churches" that do not practice a form of Liberation Theology (read: 99% of them out there) are merely brainwashing institutions designed to pacify and render the masses impotent.

Yet, modern theology has made important strides toward re-conceptualizing "God" as one's "infinite concern" and the act of faith as "the state of being ultimately concerned." And what is this "ultimate?" I'm afraid that's relative, and I know relativism isn't exactly popular around here. Take this as an illustration: let's say your ultimate concern is for socioeconomic justice through revolution. God is the revolution, or more accurately, God *inspires* the revolutionary act. The act itself is an act of *faith*. Taken in this light (if you choose to), atheism is somewhat irrational. Personally, I am an agnostic, and see nothing compromising in my position. God is infinite, and I can only know the finite. And when I say "God is infinite," I mean the *force* of my concern is infinite, and I doubt I will ever know my concern in its entirety. If I did, it wouldn't be an "ultimate concern," would it?

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

I struggle with this one often. It's a tricky question: does God exist? I'm afraid the best I can offer is "yes and no."

Forgive my bluntness on the "no" issue, but believing in a "creator" God who fashioned the world in seven days and looks like a hoary old man in the sky is just stupid. I fear this entity is the "God" you're denying. And I wholeheartedly agree. So-called "sacred" texts are best read as literature. So-called "churches" that do not practice a form of Liberation Theology (read: 99% of them out there) are merely brainwashing institutions designed to pacify and render the masses impotent.

Yet, modern theology has made important strides toward re-conceptualizing "God" as one's "infinite concern" and the act of faith as "the state of being ultimately concerned." And what is this "ultimate?" I'm afraid that's relative, and I know relativism isn't exactly popular around here. Take this as an illustration: let's say your ultimate concern is for socioeconomic justice through revolution. God is the revolution, or more accurately, God *inspires* the revolutionary act. The act itself is an act of *faith*. Taken in this light (if you choose to), atheism is somewhat irrational. Personally, I am an agnostic, and see nothing compromising in my position. God is infinite, and I can only know the finite. And when I say "God is infinite," I mean the *force* of my concern is infinite, and I doubt I will ever know my concern in its entirety. If I did, it wouldn't be an "ultimate concern," would it?

Three questions:

Do you know if god(s) exist?

Do you believe that god(s) exist?

Do you think the infinite force of your concern can be seen as a god? How so?

[Holden Caulfield]

its better to be agnostic, makes more sense, easier position to argue from, and I enjoy using the argument, "ok then say you are right, God exists, then why does thr Bible say..." I like to use their own shit against them.

even if God did exist it would be necessary to abolish him

all the anti-theist stuff is childish I think, i left that group a good long while ago

[butterfly]

^ I would agree.
And if god did exist why would you want why would you want to affiliate yourself with such a sadistic creep.

[wallflower]

Three questions:

Do you know if god(s) exist?

Do you believe that god(s) exist?

Excuse my evasion, but I think this is an important distinction: do you mean Gods made of matter or Gods made of Desire? I don't *know* that Gods exist, but I believe in the potential of human Desire, lying dormant in so many of our (USA) stupefied population who don't recognize the revolutionary nature of Desire.



Do you think the infinite force of your concern can be seen as a god? How so?

In a word: yes. Just as the infinite force of your desire can be considered a God. YET, were we *completely* aware of our infinite concern, not only would it stop being God, but we would be trapped inside ourselves, with no hope of communicating our *best understanding of our Desire* with the outside world. Every act of Desire, whether it be productive (socialist revolution/agitation/sexual liberation) or destructive (hegemony, and we should not forget the sexual arousal inherent in nationalism) is revolutionary. It is also, metaphysically/psychologically speaking, a communication of the subjective abstract Libido, the correlate to Marx's subjective abstract Labour. If we consider socialism/communism a faith, we must also recognize Desire as a form of faith, and it is God as Desire in which I believe.

And for the record, I too get a kick out of arguing with fundy Christians. Especially when they realize that we're both talking about God but talking about two completely different things. And butterfly, you're right. If the God of matter existed, I wouldn't want a thing to do with him either.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Excuse my evasion, but I think this is an important distinction: do you mean Gods made of matter or Gods made of Desire? I don't *know* that Gods exist, but I believe in the potential of human Desire, lying dormant in so many of our (USA) stupefied population who don't recognize the revolutionary nature of Desire.
I mean the supernatural god. Some people like to call "nature" or "art" etc. a god (many pantheists do this), but I don't mean this as it is more descriptive than a claim that an entity exists. So I think my questions are on a god made of matter.


In a word: yes. Just as the infinite force of your desire can be considered a God. YET, were we *completely* aware of our infinite concern, not only would it stop being God, but we would be trapped inside ourselves, with no hope of communicating our *best understanding of our Desire* with the outside world. Every act of Desire, whether it be productive (socialist revolution/agitation/sexual liberation) or destructive (hegemony, and we should not forget the sexual arousal inherent in nationalism) is revolutionary. It is also, metaphysically/psychologically speaking, a communication of the subjective abstract Libido, the correlate to Marx's subjective abstract Labour. If we consider socialism/communism a faith, we must also recognize Desire as a form of faith, and it is God as Desire in which I believe.

And for the record, I too get a kick out of arguing with fundy Christians. Especially when they realize that we're both talking about God but talking about two completely different things. And butterfly, you're right. If the God of matter existed, I wouldn't want a thing to do with him either.Would you say you are a pantheist?

[Rangi]

If God exists then let him post in this thread.

[casper]

In a word: yes. Just as the infinite force of your desire can be considered a God. YET, were we *completely* aware of our infinite concern, not only would it stop being God, but we would be trapped inside ourselves, with no hope of communicating our *best understanding of our Desire* with the outside world. Every act of Desire, whether it be productive (socialist revolution/agitation/sexual liberation) or destructive (hegemony, and we should not forget the sexual arousal inherent in nationalism) is revolutionary. It is also, metaphysically/psychologically speaking, a communication of the subjective abstract Libido, the correlate to Marx's subjective abstract Labour. If we consider socialism/communism a faith, we must also recognize Desire as a form of faith, and it is God as Desire in which I believe.

Especially when they realize that we're both talking about God but talking about two completely different things. God as desire, something about that rings true. never heard it put that way. its cool:) i like it.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

If God exists then let him post in this thread.

:laugh:

[wallflower]

Would you say you are a pantheist?

No, I wouldn't, and even if I were, I would hesitate to use the term because it has so much cross-resonance with the New Age movement (for which I see absolutely no future, and may even be reactionary) or Unitarianism (too liberal- and reform-minded for my tastes). But the reason I don't consider myself a pantheist is because admitting to pantheism would involve a concession to faiths my *own* faith deems self-contradictory and abhorrent ("national" socialism, to give an example). In fact, I have doubts that pantheism is even logical. If we all truly accepted all religions and all acts of faith as *qualitatively* and *objectively* equivalent, we couldn't even be having this conversation right now.

YET - and I must add - viewing religion/God in this manner does NOT excuse intolerance. This is simply an illustration of the freedom to choose one's own spiritual path.