Atheism

@layman,

HEY ! I may be evil and I may be a Troll.....what was the third thing ?

0 Replies

@layman,

Right from the very first day this thread was posted...discussions between self-defined atheists and non-atheists were the only thing keeping it truly active.

But on the very first day it was posted...the author of this thread engaged in discussion, argument and question and answer with non-atheists.

The protests that this thread ought to belong only to atheists...and that non-atheists are rude intruders...ought to shame any atheist with a sense of shame.

This is an open forum.

0 Replies

@layman,

we've been here a million times before. And we'll wait the ignoramus trolls out again. It might be new for you but it's boring old tosh for us.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

You made a claim, without substantiation, that agnosticism does not in fact exist.

For clarity's sake, Set is misunderstanding Layman here.

Layman has in fact been arguing all along that agnosticism is a valid "tag" or concept to describe a position that is non committal on the number of gods, a position that is neither what some call "hard atheism" (which he calls "atheism": the belief that there is no god) nor theism (the belief that there is one or several gods).

As i understand him, Arg has been arguing that agnosticism="lack of knowledge" implies a lack of evidence and thus leads at least to a lack of belief in gods, aka "soft atheism", because the burden of proof is on the believers.

To what Lay has answered: there is no proof in matters supernatural.

(Which i understand as meaning, in practice: what many believers say is: "I believe in God but I can't prove it. It's a matter of faith". Now, it would be absurd to ask proof from these people. They have acknowledge the lack of clear-cut evidence.)

But if gods are only supernatural, if they never interact with the natural world, they don't exist as far as we natural beings are concerned.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

As i understand him, Arg has been arguing that agnosticism="lack of knowledge" implies a lack of evidence and thus leads at least to a lack of belief in gods, aka "soft atheism", because the burden of proof is on the believers.

Your putting words in my mouth. You're drawing a conclusion I never made. I said that agnosticism is about knowledge and that theism, or atheism is about belief and that knowledge is a subset of belief..that's plan and simple.
you want to draw that conclusions, fine, but don't say something i didn't say. Be accurate.

Many of us believes things that we can't know.

2 Replies

@argome321,

Quote:

I said that agnosticism is about knowledge and that theism, or atheism is about belief and that knowledge is a subset of belief..that's plan and simple.

Really, Arg? I could have sworn you had said there was no such thing as a plain agnostic. That anyone who didn't positively believe in god was necessarily an atheist. After that, and only after that, you might ADD the word "agnostic" TO the description atheism--such as an agnostic atheist, but that there could never be such thing as an agnostic per se. Did I also completely understand you?

1 Reply

@layman,

Swear all you like, but you be wrong.

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

Swear all you like, but you be wrong.

In what way would I be wrong? I could go back and find any number of your posts that certainly appeared to make this claim--including the very first one you made on the topic, when you said I was "completely inaccurate" to suggest that not all non-believers were properly described as "atheists."

0 Replies

Here's the way one website puts it:

Quote:

An atheist lacks faith in God, believes there is no god, or lacks awareness of gods. An agnostic either believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a god or is noncommittal on the issue. The difference may seem small, but atheism and agnosticism are actually vastly different worldviews. To claim there is no point in trying to prove or disprove God’s existence (as many philosophers have done) is to acknowledge the limits of human perception. To take the bold stance that there definitely is no god (as a few philosophers have done) implies that human perception is not so limited and that we can make such claims about the universe. These positions (as well as the position that God does exist) give rise to fundamentally disparate philosophies.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Here's the way one website puts it:

Quote:
An atheist lacks faith in God, believes there is no god, or lacks awareness of gods. An agnostic either believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a god or is noncommittal on the issue. The difference may seem small, but atheism and agnosticism are actually vastly different worldviews. To claim there is no point in trying to prove or disprove God’s existence (as many philosophers have done) is to acknowledge the limits of human perception. To take the bold stance that there definitely is no god (as a few philosophers have done) implies that human perception is not so limited and that we can make such claims about the universe. These positions (as well as the position that God does exist) give rise to fundamentally disparate philosophies.

The question here is not what someone else said or what they say. What was in play what was called in here Is what I supposedly said. Which totally ignores everything else I said. If people want to debate what I say fine, that's par for the course, but what I am finding out here is that people want to attribute to others what they didn't say and then build there argument. That's why I say that is disingenuous.

And if we do that then there is no way for honest and meaningful debate.
But if that is the way the game is played here I'm not going to be part of that. It's that simple.

So here is my position whether you understand or not.

And I have held to this position.

Theism, atheism is about belief
Gnosticism, Agnosticism is abut knowledge.
you can believe or not believe knowledge is no required, for better or worse.
if you are an Gnostic on either side of the coin you may be asked for proof and I can't see anyone resolving that problem. That is the of what I am saying.

1 Reply

This site on philosophy clearly says that "atheism" is theological stance.

Quote:

Theology is the study of God and the nature of the Divine. This is sometimes considered a whole separate branch of philosophy, the Philosophy of Religion (see that section for more detail). It asks questions like:

Is there one God (Monotheism), many gods (Polytheism) or no gods (Atheism or Humanism), or is it impossible to know (Agnosticism)?

http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_metaphysics.html#Religion

0 Replies

@argome321,

Quote:

Theism, atheism is about belief
Gnosticism, Agnosticism is abut knowledge.

OK, that's what they are about.

Let me ask you directly, Arg: If a person says, "I have no belief in god" does that, in and of itself, necessarily make him an "atheist" by your definition of things?

2 Replies

Not particularly anxious to get into this part of the discussion, but I do want to point out that many people who use agnostic as a label...do not have "it is impossible to know" as one of their assertions.

I certainly would never say it is impossible to know if there is a GOD.

I say with absolute certainty that it IS impossible to know if there are no gods.

That having been said...the one guess I would allow myself in this area is that anyone saying "I know there is a GOD"...is almost certainly guessing. They may have a personal revelation. If there is a GOD...and the GOD wanted to unambiguously reveal ITSELF to a human, I can think of no reason why IT couldn't.

But any person saying he/she has had a personal revelation should answer the question, "How do you know you are not deluding yourself?"

Since I have never had anyone deal reasonably with that question, mostly, when someone tells me he/she KNOWS there is a GOD...I just excuse myself from further discussion with the person.

0 Replies

@layman,

OK, that's what they are about.

Let me ask you directly, Arg: If a person says, "I have no belief in god" does that, in and of itself, necessarily make him an "atheist" by your definition of things?

Today if some one told me that they didn't have a belief in god(s), in reference to the existence, I would tend to believe that they were Atheist in my usage of the word. It doesn't matter why they say it... Just as theist have their many reasons for believing.

See you question could be taken to mean I have no faith in god but hints that the person may believe in god

1 Reply

@layman,

Seems I have asked Argome that same question...way back.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Seems I have asked Argome that same question...way back

I don't think Arg wants to answer questions any more, Frank. Do you recall getting an answer, back then?

1 Reply

@argome321,

argome321 wrote:

Quote:
As i understand him, Arg has been arguing that agnosticism="lack of knowledge" implies a lack of evidence and thus leads at least to a lack of belief in gods, aka "soft atheism", because the burden of proof is on the believers.

Your putting words in my mouth. You're drawing a conclusion I never made. I said that agnosticism is about knowledge and that theism, or atheism is about belief and that knowledge is a subset of belief..that's plan and simple.
you want to draw that conclusions, fine, but don't say something i didn't say. Be accurate.

Many of us believes things that we can't know.

The "As i understand him" part qualified the post adequately, me think.

So, we agree that agnosticism exists. Not sure where you place it yet. Here is ONE possible systematization:

Hard theist: one who believes in god(s), has a clear picture of what they look like, and finds this belief relevant to one's life.

Soft theist: one who believes in god(s), but thinks it's impossible to know much about them, and finds belief in gods not very relevant to one's life.

Soft agnostic: one who does not know if there are zero, 1, or many gods, but still harbor an emotional, cultural or aesthetic attachment to religion(s).

Agnostic: one who does not know if there are zero, 1, or many gods, doesn't want to commit / believe either way, and finds the issue not very important to one's life.

Hard agnostic (or Soft atheist): one who does not pretend to know positively that there are no gods, but concludes that it's either highly unlikely and/or irrelevant to one's life.

(Hard) Atheist: one who believes there are no gods, no matter what they look like, and finds this belief relevant to one's life.

0 Replies

@argome321,

Quote:

Layman I’m surprised at your statement because that is totally in accurate. I’m a former member of NYC Atheist and American Atheist and an avid viewer of the Atheist Experience....

...if you are without belief you are an Atheist, nothing more, nothing less.

Now, somehow, if I suggest to him that that's what he said, I am being "disingenuous."

1 Reply

@argome321,

You'd be wrong, Argome.

I have no belief in any gods...and I am NOT an atheist.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

You'd be wrong, Argome.

I have no belief in any gods...and I am NOT an atheist.

Frank you cna call yourself anything you like. The reason, after this I will not answer further because you just showed you didn't read my answer or you decided to cheery pick. I see you have no interest in honest discussion so lets not waste ether of our times

This is how you want to play, nothing constructive can ever come from it I'm not into that

Peace.

2 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know