Atheism

@layman,

Quote:

Did you see the part I added to my last part about cats and dogs?

not at first.

The difference is the discussion about agnosticism and atheism is a subjective one.

Though cats and dogs and bear have a common ancestor cat's and dogs are not interchangeable when describing them to some one. that is objective, thus apples and oranges,

2 Replies

@argome321,

Quote:

Though cats and dogs and bear have a common ancestor cat's and dogs are not interchangeable when describing them to some one. that is objective, thus apples and oranges,

So, I take it, then, that you would agree that me calling a cat a dog would not turn a cat into a dog, right?

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Because you still haven't answered my question. You just said something else. But there's something else important here, when choosing words, I think.

there's isn't any more to say because we disagree. Nothing is going to alter that.

We both have been civil to one another can we agree on that and leave it there?

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

The difference is the discussion about agnosticism and atheism is a subjective one

.

Not sure what you mean by "subjective." Let me quote this website again (for the third time). Do you agree with the part in bold?

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.

You might notice that this passage even adopts YOUR definition of "atheist." (at first, anyway)

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

there's isn't any more to say because we disagree. Nothing is going to alter that

I'm going to take that as your statement that you do not want to discuss this particular issue any more and that you don't want to answer (or be asked) any more questions.

I'll answer my own questions:

1. Yes, their is a significant difference between what is almost universally called an "agnostic" and what is almost universally called an "atheist."

2. No, me just "saying" they are "the same thing" does not, and can not, make them the same thing.

3. Furthermore, since they are different things, it is only appropriate that we give them different names.

4. The refusal to make such a distinction does NOT clarify anything or promote open discussion. On the contrary, it necessarily confuses and limits discussion.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

The difference is the discussion about agnosticism and atheism is a subjective one
.

Not sure what you mean by "subjective." Let me quote this website again (for the third time). Do you agree with the part in bold?

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.
0 Replies

1) As I interpret the first one it is a view of agnosticism I say the first one is acknowledging some type of difference.

The last is a reference to Gnosticism not Agnosticism.

2) just curious why is a word like nigger accepted by you in today's usage when one black man applies to another black person or to any one for that matter g and the modern term of atheism isn't... Just curious?

You claim that I don't answer your questions, Since you like to site defintions here are a few on the definition of answer.

Full Definition of ANSWER

1
a : something spoken or written in reply to a question
b : a correct response <knows the answer>
2
: a reply to a legal charge or suit : plea; also : defense
3
: something done in response or reaction <his only answer was to walk out>
4
: a solution of a problem <more money is not the answer>
5
: one that imitates, matches, or corresponds to another <television's answer to the newsmagazines>
See answer defined for English-language learners
See answer defined for kids
Examples of ANSWER

I asked him a simple question and he gave me a long and confusing answer.
I didn't believe her answer.
They wouldn't give me a straight answer to my question.
I didn't know the right answer.
That is the wrong answer.
Do you know the answer to this question?
He knew the answers to only 3 of the 10 questions.
The answers are listed in the back of the book.
Origin of ANSWER

Middle English, from Old English andswaru (akin to Old Norse andsvar answer); akin to Old English and- against, swerian to swear — more at ante-
First Known Use: before 12th century

1 Reply

@argome321,

I have to step away I got to shower and eat
it you want to continue later that's fine with me

1 Reply

@argome321,

OK, later.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

The third one (agnosticism) has no beliefs. The "reason" it has no beliefs is because they don't think there's enough evidence either way to justify a belief one way or the other.

I disagree. Many agnostics believe that it is STUPID or morally WRONG to conclude either way, when there isn't enough evidence. So they all believe in something, the atheist, the agnostic and the theist.

Which is why there's no point in this endless semantic discussion... Nobody's philosophical position was ever butressed by a dictionary.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I disagree. Many agnostics believe that it is STUPID or morally WRONG to conclude either way, when there isn't enough evidence. So they all believe in something, the atheist, the agnostic and the theist.

Well, an agnostic might also believe that chocolate ice cream tastes good (and therefore believe in something), but that's not too relevant. The non-belief being referred to here is in the existence and non-existence of god. Thinking something is stupid or morally wrong is simply not part of the definition, i.e., it is not an essential condition if one is to be categorized as an "agnostic."

1 Reply

@layman,

The belief that evidence trumps everything is central to the agnostic's stance. That's precisely why they argue with atheists to no end.

1 Reply

All that "believing" stuff may work for some...it simply doesn't for me.

I am an agnostic, but since the word seems to have so many meanings for so many different people, I define my agnosticism exactly.

I do not know if there is a GOD or if there are gods;
I do not know if there are no gods;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that they are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

There is no "believing" (which I see to be nothing more than guessing with lipstick on it) in there.

I am simply stating a position which includes not only what I do not know...but also why I am not able to guess (believe with the lipstick).

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You just believe that it would be wrong to believe, that's all. Then you take that belief and call it something else, like an 'opinion' or 'guess' or whatever.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

The belief that evidence trumps everything is central to the agnostic's stance. That's precisely why they argue with atheists to no end

.

Well, that may be, Ollie, I don't really know. But, to the extent that atheists want to argue that same point with theists, then to that extent they are inconsistent. It would be quite consistent for agnostics to ALSO argue with theists, though, of course.

On a personal note, I will admit that I am myself somewhat bothered whatever the topic, if someone pretends to "know" something that they have no way of knowing (whether it be about economics, the girl across the street, or whatever).

1 Reply

I don't know whether he meant to do it or if he did it by accident, but ci at least told the truth about atheists in his post here:

http://able2know.org/topic/141106-609#post-5916393

Quote:

Atheists believe there is no god or gods.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

You just believe that it would be wrong to believe, that's all. Then you take that belief and call it something else, like an 'opinion' or 'guess' or whatever.

No, Olivier...I call it what it is.

If it is a guess...I call it a guess rather than a "belief."

I'm not calling it something else...anyone who calls it a belief is doing the disguising.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I don't know whether he meant to do it...

He didn't even understand that he did it, Frank. I pointed that out to him (in an indirect way by bolding it in my response to him). He never missed a beat.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

On a personal note, I will admit that I am myself somewhat bothered whatever the topic, if someone pretends to "know" something that they have no way of knowing (whether it be about economics, the girl across the street, or whatever).

No need to be bothered by others' knowledge, or their opinion of their knowledge. Deal with your own illusions if you wish to. Those of others do not concern you.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

No need to be bothered by others' knowledge, or their opinion of their knowledge. Deal with your own illusions if you wish to. Those of others do not concern you.

Heh, easy to say. If some guy comes running to my house and says he 'knows" that Frank is on his way to kill me and will be arriving in 5 minutes, I kinda wanna know why he thinks he knows that. I don't want to blast poor Frank the minute he gets in my sight without more or less "knowing" (i.e., thinking I know) what his true intentions are, eh?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Because you hold to that 'guess' a little too dearly for it to be called a 'guess' in colloquial English. When people have a strong emotional attachement to such a 'guess', when it's important to them, it's called a belief. A guess is something more trivial, peripheral to one's intellectual constructs. A belief is more central.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know