No because the definitions are different.
Atheists lack belief in god.
Agnostics say there is not enough evidence to say if a god or gods exist or not.
They are exclusive.
Invisible friends are everywhere, but only one is special?
dont agnostics also lack belief in god? or do atheists lack belief in god even though they think there is enough evidence to prove there is one? these definitions dont make any sense to me.
the only way i can make sense out of it is to say theists believe there is a god, atheists believe there is no god, and agnostics dont believe anything at all, since they havent been convinced either way, but may change their mind later when some new information becomes known.
in light of the definitions as i see them, it would be a sort of white lie to believe in god or believe there is no god without any evidence, since a person would be coming to a conclusion based on nothing at all, or perhaps some inherent fear, need, hope, etc that even he is unaware of. however, i would allow subjective evidence as sufficient to say that the person who has this experience, even though he may in fact have misinterpreted it, has good reason to believe there is a god. at the same time, subjective evidence of a person is not a good reason for anyone else to believe in god.
atheists believe there is no god
and agnostics dont believe anything at all, since they havent been convinced either way, but may change their mind later when some new information becomes known.
in light of the definitions as i see them, it would be a sort of white lie to believe in god or believe there is no god without any evidence.
since a person would be coming to a conclusion based on nothing at all
or perhaps some inherent fear, need, hope, etc that even he is unaware of. however, i would allow subjective evidence as sufficient to say that the person who has this experience, even though he may in fact have misinterpreted it, has good reason to believe there is a god.
at the same time, subjective evidence of a person is not a good reason for anyone else to believe in god.
But an increasing respect for myth and an exposure to more sophisticated uses of the word "God" got me over my allergy.
All this "God is not Great" pop-atheism especially turned me off the term. It strikes me as a petty little in-crowd. I myself used to like the word "atheist" better than "agnostic" because it was more aggressive. But times change. I saw what I would call vanity in this.
It is not believing. It is that there is no belief in a god. Other wise I would say I believe there is no Easter bunny. No, that is incorrect language but people use it all the time. You simply have no belief in the easter bunny. There is a difference.
A majority of agnostics have chosen that position because they feel the universe seems to have order in which chaos just couldn't cause. But this is a mistake of perception in my opinion. I have never seen any order in the universe what-so-ever.
Alright then ALL mythical creatures would fall under this category as unprovable. So they should be considered existent because we lack evidence to prove they don't exist?
If you ask someone if gremlins exist they will quickly point out that they don't but as soon as you ask the same question about god they for some reason make up a new excuse as if they can prove gremlins don't but "of course god exists." No the question is exactly identical in every aspect. One just is given some extra importance so it is allowed to step outside the scope of reasoning.
So since there is no evidence for the existence of the easter bunny we should accept that the eater bunny exists? This goes against reality. Does abecloshia exist? Please tell me what it is.
Yeah it is called superstition. When a feeling is used as the basis for some sort of convinced knowledge.
But lack of any evidence is a worthy enough position. I don't believe in gremlins because there is a lack of evidence to support their existence. It is being honestly consistent with the data.
are you saying that atheists dont believe in god but they think there may be a god?
i dont believe in the easter bunny and i dont think there is one either. but i agree with you, there is no difference as to the criteria to be used. both are unprovable. same goes for gremlins and pink elephants.
the only difference is that a large number of people can relate personal experience with god,
there are a vast number of people throughout the ages that have had subjective experience that they are unable to explain other than it being god-related. that isnt true about the easter bunny.
at the same time, if a person has not had any such experience, that is not enough that he should believe there is a god because other people say they have subjective evidence.
but might it not be enough to believe that there could be a god? then again, if i understood you right, that is your definition of an atheist-someone who does not believe in god, but does not believe that no god exists.
so what is the name or category of a person who doesnt believe in god and is certain that there is no possibility of there being a god?
I still think the term "atheist", considering its etymology, implies a denial that there is a God.
I don't believe that humans use some cold pure dialectic to arrive at what they call the truth. To me, that idea is superstitious and based on emotion. One gets to play the hero of rationality, standing fast against the tide of obscurantism, etc. One gets to play Data or Spock in relational to poor old Bones, who is afraid to be beamed up.
To me, Atheism is Romantic. I would call it Satanic-Byronic Romanticism.
It's the solitary man heroically open-eyed to the godlessness of a merciless reality. The atheistic existentialist wasted no time in conjuring up an ethic to give their lives meaning. I should add that I always found this Romantic Atheism quite seductive. But a person must keep on reading, keep on taking the mind in new directions.
I'm skeptical when a social animal like homo sapien claims his or her ideas are not influenced by their intellectual environment. Smacks of the Pope's version of Free Will.
When you say you believe something doesn't exist, it is incorrect language. Belief doesn't work off a negative statement. Or else there are billions of things you believe don't actually exist. The reality is there is no belief.
The importance then is what the reaction to this reality is. If you react as if the existence were true, then you are making a statement that said subject exists. But why do that if you can not be certain? This would be like walking around an invisible object every day. When people notice you side step something that doesn't appear to be there, they can't help but wonder what is wrong with you. Why would you do that? This is how I see theist's behavior.
I have heard from people who were once believers denounce their personal experiences as every day occurrences that they were just attaching the label of god. I am skeptical of these experiences not because people are unreliable with experiences in general but because it is so one sided.
Why would a god choose to give person A an experience while person B no experience? That sounds like playing favorites. It would be like a parent giving one of their two children attention while completely and utterly ignoring the other. I doubt a parent would do that type of behavior regardless of how "bad" they were. That is why I don't buy the experience of god part.
Well people say the same thing about aliens. Some say the same thing about bigfoot. I had a friend tell me when he was a child he watched a skeleton crawl out of his dresser and was convinced it was not a dream. How many times have you seen that?
But they will base other things of their life as if those experiences were proof. Some even go as far as to press their life style onto other people because of their experiences. Is this fair to do with something that is only subjective?
Yeah and I think this is where a majority of theists get confused. They simply can not fashion why a person would have no belief. So they call it a belief anyways, which it's not.
One gets to play the hero of rationality, standing fast against the tide of obscurantism, etc. One gets to play Data or Spock in relational to poor old Bones, who is afraid to be beamed up.
To me, Atheism is Romantic. I would call it Satanic-Byronic Romanticism. It's the solitary man heroically open-eyed to the godlessness of a merciless reality. The atheistic existentialist wasted no time in conjuring up an ethic to give their lives meaning. I should add that I always found this Romantic Atheism quite seductive. But a person must keep on reading, keep on taking the mind in new directions.
I'm skeptical when a social animal like homo sapien claims his or her ideas are not influenced by their intellectual environment. Smacks of the Pope's version of Free Will.
I still think the term "atheist", considering its etymology, implies a denial that there is a God.
You could but that doesnt mean its correct.
Atheism is an incorrect label applied to something that doesnt require a label. Just like 'bald' is a hair color, or the classic example of non-stamp collectors, or (my personal favorite) 'off' is considered a TV channel. The term itself doesnt apply anywhere else besides religion -for some reason. And that reason, whatever it may be, is probably why you can connect an etymological background to 'atheism = believing no god/s exist'. I mean lets face it: religion is VERY personal to almost everyone on the planet, and the farther back in time you go, the more fundamental and 'obvious' it was for a diety to exist. But, again, that doesnt mean its correct. Atheism means 'A' = without, and 'theism' = religious belief. Just like some people are 'Ahaircolorists' and 'Atvchannelists'. The term doesnt makes sense.
Now some people do take the strong atheist stance but I'm not at liberty to talk for them because I dont know for sure what, how, and why the believe what they do. As for me, Im agnostic about god until you define the term because 'god' could mean any number of things. Some people define 'god' as love. In that case, yes I believe in god, but only because I have to by definition. However, if you define god as the traditional anthropormorphised deity that has inherent contradictions then no, I reject that claim. So Im not a strong atheist because the term 'god' is never fully defined.
so what is an agnostic? how is it different from an atheist?
you mean if a person defined god as love, an atheist would say 'i dont believe in love'?
or an agnostic in a sense is saying he doesnt know if he believes in god because he doesnt know what god is?
...people needed a name with which to distinguish themselves when they dont believe in god?
i dont think i will ever remember the terms for all the philosophies that have been defined...it is only a case of attaching labels to things to make it easier to shortcut verbally. but if nobody understands the meaning of the labels, humanity is going to get lost in a massive linguistic traffic jam.
Anti-theology can function as a theology.
Marx said religion was the opiate of the masses. Marxism quickly became the opiate of the intellectuals.
Today's priest is the expert. The non-expert nods, dazzled by technological miracles.
Krumple and Tick Tock Man:
I hope I haven't alienated you by playing the gadfly.
Intellectualism is the opiate of all three of us, I would think.
Would science have much prestige if not for it's technological "miracles"? And is there not an ideal toward the which the scientific method strives? I think science is the heir of monotheism. Spinoza is a good example of a transitional point, and didn't Einstein himself reference Spinoza in regards to his spiritual (for lack of a better word) views?
No alienation here. I hold gadflies in high esteem.
Speak for yourself. I have too much proud Western Redneck blood coursing through my veins to ever try to wear the somber robes of the intellectual.
I do have to confess though that I get way more smarterer when I been
drinkin'.
No alienation here. I hold gadflies in high esteem.
I'm relieved that you put quotes around the word miracles in context with science. There are no miracles in science. Marvels, perhaps, but never miracles.
I always thought that the ideal toward which the scientific method strives was verifiable and
replicable accuracy.
It seems to be a popular approach these days to claim that science is a form of religion . . .
usually by theists using some sort of half-baked version of a tu quoque argument. At least
I think that's the correct term.
I just think we should always keep science on its toes. I refer here to my signature. Are you familiar with Blakes' criticism of the Enlightenment?
