I do not believe gods exist…but I do not believe there are no gods.

@Krumple,

Bertrand Russell

Quote:

"I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God."

and

http://theschooloflife.typepad.com/the_school_of_life/2011/04/bertrand-russell-and-socrates-on-being-agnostic.html

Quote:

Are agnostics atheists?

Russell: No. An agnostic suspends judgement … At the same time, an agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Krumple wrote:

Okay well you might not be insisting that you are trying to change the definition. But you don't understand the definition then, because you are not using it properly.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Whatever are you talking about????

What have I said about agnosticism that causes you to think I am using it improperly?

The problem was at the arrival. Your statement that you do not believe that no gods exists being the cause of your agnosticism which would be an incorrect definition. Doesn't matter that you first state that you do not believe in a god or god(s). The first statement you make is irrelevant to the second. The second being a double negative.

This would mean if you had said, you believe no gods exist, is a positive assertion. Yes you do not make that positive assertion, therefore you are agnostic is in correct usage of the word agnostic.

Krumple wrote:

Or you are not using it how the rest of society uses it.

Frank Apisa wrote:

What are you talking about? How am I using it?

gnostic deals with knowledge. Looking over your responses you do state at one point that you have no knowledge that a god exists which would be a correct usage of the word agnostic however;

Frank Apisa wrote:

Give me a few quotes where I am using agnosticism in the wrong way. Please.

If you answer the question "Do you believe a god exists or gods exist?"

with a no, then by that very defintion you are an atheist. It does not matter what other responses you give to any other follow up questions. It in no way changes your position to say that you do not believe that no gods exist. They are completely seperate and actually point to two seperate aspects.

Since all you do is refer to belief in your statements and then quantify yourself as agnostic because of those reasons, then you are using the word incorrectly. Not to mention that you are skipping over the aspect that you are an atheist weather you want to admit to it or not. You have answered the question. It doesn't bother me any if you want to insist that you are not one.

If not, then you tell me how you are defining agnostic.

3 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Not to mention that you are skipping over the aspect that you are an atheist weather you want to admit to it or not.

I can say you're an idiot whether you want to admit to it or not.

That does not mean you are an idiot.

In the same way, you calling Frank an atheist does not mean he is an atheist.

3 Replies

@ehBeth,

will there be a vote later?

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumble...let me start by talking about the definition of "atheist." (I’ll get to agnostic in another post.)

Several of you here have been arguing that anyone who does not express a belief in at least one god...is an atheist. That has gotten to the absurd position of demanding that all babies, toddlers, and adults incapable of understanding concepts like gods or belief...are to be considered atheist.

I did not bother to look up the definition...but the insistence of people like you to define me as an atheist caused me to do some research.

Here is what I came up with:

ATHEIST DEFINED BY VARIOUS DICTIONARIES:

1) American Heritage Dictionary http://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=ATHEIST&submit.x=24&submit.y=33

“One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.”

2) Vocabulary.com http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/#word=atheist

An atheist believes there is no such thing as god, or any other deity.
The root -theist means "belief in a god." The prefixes mono-,poly-, and a-, mean "one," "many," and "no," respectively. So a monotheist is someone who believes in a single god, a polytheist is someone who believes in many gods, and an atheist is someone who believes there is no god at all.

3) MacMillian Dictionary http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/atheist

someone who believes that God does not exist

4) Merriam Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

one who believes that there is no deity

5) Cambridge Dictionary of American English http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/american-english/atheist

someone who believes that God does not exist

6) Webster’s Revised Dictionary http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=atheist&use1913=on

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

I do not fit into any of those definitions of atheist. I do not "disbelieve" the existence of gods nor do I deny the existence of gods.

Using these definitions from reputable dictionaries, I am not an atheist.

My comments of agnosticism will follow...but I really gotta move the lawnmower right now.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Krumble...let me start by talking about the definition of "atheist." (I’ll get to agnostic in another post.)

Several of you here have been arguing that anyone who does not express a belief in at least one god...is an atheist. That has gotten to the absurd position of demanding that all babies, toddlers, and adults incapable of understanding concepts like gods or belief...are to be considered atheist.

I did not bother to look up the definition...but the insistence of people like you to define me as an atheist caused me to do some research.

Here is what I came up with:

ATHEIST DEFINED BY VARIOUS DICTIONARIES:

1) American Heritage Dictionary http://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=ATHEIST&submit.x=24&submit.y=33

“One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.”

2) Vocabulary.com http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/#word=atheist

An atheist believes there is no such thing as god, or any other deity.
The root -theist means "belief in a god." The prefixes mono-,poly-, and a-, mean "one," "many," and "no," respectively. So a monotheist is someone who believes in a single god, a polytheist is someone who believes in many gods, and an atheist is someone who believes there is no god at all.

3) MacMillian Dictionary http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/atheist

someone who believes that God does not exist

4) Merriam Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

one who believes that there is no deity

5) Cambridge Dictionary of American English http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/american-english/atheist

someone who believes that God does not exist

6) Webster’s Revised Dictionary http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=atheist&use1913=on

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

I do not fit into any of those definitions of atheist. I do not "disbelieve" the existence of gods nor do I deny the existence of gods.

Using these definitions from reputable dictionaries, I am not an atheist.

My comments of agnosticism will follow...but I really gotta move the lawnmower right now.

I think you are cherry picking your defintions here. Yes I didn't take the time to track down your defintions but using dictionary.com does not say what your defintions here say.

Here is the thing. disbelief means having no belief.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
I want to see what baggage you've attached to the word.

Why are you insisting that I have baggage attached to being a red head?

Ginger filter: On.

Because your avoidance of the word is so noticeable. The effort it takes you deny that you fit the definition more than mildly suggests that you're uncomfortable with it. It seems like you're in denial.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Krumple,

As regards the word “agnostic”…

…I do not speak for all agnostics…and I recognize, as I am sure you do, that agnostics vary as much as atheists or theists.

That being the case, I am always careful to explain MY PERSONAL agnosticism…my personal philosophy in this regard.

I have done so dozens upon dozens of time in this forum. Essentially it is:

I do not know if gods exist; I do not know if no gods exist; I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess (or belief) in either direction.

Because of that last point in my frequently explained personal agnosticism, I can say that:

I do not believe gods exist. I am not saying they do not exist…I am simply expressing an absence of belief that they do. On my list of things I “believe”…you will not find “gods.”

I do not believe gods do not exist. I am not saying they exist…I am simply expressing an absence of belief that they do not. If that “double negative” is too much for you, perhaps the longer, more involved version will make it clear:

Some people “believe” there are no gods. I am not one of them. I do not believe there are no gods. I am not saying there are gods with that statement, I am merely expressing an absence of belief “that there are no gods.”

In my personal agnosticism…I acknowledge that I do not know if gods exist or not…and I explain why I do not have a “belief” in either direction.

All of that is, as Beth mentioned (thanks again, Beth), is in any way outside the mainstream considerations about the word “agnostic.”

I do not understand why you are suggesting that I do not understand what agnosticism means…or why you think I am trying to change its definition.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

I am using sources like American Heritage, Websters, Merriam Websters, and Cambridge Dictionaries...and you are suggesting that I should be going to Here is the thing.disbelief????

Have you gone completely off the edge?

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Krumple wrote:
Not to mention that you are skipping over the aspect that you are an atheist weather you want to admit to it or not.

I can say you're an idiot whether you want to admit to it or not.

That does not mean you are an idiot.

Yes. It would not matter what I want or not want to be labeled.

ehBeth wrote:

In the same way, you calling Frank an atheist does not mean he is an atheist.

There are two things being discussed. Belief and knowledge. They are two seperate things. How hard is it to understand that this is what is being discussed? You can't compare the two.

gnostics deals with knowledge

theo or theism deals with belief.

this is why you can be both an atheist and agnostic at the same time.

In fact I would go as far as to say that everyone is an agnostic. Because absolutely no one has knowledge that a god exists. If they had knowledge they wouldn't need faith. I haven't met a single person who has knowledge that a god exists.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Sorry, Krumple...but I AM NOT a red head. It takes more than simply having red hair to make a red head.

Ginger filter: On.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Babies and toddlers are NOT atheists simply because of a definition that makes no sense to anyone but atheists.

Babies are atheists. They lack belief in all things, and that includes gods. They may become theists or strong atheists, but they are born without belief.

Frank Apisa wrote:

But I am enjoying listening to you try to make me into an atheist. You would have made one hell of a Jehovah's Witness!

Atheists make terrible Jehovah's Witnesses.
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 4986621)
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
I want to see what baggage you've attached to the word.

Why are you insisting that I have baggage attached to being a red head?

Ginger filter: On.

Because your avoidance of the word is so noticeable.

I do not understand you people!

I have not "avoided" the word at all...I have used it in damn near every post in reply to you guys.

I have simply insisted that I am not an atheist.

If you suggested that I am a Lithuanian-American, I would say, "No I am not...if anything, I am an Italian-American."

I am saying I am not an atheist...because I am not an atheist.

I have no grudge or quarrel with atheism or atheists. They have a right to be whatever they want to be. I am not nuts about atheists like some of you who insist I have to be an atheist also, but I carry no baggage about atheism at all.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

this is why you can be both an atheist and agnostic at the same time.

I have never denied this anywhere. I also have noted one can easily be both an agnostic and a theist.

BUT I AM NOT A THEIST...AND I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

I am just an agnostic.

Try to get it through you head.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Babies are atheists.

The only way you get to this absurdity is if you are insisting that atheism is derived from prefixing an "a" to "theism."

That is not what happened...and it is not what is happening.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

But the fact is, Art...I am not a red head. So when you say that I am a red head...it make all the sense in the world for me to tell you that I am not a red head.

I am NOT a red head, Art.

Ginger Filter: On.

I doth think you protest way way way too much.

Frank Apisa wrote:

This is becoming hilarious. I hope the people I've invited to read this thread are getting a kick out of it.

I'm sure they are, Frank.

Frank Apisa wrote:

TO SOME SPECIAL OTHERS:
I told you they would keep insisting...even if it meant having all babies, toddlers, and mentally disadvantaged people be called atheists in order to preserve this argument.

You thought I was kidding you!

I wasn't!

Stroke that ego real good, Frank. You knew it! You're such a future seeing guy! Wow. Everyone thought you were wrong, and you showed them! You must feel sooooo validated in knowing how those other people who--bless their hearts--just can't seem to get your immaculate logic. Nevermind that plenty of people have stepped in to simply tell you that they don't agree. Good thing you were there to correct them and tell them that they were wrong. You of course pounce on any sparse reinforcement gladly. Rolling Eyes

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

As regards the word “agnostic”…

…I do not speak for all agnostics…and I recognize, as I am sure you do, that agnostics vary as much as atheists or theists.

That being the case, I am always careful to explain MY PERSONAL agnosticism…my personal philosophy in this regard.

I have done so dozens upon dozens of time in this forum. Essentially it is:

I do not know if gods exist; I do not know if no gods exist; I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess (or belief) in either direction.

Because of that last point in my frequently explained personal agnosticism, I can say that:

I do not believe gods exist. I am not saying they do not exist…I am simply expressing an absence of belief that they do. On my list of things I “believe”…you will not find “gods.”

I do not believe gods do not exist. I am not saying they exist…I am simply expressing an absence of belief that they do not. If that “double negative” is too much for you, perhaps the longer, more involved version will make it clear:

Some people “believe” there are no gods. I am not one of them. I do not believe there are no gods. I am not saying there are gods with that statement, I am merely expressing an absence of belief “that there are no gods.”

In my personal agnosticism…I acknowledge that I do not know if gods exist or not…and I explain why I do not have a “belief” in either direction.

All of that is, as Beth mentioned (thanks again, Beth), is in any way outside the mainstream considerations about the word “agnostic.”

I do not understand why you are suggesting that I do not understand what agnosticism means…or why you think I am trying to change its definition.

Yes I understood it from your very first post.

gnostic deals with knowledge which you do admit to again here and state it clearly here but then you go right back to belief. Knowledge and belief are two seperate things.

Theism or theo deals with belief. If you say you don't believe a god exists then that makes an atheist.

If you say you don't have knowledge that a god exists then that makes you an agnostic.

If you say you have knowledge that a god exists then that would make you a gnostic. (although none exist)

If you say you believe a god exists then that makes you a theist.

these four possiblities can be combined.

You can be an agnostic-atheist. It means you don't have knowledge that a god exists and at the same time do not have a belief that one exists either.

You could be a gnostic-theist. Although I have never met one, it would mean you have knowledge and a belief that a god exists.

You could be an agnostic-theist. This means you don't have knowledge that a god exists but you believe that one does exist. Most theists are this type. They don't have knowledge but they believe one does exist.

You could also be a gnostic-atheist which again I have never met one. It would mean that you have knowledge that no god exists and also you don't believe one exists. I don't know anyone who has knowledge that a god does not exist.

Out of these four combinations, you are an agnostic-atheist. You don't have knowledge that a god exists but you also don't believe one exists either.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Krumple wrote:
Yet if you want to continue insisting that everyone adopt your new definition of agnoticism

Frank's use of the word agnosticism is within the traditional usage. There is nothing new in his use of it.

Partly correct. He is correct in it's usage in so much as he understands it describes a position of knowledge that is insufficient to establish a statement of fact, but he's far off when he thinks that there is some sort of mutual exclusivity with other terms of belief (athiest, theist, etc).

A
R
T

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Krumple wrote:
Not to mention that you are skipping over the aspect that you are an atheist weather you want to admit to it or not.

I can say you're an idiot whether you want to admit to it or not.

That does not mean you are an idiot.

If "idiot" had an objective criteria and you could point to and specific examples that satisfied it, yes. The two words are not alike in this way. Atheism is not some super complex thing.

ehBeth wrote:

In the same way, you calling Frank an atheist does not mean he is an atheist.

Unless he fits the definition. He fit's 2 out of 3, the third being the strong atheist, which nobody here is stating he is.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Stroke that ego real good, Frank. You knew it! You're such a future seeing guy! Wow. Everyone thought you were wrong, and you showed them! You must feel sooooo validated in knowing how those other people who--bless their hearts--just can't seem to get your immaculate logic. Nevermind that plenty of people have stepped in to simply tell you that they don't agree. Good thing you were there to correct them and tell them that they were wrong. You of course pounce on any sparse reinforcement gladly.

Awww...c'mon, Art. Have I hurt your feelings?

You argue...I am stroking ego. Tsk, tsk!

You are saying I am an atheist.

I have cited definitions from Webster's Dictionary; the MacMillan Dictionary; the Merriam Webster Dictionary; the Cambridge Dictionary of American English…and all define atheist as someone who denies the existence of gods; who disbelieves the existence of gods; or one who believes gods do not exist.

I do not deny the existence of gods; I do not disbelieve the exitence of gods; and I do not believe gods do not exist.

I am not an atheist.

That bothers you for some reason. You ought really to get a handle on that.

Have I mentioned that I am an agnostic?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

Out of these four combinations, you are an agnostic-atheist. You don't have knowledge that a god exists but you also don't believe one exists either.

Nope...you still have it wrong.

I am just an agnostic.

Try to grasp the concept, Krumple. It really isn't that hard.

I cannot get over that you are going through all these tortured contortions to try to make me into an atheist!

Show some pride, Krumple.

By now you should be telling me that if I ever designated myself as an atheist, you would convert to theism and probably become a priest.

Show some pride, Krumple.

1 Reply

I do not believe gods exist…but I do not believe there are no gods.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know