Thoughts?



Oh, fuck me, why did I have to post this thread? Fuck's sake... Here come the endless semantic debates.

I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know if any gods exist or not, but I haven't found any I believe exist.

I think most people who describe themselves simply as "agnostic" don't really understand the term. It's usually an answer to the question, "do you believe in god?"

(July 27, 2016 at 10:10 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know if any gods exist or not, but I haven't found any I believe exist.

I believe everyone on the forum is an agnostic atheist, of the non-believers I mean.

(July 27, 2016 at 10:17 pm)The_Empress Wrote: I think most people who describe themselves simply as "agnostic" don't really understand the term. It's usually an answer to the question, "do you believe in god?"

That's precisely what I think. They just don't want to get involved, in a sense, yet that can't stop me from classifying them as atheists, for the simple reason that they lack a belief in God.

Agnostic on its own in greek just means clueless.

Since I declare as agnostic, let me answer.

First of all, I don't agree with the concept of soft atheism. I don't think it's useful to declare that I lack a particular belief. I respect that others think that's a meaningful view, and it's one of the two legitimate ways to express the triadic (a + theos + ism). But for me, I will declare as atheist only when I have an active belief that there is not any kind of God in the universe, or a Deity which created it. I'm not 100% there yet.

Second, in order to answer a question, it must be well-formed. If you ask me if the Biblical God exists, I'd say I'm atheist-- I believe that God does not exist. If you ask me if ANYTHING that could be called a GOD exists-- a super-massive nebulous intelligence, or a philosophical principle that guides human history, or a universe-creating Deity, an immortal living thing, or any of maybe dozens of other possible definitions I may not have thought of-- then I'm open to the possibility of those things, and have insufficient information to know whether they do or don't exist. Some people call this "ignostic," but I prefer the more general term, "agnostic." I'd add, by the way, that when given a question that has ambiguous terms, you can simultaneously answer Yes and No.

But in the end, "agnostic" means "I don't know." And my response to "Is there a God" isn't "I lack that belief," it's "I don't know." I'm literally agnostic on that issue.

I thought agnostic meant that you feel there's no way to know. I think there is, but we don't know what it is yet. And in the meantime, I believe there is not a god.

(July 27, 2016 at 11:18 pm)c172 Wrote: I thought agnostic meant that you feel there's no way to know. I think there is, but we don't know what it is yet. And in the meantime, I believe there is not a god.

That comes in with the "-ism" or the "-ist."  A systematic agnostic position might involve believing that some things cannot ever be known.  For example, it occurs to me that people cannot have the capacity ever to know whether there is a Universe-creating God.  Not only do I not know, but I take the position that, for us, such a thing is intrinsically unknowable.

But this, while not an atheist position, is certainly anti-religious.  I can say for sure that the Biblical God doesn't exist, because I know enough about logic to say that the Biblical god is incoherent, and that I believe an incoherent idea cannot manifest in reality.

(July 27, 2016 at 11:16 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Since I declare as agnostic, let me answer.

First of all, I don't agree with the concept of soft atheism.  I don't think it's useful to declare that I lack a particular belief.  I respect that others think that's a meaningful view, and it's one of the two legitimate ways to express the triadic (a + theos + ism).  But for me, I will declare as atheist only when I have an active belief that there is not any kind of God in the universe, or a Deity which created it.  I'm not 100% there yet.

Second, in order to answer a question, it must be well-formed.  If you ask me if the Biblical God exists, I'd say I'm atheist-- I believe that God does not exist.  If you ask me if ANYTHING that could be called a GOD exists-- a super-massive nebulous intelligence, or a philosophical principle that guides human history, or a universe-creating Deity, an immortal living thing, or any of maybe dozens of other possible definitions I may not have thought of-- then I'm open to the possibility of those things, and have insufficient information to know whether they do or don't exist.  Some people call this "ignostic," but I prefer the more general term, "agnostic."

But in the end, "agnostic" means "I don't know."  And my response to "Is there a God" isn't "I lack that belief," it's "I don't know."  I'm literally agnostic on that issue.

Quote:First of all, I don't agree with the concept of soft atheism.

I do not lack a belief, however, in the human brain, even though I've never seen one in real life.

See the difference?

Agnosticism is pretty much for pansy ass atheists who found a way to keep the religious content with who they are. It's disingenuous to identify yourself as an agnostic, given real world circumstances, as well as unhelpful and irrational.

Sorry if I got to be a little too much. I'll take a minute to chill, but I await your response to my previous post.