(March 15, 2014 at 8:42 pm)whateverist Wrote: On the other hand if someone asked not whether you believe in gods but rather what it is you believe about gods, then saying you're agnostic would be appropriate enough. Then saying you have no beliefs regarding gods would be informative. If you have no beliefs, then you have nothing to offer.

If you have no beliefs regarding god you're obviously an atheist. You might like to call yourself agnostic but the truth is you're an atheist in denial.

(March 15, 2014 at 8:59 pm)jesus_wept Wrote:

(March 15, 2014 at 8:42 pm)whateverist Wrote: On the other hand if someone asked not whether you believe in gods but rather what it is you believe about gods, then saying you're agnostic would be appropriate enough. Then saying you have no beliefs regarding gods would be informative. If you have no beliefs, then you have nothing to offer.

If you have no beliefs regarding god you're obviously an atheist. You might like to call yourself agnostic but the truth is you're an atheist in denial.

Absolutely. But in the quote you cited I specifically stated the question as what it is you believe about gods - not whether or not you believe in them. I do call myself an atheist because I have no beliefs in gods. My point here is that an agnostic atheist who is not much interested in the god phenomenon might reasonably answer the question I posed by stating they are agnostic. It would be synonymous with saying you know nothing of gods and therefore can't tell you what they might be. (To be clear, that wouldn't be my answer, but it might explain Tyson's.)

(March 15, 2014 at 8:59 pm)jesus_wept Wrote:

(March 15, 2014 at 8:42 pm)whateverist Wrote: On the other hand if someone asked not whether you believe in gods but rather what it is you believe about gods, then saying you're agnostic would be appropriate enough. Then saying you have no beliefs regarding gods would be informative. If you have no beliefs, then you have nothing to offer.

If you have no beliefs regarding god you're obviously an atheist. You might like to call yourself agnostic but the truth is you're an atheist in denial.

So very true.

Or perhaps I misunderstand you. Do you actually think that an atheist would necessarily hold the belief that gods do not exist? (If so you are mistaken.)

(March 15, 2014 at 9:08 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(March 15, 2014 at 8:59 pm)jesus_wept Wrote: If you have no beliefs regarding god you're obviously an atheist. You might like to call yourself agnostic but the truth is you're an atheist in denial.

Absolutely. But in the quote you cited I specifically stated the question as what it is you believe about gods - not whether or not you believe in them. I do call myself an atheist because I have no beliefs in gods. My point here is that an agnostic atheist who is not much interested in the god phenomenon might reasonably answer the question I posed by stating they are agnostic. It would be synonymous with saying you know nothing of gods and therefore can't tell you what they might be. (To be clear, that wouldn't be my answer, but it might explain Tyson's.)

I think we may have got our wires crossed because I'm talking about people who call themselves "agnostic", not people who call themselves agnostic atheists.

---

(March 15, 2014 at 9:09 pm)whateverist Wrote: Or perhaps I misunderstand you. Do you actually think that an atheist would necessarily hold the belief that gods do not exist? (If so you are mistaken.)

Is this directed at me? If so I would define a theist as someone who believes in a personal god, as opposed to the impersonal god of the deists or pantheists, and an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god/gods.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "an atheist would necessarily hold the belief that gods do not exist" tbh. I think it's possible some god or other might exist but I dont see any reason to believe in them. It's possible fairies exist too but I dont believe in them either.

I'm not sure why a lot of agnostics get a bad wrap. I used to be an agnostic and see no reason to describe them as "wishy washy" or invalid. Unfortunately, (this may have to do with the fact that most people I have met are Southern) agnostics are frequently seen this way. In fact, most religious folks I have talked to disrespect agnostics even more than atheists.

Why insult the honest admission of not knowing the answer to the biggest question in existence?

And all atheists are somewhat agnostics, really, because we would admit defeat with actual evidence of a deity.

When it comes down to it, for me, it's very simple:
If Christianity IS true, I will gladly pass on serving that god and being sent straight to hell.

(March 15, 2014 at 9:46 pm)petrichorpeace Wrote: I'm not sure why a lot of agnostics get a bad wrap. I used to be an agnostic and see no reason to describe them as "wishy washy" or invalid. Unfortunately, (this may have to do with the fact that most people I have met are Southern) agnostics are frequently seen this way. In fact, most religious folks I have talked to disrespect agnostics even more than atheists.

Why insult the honest admission of not knowing the answer to the biggest question in existence?

And all atheists are somewhat agnostics, really, because we would admit defeat with actual evidence of a deity.

When it comes down to it, for me, it's very simple:
If Christianity IS true, I will gladly pass on serving that god and being sent straight to hell.

No one "knows" one way or the other, but faith/religion has everything to do with belief (a leap of faith literally) than it ever has to do with "knowledge." So, agnosticism as I've come to learn is really more of a natural "state" of mind while atheism requires a choice to believe or not. Religious people choose to believe despite no evidence. (either way)

That's how I'm understanding it. :-)

(March 15, 2014 at 9:20 pm)jesus_wept Wrote: I think we may have got our wires crossed because I'm talking about people who call themselves "agnostic", not people who call themselves agnostic atheists.

I wonder why you make that distinction. Why should it matter? Personally, I don't have either on my vanity license plate, nor would I. Neither question from which the labels spring is all that important to me personally. But I might well answer just "agnostic" if the issue in question concerned only knowledge claims, but "atheist" only if the issue was belief. You really do seem to have some issue with agnosticism.

(March 15, 2014 at 9:20 pm)jesus_wept Wrote: Is this directed at me?

It was.

(March 15, 2014 at 9:20 pm)jesus_wept Wrote: I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "an atheist would necessarily hold the belief that gods do not exist" tbh. I think it's possible some god or other might exist but I dont see any reason to believe in them. It's possible fairies exist too but I dont believe in them either.

I was just beginning to wonder if you think of atheism as implying a belief in no gods. I take it the answer is no. (Good. We get enough of that from theists passing through.)

In this thread, we learn whateverist has 'vanity license plates.' :p

(March 15, 2014 at 10:08 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: atheism requires a choice to believe or not. Religious people choose to believe despite no evidence. (either way)

Atheism require no choice, being the default (natural) state. If you hadn't thought about the question/had no knowledge, then you'd be an atheist. The same as if you rejected the idea of a god or actively believed against.

Believers sometimes believe minus evidence, and sometimes with. They can never have empirical evidence, but they can have knowledge that convinces them to believe... otherwise they couldn't believe. Just because you don't know what they know, doesn't mean that oranges are the only fruit. ie - yours isn't the only correct answer.