Can Someone be Simply "An Agnostic?"

[Confused Ape]

Pretty much only atheists online use that definition of atheism, which pretty much pits them up against a cultural-linguistic wall, mostly because they just want to avoid the burden of proof.

I lack belief in deities. Am I supposed to prove that I lack belief in deities?

The question is hardly meaningful, and calling atheism anything other than the belief that theism is false/no gods exist raises seveeal issues I've already brought up in this thread.

I class myself as 6.9 on the Dawkins Scale Of Theistic Probability. There are so many different concepts of what the deities are that somebody's concept could turn out to be describing reality. All I need is proof that somebody's concept actually is reality.

There's plenty of evidence that deities exist as subjective experiences produced by the brain, but then, all our experiences are produced by the brain. My own brain produces subjective experiences of pagan deities and I have learned how to tune into what I call New Age perception in order to have such experiences. Apollo turned up in a dream a few years ago. I had an experience of The Goddess on May Day and, when I tuned in again over the solstice, it was the Horned God of Wicca. As Christians can have subjective experiences of Jesus or the God of the Bible, does it mean every deity people have believed in are objective realities? It would be very difficult for the monotheistic God of Judaism/Christianity/Islam to exist as well as every other deity.

Is theism false? Maybe it depends on how one is defining theism - Symbolism Of Hindu Deities

The Vedic deities symbolize the forces in nature as well as inside human beings. While discussing the symbolic significance of Vedic deities in his The Secret of the Vedas, Rishi Aurobindo says that the gods, goddesses and demons mentioned in the Vedas represent various cosmic powers, on one hand and man's virtues and vices on the other.

Idol worship and rituals are at the heart of Hinduism have great religious and philosophical significance. All Hindu deities are themselves symbols of the abstract Absolute, and point to a particular aspect of the Brahman. The Hindu Trinity is represented by three Godheads: Brahma - the creator, Vishnu - the protector and Shiva - the destroyer.

Unlike the followers of any other religion, Hindus enjoy the freedom of worshipping their personally chosen icon to offer their prayers to the indefinable Brahman. Each deity in Hinduism controls a particular energy. These energies, present in man as wild forces must be controlled and canalized fruitfully to infuse a divine consciousness in him. For this, man has to gain the goodwill of different gods who stir up his consciousness accordingly to help him master the different forces of nature. In a person's path of spiritual progress, he or she needs to develop the various attributes of these godheads in him or her to attain all-round spiritual perfection.

This makes sense from the point of view of Jungian psychology which I've been using for around 30 years. Brahman is absolute reality. What, exactly, is absolute reality, though, and does it qualify as God?

Hindusim is thousands of years old so who knows what it really started out as.

So there you are. I know that Apollo, The Goddess and The Horned God exist as personal subjective experiences but I lack belief that they, or any other deity, exist as objective realities. I shall continue to lack that belief unless science can prove that my lack of belief is wrong.

[MindForgedManacle]

I lack belief in deities. Am I supposed to prove that I lack belief in deities?

Let me try to be more clear: Atheism is mostly regarded as the belief that no gods exist. Sure, people who are atheists do lack belief in the existence of God, but that's an incidental property (i.e it has nothing to do with atheism). Likewise, 0 is not a positive number, but that doesn't make it a negative number simply because it lacks positivity.

I class myself as 6.9 on the Dawkins Scale Of Theistic Probability. There are so many different concepts of what the deities are that somebody's concept could turn out to be describing reality. All I need is proof that somebody's concept actually is reality.

I think I'd say "agnostic" describes you better then, or maybe a weak atheist (although even the latter label has problems).

There's plenty of evidence that deities exist as subjective experiences produced by the brain, but then, all our experiences are produced by the brain. My own brain produces subjective experiences of pagan deities and I have learned how to tune into what I call New Age perception in order to have such experiences. Apollo turned up in a dream a few years ago. I had an experience of The Goddess on May Day and, when I tuned in again over the solstice, it was the Horned God of Wicca. As Christians can have subjective experiences of Jesus or the God of the Bible, does it mean every deity people have believed in are objective realities? It would be very difficult for the monotheistic God of Judaism/Christianity/Islam to exist as well as every other deity.

Of course our experiences sre produced by our brains, I would never make the argument that such was a cogent argument against theism or divine experiences.

Is theism false? Maybe it depends on how one is defining theism - Symbolism Of Hindu Deities

The Vedic deities symbolize the forces in nature as well as inside human beings. While discussing the symbolic significance of Vedic deities in his The Secret of the Vedas, Rishi Aurobindo says that the gods, goddesses and demons mentioned in the Vedas represent various cosmic powers, on one hand and man's virtues and vices on the other.

Idol worship and rituals are at the heart of Hinduism have great religious and philosophical significance. All Hindu deities are themselves symbols of the abstract Absolute, and point to a particular aspect of the Brahman. The Hindu Trinity is represented by three Godheads: Brahma - the creator, Vishnu - the protector and Shiva - the destroyer.

Unlike the followers of any other religion, Hindus enjoy the freedom of worshipping their personally chosen icon to offer their prayers to the indefinable Brahman. Each deity in Hinduism controls a particular energy. These energies, present in man as wild forces must be controlled and canalized fruitfully to infuse a divine consciousness in him. For this, man has to gain the goodwill of different gods who stir up his consciousness accordingly to help him master the different forces of nature. In a person's path of spiritual progress, he or she needs to develop the various attributes of these godheads in him or her to attain all-round spiritual perfection.

This makes sense from the point of view of Jungian psychology which I've been using for around 30 years. Brahman is absolute reality. What, exactly, is absolute reality, though, and does it qualify as God?

Hindusim is thousands of years old so who knows what it really started out as.

So there you are. I know that Apollo, The Goddess and The Horned God exist as personal subjective experiences but I lack belief that they, or any other deity, exist as objective realities. I shall continue to lack that belief unless science can prove that my lack of belief is wrong.

Okay.

[Whateverist]

Pretty much only atheists online use that definition of atheism, which pretty much pits them up against a cultural-linguistic wall, mostly because they just want to avoid the burden of proof.

I lack belief in deities. Am I supposed to prove that I lack belief in deities?

No apparently you're supposed to argue that they don't exist, to justify your belief that they don't exist.

I don't really know how one is supposed to argue that. I disagree that while Thor was a mythic character, Jesus was God almighty made flesh. I believe that Jesus and Thor have exactly the same phenomenological standing, the only caveat being that the former has more active literal believers today than does the latter. But why should that matter? Is there something I owe to xtians just because there are so many of them? I hardly see why. Furthermore I am in no hurry to separate xtians from their belief. Why should I make any case at all against belief in gods?

I do wish MFM would elaborate on why he thinks (if he does) that atheists have a burden of proof for not believing in gods. Is it simply semantics? I think I understand what gives rise to belief in gods. I certainly believe in the capacities and tendencies of consciousness to give rise to the perception that gods are real as fellow beings. So sure, I believe they are real experiences for believers; but no I don't believe gods have any existence apart from the forces which give rise to consciousness. Their existence is contingent upon the same brain structures and chemistry which gives rise to us.

[Confused Ape]

I lack belief in deities. Am I supposed to prove that I lack belief in deities?

Let me try to be more clear: Atheism is mostly regarded as the belief that no gods exist. Sure, people who are atheists do lack belief in the existence of God, but that's an incidental property (i.e it has nothing to do with atheism). Likewise, 0 is not a positive number, but that doesn't make it a negative number simply because it lacks positivity.

How about atheism is arguing over the correct definitions of atheism and agnosticism?

I class myself as 6.9 on the Dawkins Scale Of Theistic Probability. There are so many different concepts of what the deities are that somebody's concept could turn out to be describing reality. All I need is proof that somebody's concept actually is reality.

I think I'd say "agnostic" describes you better then, or maybe a weak atheist (although even the latter label has problems).

Modern science has come up with many different models of what the universe might be - a hologram or a computer simulation are just two of them. I currently lack belief in them because there is no actual proof as yet that anybody's model is describing reality. On the other hand, somebody's model could turn out to be right. All I need is proof that somebody's model is describing reality. That makes me a weak what in relation to modern scientific cosmology?

I think Richard Dawkins did a very good summing up of a 6.9.

Dawkins identifies himself repeatedly as an atheist, while also pointing out that, in a sense, he is also agnostic, though "only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden".

I'm not Richard Dawkins, though, so there's a possibility that, one day, I might have a subjective experience of fairies at the bottom of my garden.

Okay.

Exactly. Every atheist is an individual with individual viewpoints. There isn't a word which means - atheist who uses Jungian psychology and who has subjective experiences of deities but lacks belief in them as objective realities and will continue to do so unless science discovers absolute reality and proves it's the Hindu Brahman so all the deities are really aspects of it. This is why I put 'using New Age perception' for my Religious Views.

[Mister Agenda]

That's all atheism is.

Pretty much only atheists online use that definition of atheism, which pretty much pits them up against a cultural-linguistic wall, mostly because they just want to avoid the burden of proof.

This seems to be an assertion pulled from your ass. Dismissed, considering the source.

[MindForgedManacle]

This seems to be an assertion pulled from your ass. Dismissed, considering the source.

How did I pull this out of my ass if atheists do this online all the time. This is an outline of how they go about it:

-Redefine atheism to mean those who aren't theists (i.e those who "lack belief in the existence of gods")


-Thereby claim that since atheism (which they just redefined) isn't the belief that "no gods exist", they don't have to justify their position since they don't have the burden of proof or that they aren't making a positive claim.

-This results in all sorts of absurdities like saying that babies are atheists since they too lack belief in the existence of gods.


Are you really going to tell me you don't see atheists doing that? Because if you are, you're full of shit. That's the textbook move of atheists online when defending their position.

Not sure how the fact that I said it validates dismissing what I said out of hand.

[FatAndFaithless]

This seems to be an assertion pulled from your ass. Dismissed, considering the source.

How did I pull this out of my ass if atheists do this online all the time. This is an outline of how they go about it:

-Redefine atheism to mean those who aren't theists (i.e those who "lack belief in the existence of gods")


-Thereby claim that since atheism (which they just redefined) isn't the belief that "no gods exist", they don't have to justify their position since they don't have the burden of proof or that they aren't making a positive claim.

-This results in all sorts of absurdities like saying that babies are atheists since they too lack belief in the existence of gods.


Are you really going to tell me you don't see atheists doing that? Because if you are, you're full of shit. That's the textbook move of atheists online when defending their position.

Not sure how the fact that I said it validates dismissing what I said out of hand.

...but atheism is just lacking the beleif in a god or gods..

[MindForgedManacle]

No apparently you're supposed to argue that they don't exist, to justify your belief that they don't exist.

Was does need to justify the position one holds to, yes.

I do wish MFM would elaborate on why he thinks (if he does) that atheists have a burden of proof for not believing in gods. Is it simply semantics? I think I understand what gives rise to belief in gods. I certainly believe in the capacities and tendencies of consciousness to give rise to the perception that gods are real as fellow beings. So sure, I believe they are real experiences for believers; but no I don't believe gods have any existence apart from the forces which give rise to consciousness. Their existence is contingent upon the same brain structures and chemistry which gives rise to us.

Yes, I do believe atheists have a burden of proof. Not a burden of proof for merely lacking belief (which I think was just something atheists cooked up in a lawyerish fashion to try and avoid their BOP), but because I think the only meaningful definition of atheism is the one that the word means to most English speakers: people who believe no gods exist. Given that, claims like "we all start out as atheists since we start out lacking belief, so it is only the theists who have the burden of proof" are just nonsensical.

---

...but atheism is just lacking the beleif in a god or gods..

Except it isn't. Ask any person what they think an atheist is, and practically all of them will tell you something like "Someone who believes God doesn't exist." And this how words get their meaning, by how people use them. Online atheists basically just changed that for an attempted advantage on this topic.

[IAmTheeWallrus]

Traditionally agnostic speaks to the "know-ability"
An agnostic typically views the question as not knowable.
They think the question of god is not knowable and as such has neither belief nor disbelief because they think both are impossible.

An atheist thinks that if there was a god we could know it but rejects all available evidence.

[FatAndFaithless]

Traditionally agnostic speaks to the "know-ability"
An agnostic typically views the question as not knowable.
They think the question of god is not knowable and as such has neither belief nor disbelief because they think both are impossible.

An atheist thinks that if there was a god we could know it but rejects all available evidence.

Well speaking as an agnostic atheist...no. I'm agnostic because I don't think it's possible to know if a God does or does not exist (for now anyway), and I'm an atheist because I don't accept the proposition that a God does exist (theism).

---

No apparently you're supposed to argue that they don't exist, to justify your belief that they don't exist.

Was does need to justify the position one holds to, yes.

I do wish MFM would elaborate on why he thinks (if he does) that atheists have a burden of proof for not believing in gods. Is it simply semantics? I think I understand what gives rise to belief in gods. I certainly believe in the capacities and tendencies of consciousness to give rise to the perception that gods are real as fellow beings. So sure, I believe they are real experiences for believers; but no I don't believe gods have any existence apart from the forces which give rise to consciousness. Their existence is contingent upon the same brain structures and chemistry which gives rise to us.

Yes, I do believe atheists have a burden of proof. Not a burden of proof for merely lacking belief (which I think was just something atheists cooked up in a lawyerish fashion to try and avoid their BOP), but because I think the only meaningful definition of atheism is the one that the word means to most English speakers: people who believe no gods exist. Given that, claims like "we all start out as atheists since we start out lacking belief, so it is only the theists who have the burden of proof" are just nonsensical.

---

...but atheism is just lacking the beleif in a god or gods..

Except it isn't. Ask any person what they think an atheist is, and practically all of them will tell you something like "Someone who believes God doesn't exist." And this how words get their meaning, by how people use them. Online atheists basically just changed that for an attempted advantage on this topic.

That's part of the problem when discussing atheism with people, because there is the misconception that atheism is antitheism. I simply do not accept the claims about God's existence, what would classify me as?