Atheist or Agnostic?

[datc]

It seems obvious to me that the gnostic / agnostic distinction you are proposing regards speculative life, wherein proofs or God's existence or non-existence are entertained for the edification of all concerned.

The theist / atheist distinction concerns the active life.

Here's the key difference: when speculating, one can assume anything and see where the assumptions lead him. One need not actually believe anything, and the assumption may be false, as long as it is useful or reasonable to assume it.

When acting, one must base his plans on true beliefs, regardless of evidence for or against them. If one is building a bridge, then one is ipso facto extending assent or beliefs to a vast number of (hopefully) true propositions in math, physics, etc. It may be that the builder is using a controversial theory in his project. Despite the fact that many scientists hold this theory in contempt, all is forgiven as long as the bridge works.

Thus, if you live your life without relying on God in any way, then you are a (practical) atheist. If, in building a life for yourself (and not just a bridge), you do not depend on anything God-related, regardless of any speculative disputes regarding any proofs of God's existence, you're an atheist. If things of God "have no use to me and so I make all my plans without regard to them," then one is a confirmed atheist.

---

Also, I find the distinction between agnostic theists and agnostic atheists to be uninteresting.

The discussion proceeds between 1) those who think there is a proof of God's existence; 2) those who think there is a proof of God's non-existence; and 3) those who are unsure but are capable of contributing to the debate by taking, in a purely speculative way, at one point one side, and at another the other side, as matters appear to them.

Whether the agnostic is in addition a theist or atheist is his own personal life, and that's his own business and no one else's.

[Marsellus Wallace]

potato tomato

[Whateverist]

I admire the clarity and scope of your reply. As a matter of fact, I do rely on grace quite a bit. Not the grace of a god, so far as I know, but of what I would call the totality of myself. It seems the conscious mind is but one player in the phenomenon of consciousness. Quite a powerful player for sure, but that power can be withheld. No one is insightful or creative on the basis of his own deliberative designs alone. In anything remarkable or truly worthwhile there is often a spark of something more, and that spark is a gift which the conscious mind alone does not control.

I believe in plenty of wild things for which I cannot provide evidence. I just don't call any of them gods. So long as gods were understood as phenomenon of the mind, something on board with every human being, I would not have any problem acknowledging them. But always we are told that they are external to ourselves, eternal and the creator of all. By mixing claims regarding our internal workings with claims regarding the cosmos, religion becomes incoherent to me.

Nonetheless, I don't find anyone automatically lacking on account of their god belief. If they demonstrate insight and good intentions I'm impressed regardless of the self labeling. My agnosticism is primary for me, my atheism is primarily a reaction to finding the concept of god as most often espoused incoherent.

[abaris]

The discussion proceeds between 1) those who think there is a proof of God's existence; 2) those who think there is a proof of God's non-existence; and 3) those who are unsure but are capable of contributing to the debate by taking, in a purely speculative way, at one point one side, and at another the other side, as matters appear to them.

It's the same simplistic black and white scheme over and over again.

I call myself an agnostic because I don't possess all the knowledge of the universe. If I did, I would be god. Calling myself an agnostic doesn't imply doubts about the nonexistence of the christian god. Or the jewish or muslim franchise for that matter. I'm also sure about Zeus, Odin, Morrigan and all the other gods humans have dreamt up over the ages to fill their gaps of knowledge.

Why? Because the pieces don't fit. All these gods are basically superheroes or supervillains from a cheap comic book. They're human through and through with human vices, human traits, human pettiness and very human behavior. What's more, considering scientific knowledge - and going back to the christian rendition - why would an all knowing, all powerful creator wait about 10 billion years before creating planet earth? Why would this being wait another four billion years for his favorite creation to evolve? And why would this being suddenly crop up in the desert to make himself known to a not too civillized tribal half nomadic people?

We, as humans, are a chicken fart in earth's existence. We came into being five minutes before midnight. Right now we've clocked off about 5 percent of the time the dinosaurs walked the earth and that's taking the most generous estimates. Assuming you know all that, it's pretty hard to subscribe to the christian god or any god for that matter. I don't know you, I don't know anything about your believes, but if you're actually subscribing to the Adam and Eve story, there's simply no use to discuss the matter any further.

[datc]

All these gods are basically superheroes or supervillains from a cheap comic book.

Then your concept of God, i.e., the meaning you attribute to the term "God," is defective.

[bennyboy]

The default position for any claim in disbelief until sufficient evidence is adduced to convince you.

I don't think this is true.  It depends who's making the claim and who's assessing it, and what the claim is.

I think the default for children listening to parents, for example, is (and should be) belief.

---

All these gods are basically superheroes or supervillains from a cheap comic book.

Then your concept of God, i.e., the meaning you attribute to the term "God," is defective.

Really?  How do you determine the correctness of God concepts?  Let me guess-- God is an everlasting, all-loving God who punishes non-believers with an eternity of damnation?

[Ravenshire]

All these gods are basically superheroes or supervillains from a cheap comic book.

Then your concept of God, i.e., the meaning you attribute to the term "God," is defective.

So, perhaps you'd like to define your concept of god(s) and provide some evidence to support the existence thereof...

Until then, abaris' concept is just as valid as yours.

[abaris]

Then your concept of God, i.e., the meaning you attribute to the term "God," is defective.

No, and if you read my post, you should get it: My concept of god(s) is that they are human constructs based on the times and cultural circumstances they were created. They're what's called a Mary Sue in literature - with added superpowers. And - to repeat what I already said - they are constructs to fill the gaps of human understanding.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm an agnostic atheist. I have no faith, and I see no reason to lend credence to bullshit bereft of evidence, but I know better than to claim knowledge I don't have.

I don't know why that's so hard to understand.

[Mudhammam]

Universe - God
Cause of Universe - God
Earth - God
Sun - God
Collective Consciousness - God
Heavenly Superman - God
Personal Dear Abbey - God
Inspirer of All Religion - God
Inspirer of My Religion - God
Life - God
Being With Greater Than Human Intelligence - God
Personal Hero - God

Which (rough) idea are we going with here?