Notices

View Poll Results: Are agnostics atheists?

Voters
14. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    3 21.43%
  • No

    11 78.57%
Results 1 to 77 of 77

Thread: Are agnostics atheists?

  1. #1 Are agnostics atheists? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Are they?

    Edit: and I mean Huxley-type agnostics, btw.


    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Are bees trees?


    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Agnostics don't deny the existence of gods. Strong atheists do.

    Of course, it all boils down to the claims of theists, which clearly cannot be accepted under even a modicum of intelligence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Anybody that thinks the two are the same has clearly lost it and does need to go back to school.
    Gnostic = a belief with absolute knowledge that God exists, A-gnostic = a belief without the absolute knowledge that God exists.
    Theist = with belief in God, A-theist = without belief in God, it really is that simple.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Anybody that thinks the two are the same has clearly lost it and does need to go back to school.
    Gnostic = a belief with absolute knowledge that God exists, A-gnostic = a belief without the absolute knowledge that God exists.
    Theist = with belief in God, A-theist = without belief in God, it really is that simple.
    I can give you a whole site of atheists who believe that agnostics are atheists.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

    I can give you a whole site of atheists who believe that agnostics are atheists.
    Yes, but you could you provide a site in which a single god with a single message for all of humanity has been discovered?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Guest
    Does that change the fact they need to go back to school? I think not
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

    I can give you a whole site of atheists who believe that agnostics are atheists.
    Yes, but you could you provide a site in which a single god with a single message for all of humanity has been discovered?
    Perhaps.

    I'll get back to you in the afterlife.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Does that change the fact they need to go back to school? I think not
    Quite true.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Perhaps.

    I'll get back to you in the afterlife.[/quote]

    “Cast aside those who liken godliness to whimsy and who try to combine their greed for wealth with their desire for a happy afterlife.”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: Are agnostics atheists? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Are they?

    Edit: and I mean Huxley-type agnostics, btw.
    When Huxley originally coined the term, he was using it to mean the belief that it's fundamentally impossible for man to know one way or the other whether or not gods/the supernatural exist and that any attempt to decide one way or the other was futile.

    Of course, since then the definition has mutated so that now when most people say "agnostic" what they really mean is "undecided." An original Huxley-type agnostic would indeed be undecided, but they would go a step further and also claim that it's futile to even consider the issue.

    So it’s impossible for an agnostic to be a strong atheist, but an agnostic could still be a weak atheist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

    Perhaps.

    I'll get back to you in the afterlife.
    “Cast aside those who liken godliness to whimsy and who try to combine their greed for wealth with their desire for a happy afterlife.”
    Say what?
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    This atheist happens to be agnostic. But I'm a rationalist first.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    No offensive here guys but I find all the different types of names for the beliefs you have; humanist, naturist, rationalist, deist, atheist, are irrelevant if you don't believe in God because all of you should be humanly all these mean more or less the same. This is not the case though when you don't believe in God but don't care about human beings or nature is it?

    It seriously makes me laugh that you have to put yoursleves into these little groups for some reason. There are as many groups that don't believe in God as there are for those that do.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    LaVeyan Satanists don't believe in any deities. All gods are the creation of humans. But because LaVeyan Satanists and Atheists would agree that gods are man-made creations, does that mean they're the same thing? No.

    There are many other beliefs that need to be taken into account. So we need different words to separate them.

    Much as the various sects of Christianity do not share all the same beliefs, therefore we have Baptists, Protestants, Catholics etc. etc.

    You're forgetting that religion is not a belief. It's a belief system.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    LaVeyan Satanists don't believe in any deities. All gods are the creation of humans. But because LaVeyan Satanists and Atheists would agree that gods are man-made creations, does that mean they're the same thing? No.

    There are many other beliefs that need to be taken into account. So we need different words to separate them.

    Much as the various sects of Christianity do not share all the same beliefs, therefore we have Baptists, Protestants, Catholics etc. etc.

    You're forgetting that religion is not a belief. It's a belief system.
    A system? I don't believe in a system. I believe in God and Jesus and that everything that God has made is for the best in the long term and that Christ is my saviour. If a fellow Christian wanted to kill someone because they stole or something-I'd stop them. I'd never hurt a sole (physically and try not to emotionally). It saddens me that many people who believe in God would kill others when clearly it says "Thou shall not murder". But if we were forced to war would you fight to protect our children from evil? Of course, even if that means killing those who are fighting for the same reason. In an insane world, believeing in God is the sanest choice. Even if some think its only an imagined false barrier.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    A system? I don't believe in a system.
    Yes, you do.

    Do you believe in a god? Yes. Belief 1.
    Which god do you believe in? The Judeo-Christian God. And He alone. You are monotheistic. You are not Wicca.
    Do you believe in Jesus? Yes. Belief 3. You are not Jewish.
    Do you believe in the Bible alone, or do you accept certain books considered apocrypha? If no, then you're probably not Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran or Episcopalian.
    Do you believe the Bible contains the whole revelation? If yes, then you could be Methodist. If no, then you could be Orthodox.
    Do you believe in personal guardian angels? That is a belief. If no, then you could be presbyterian.
    Do you believe Satan is real, or a metaphor? If the latter, you could be Lutheran. But you might not be, because some Lutherans view Satan as real.
    Do you believe Mary conceived immaculately? If no, then you could be
    Orthodox.

    What are your feelings on original sin? On human nature? On free will? On attonement? On the salvation of man? On judgement day? Do you believe in black magic? Do you believe in white magick?

    I might add, this extends to questions outside of your own religion as well. What are your feelings on Buddha, for example. What are your feelings on Muhammed? How do you feel about reincarnation? How do you feel about Big Bang Theory? It's a whole system of "I accept this, I reject that". There is no "I just believe in Jesus".

    The Bible also has its own moral positions on many subjects, which - if you accept the bible and the word of Jesus - you must take. Each of these moral stances forms part of your belief system.

    You can't just say "I believe in Jesus", but not listen to anything he said. Jesus said homosexuality is wrong (homosexuals will not get into heaven).

    So would you disagree that your belief system includes belief in god, belief in jesus, and belief that homosexuality is wrong? Jesus also said it's wrong to be jealous of others.

    So would you disagree that your belief system includes belief in god, belief in jesus, homosexuality is wrong and jealousy is wrong? If I disagree with a single belief, then I would be of a different (albeit similar, if we only disagree on one thing) system of belief.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Ok then. I have faith and deeds in The LORD. Thats not a system.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Ok then. I have faith and deeds in The LORD. Thats not a system.
    That one sentence alone admits to having a system.

    Do you believe in a god? Yes. That's one belief.
    Do you believe in more than one? No. That's two beliefs.
    Which is the only god? You believe the Judeo-Christian god. That's three beliefs.

    Further, do you believe in Jesus and the bible? If you answer "yes" to that, then I can add another two or three hundred beliefs that you must have. Here's an example:

    Eph 5:1-14 Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person--such a man is an idolater--has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
    Notch up a few more beliefs there, please.

    Here's another one.

    1 Corinthians 11:1: "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ."
    So add all of Jesus's teachings to your beliefs.

    Every tiny little belief that you seem to think doesn't matter, forms part of a system. And if you look closely enough, you'll find how they play off each other too. For example, I have a Buddhist friend who's not much for murder and he refuses to eat meat. See how they're connected? Sanctity of life.

    Do you believe in the ten commandments?

    ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

    TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

    THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

    FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

    FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

    SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

    SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

    EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

    NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

    TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'
    Since you believe in "The Lord", you must accept his commandments. So please add these beliefs to your SYSTEM.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Ok then. I have faith and deeds in The LORD. Thats not a system.
    That one sentence alone admits to having a system.

    Do you believe in a god? Yes. That's one belief.
    Do you believe in more than one? No. That's two beliefs.
    Which is the only god? You believe the Judeo-Christian god. That's three beliefs.

    Further, do you believe in Jesus and the bible? If you answer "yes" to that, then I can add another two or three hundred beliefs that you must have. Here's an example:

    Eph 5:1-14 Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person--such a man is an idolater--has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
    Notch up a few more beliefs there, please.

    Here's another one.

    1 Corinthians 11:1: "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ."
    So add all of Jesus's teachings to your beliefs.

    Every tiny little belief that you seem to think doesn't matter, forms part of a system. And if you look closely enough, you'll find how they play off each other too. For example, I have a Buddhist friend who's not much for murder and he refuses to eat meat. See how they're connected? Sanctity of life.

    Do you believe in the ten commandments?

    ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

    TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

    THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

    FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

    FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

    SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

    SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

    EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

    NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

    TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'
    Since you believe in "The Lord", you must accept his commandments. So please add these beliefs to your SYSTEM.
    Do I? I have faith and deeds in The LORD. From your atheist stand point I don't have to believe in God to do these things however irrational it may seem. Call it a system if you like.

    Not that I'm saying that my above statement is incorrect. I follow God and God alone. Anything below that what he says is the word of His Kingdom.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    From your atheist stand point I don't have to believe in God to do these things however irrational it may seem. Call it a system if you like.

    Not that I'm saying that my above statement is incorrect. I follow God and God alone. Anything below that what he says is the word of His Kingdom.
    Why do you assume I'm atheist?

    Also, atheism is a belief system as well. It too is a series of connected beliefs. Do you believe in god? No. That's a belief. Do you believe jesus was the son of god? No. See how those two are connected? If there's no god, how could jesus be his son.

    This is why we need appellations (which is the point of this thread) for various belief systems... because two groups may agree on some things, but not others. As mentioned, atheists would agree with LaVeyan Satanists that gods are created by men. But that in no way makes them the same.

    There are many beliefs that the two groups disagree on: they are different systems. A series of beliefs. You can't say "If you don't believe in god, you are a satanist". It isn't logical. Belief in a god is only one part of a whole.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    LaVeyan Satanists don't believe in any deities.
    So would you're saying someone who defines atheism as "a lack of belief in gods" would have to classify LaVeyan Satanists as atheistic?

    I don't quite agree that they are atheists, but... depends on how you define it, I guess.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Don't they?
    No. But Theistic Satanists (and Luciferians) do. Unless you want to count worship of the self as worship of a deity?
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Don't they?
    No. But Theistic Satanists (and Luciferians) do. Unless you want to count worship of the self as worship of a deity?
    Sorry, I edited my post before you responded.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Why do you seem to think belief is equivalent to non-belief, TvEye?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Why do you seem to think belief is equivalent to non-belief, TvEye?
    I think because non-belief in that God does not exist is because that is a belief.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    So would you're saying someone who defines atheism as "a lack of belief in gods" would have to classify LaVeyan Satanists as atheistic?

    I don't quite agree that they are atheists, but... depends on how you define it, I guess.
    I don't agree either. That's the point. They're different systems of belief. LaVeyan Satanists do not believe in or worship external deities. Their belief is "I am God".

    Atheists do not believe in or worship external deities. An atheist does not believe that he himself is god. That's obviously not the only difference, but the point is: They are different systems.

    You can't ask one question ("Do you believe in god?") and just divide people into three groups ("yes", "no" and "maybe") based on that answer.

    How many religions are there? Including cults. So answering "yes" does not automatically make one Christian. Saying the Judeo-Christian God does not necessarily mean Christian. And once we've established that someone is, in fact, Christian, there are even further ways to divide these groups.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Why do you seem to think belief is equivalent to non-belief, TvEye?
    If you don't believe there is a god, then you do believe there isn't a god.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Why do you seem to think belief is equivalent to non-belief, TvEye?
    If you don't believe there is a god, then you do believe there isn't a god.
    Not necessarily.

    A person can not believe in God, yet at the same time not believe God doesn't exist.

    I call such a person a 'pure agnostic', because they simply don't know whether God exists or not; they don't believe in Him, but they don't say He doesn't exist.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Not necessarily.

    A person can not believe in God, yet at the same time not believe God doesn't exist.

    I call such a person a 'pure agnostic', because they simply don't know whether God exists or not; they don't believe in Him, but they don't say He doesn't exist.
    Yes necessarily.

    A person can believe in not believing in God, yet at the same time believe in the possibility that God does exist.

    I call such a person a 'pure agnostic', because they simply don't know whether God exists or not; they do acknowledge the possibility of him, but they don't say he does exist.

    Understand?
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Can we stop saying:

    nonbelief = belief

    Because

    belief = nonbelief

    Because

    nonbelief in a negative = belief in a belief

    ?

    It's true that - and - makes a +, but using that logic the wrong way you'll distort the meaning of something that's actually not the same.

    - is not equivalent to + just because - and - makes a +.

    + and + makes a +, thus + and - are two different things that needs to be understood correctly.

    Savy?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    I'm confused...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Well, by the previous reply, I would be considered a "pure agnostic". I believe both are possibilities. There is no non-belief in the equation. An atheist believes that god is not a possibility. A theist believes that not god is not a possibility. The only non-belief I can think of would be better described as "apathetic", or "indecisive".
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I believe "belief" is an ambiguous term.
    I’d have to agree with TVeye on this. Scwillmer is just being stubborn. I am sure he also understands your point. Another thing to consider is that MANY theists count themselves as part of a certain group, but never really investigate exactly what it is they believe in. A possible result of this is that two people might reject each other on the grounds of the other person’s denomination, while they might believe the same thing! In most respects, a person’s denomination is more a product of wanting/being used to be part of a certain group, than actually knowing exactly what it is you stand for and what you protect when you engage others of different beliefs.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    So in conclusion, nonbelief is a meaningless word?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    So in conclusion, nonbelief is a meaningless word?
    No, but you can omit the non- if you alter the sentence correctly. I just prefer to be positive about things.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    I think opinions are very much alike and are effective to another, rather like belief entanglement instead of quantum entanglement
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    So in conclusion, nonbelief is a meaningless word?
    No, but you can omit the non- if you alter the sentence correctly. I just prefer to be positive about things.
    In other words, if you distort the meaning of the word you'll get it the way you want instead of how it really is? Either belief is belief and non-belief is non-belief or the word non-belief is meaningless. It wouldn't make sense otherwise, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I think much confusion arises from people wrongly (including me) using words like believe, know and think in a varyingly interchangeable capacity.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    In other words, if you distort the meaning of the word you'll get it the way you want instead of how it really is? Either belief is belief and non-belief is non-belief or the word non-belief is meaningless. It wouldn't make sense otherwise, right?
    Ok. If you want to get technical about it: firstly, the antonym of "belief" is "disbelief". The word "non-belief" does not exist. So arguments regarding the correct usage of a non-existent word are futile.

    Which of these two are correct:

    An atheist has a disbelief in the existence of God.
    An atheist believes that God does not exist.

    I assume you prefer the former? But, assuming you've studied English, you are aware that good practice is stating what is and not what isn't.

    As you can see, by reading those two sentences, the meaning of the former has been obscured. It is unclear whether an atheist does not believe in God, since there are levels of disbelief.

    The latter sentence is correct.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Yea that makes sense, thanks for clearing that up TvEye
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    In other words, if you distort the meaning of the word you'll get it the way you want instead of how it really is? Either belief is belief and non-belief is non-belief or the word non-belief is meaningless. It wouldn't make sense otherwise, right?
    Ok. If you want to get technical about it: firstly, the antonym of "belief" is "disbelief". The word "non-belief" does not exist. So arguments regarding the correct usage of a non-existent word are futile.
    the "non" prefix however does change the meaning of words, the "non" prefix is used extensively for all sorts meaning changes, it may not exist as a word on it's own but as a hyphen it can make perfect sense.

    # non·bac·te·ri·al
    # non·bar·bi·tu·rate
    # non·bary·on·ic
    # non·ba·sic
    # non·bear·ing
    # non·be·hav·ior·al
    # non·be·ing
    # non·be·lief
    # non·be·liev·er

    # non·bel·lig·er·en·cy
    # non·bel·lig·er·ent
    # non·bet·ting
    # non·bib·li·cal
    # non·bib·lio·graph·ic
    # non·bi·na·ry
    # non·bind·ing
    # non·bio·de·grad·able
    # non·bio·graph·i·cal
    # non·bi·o·log·i·cal
    # non·bi·o·log·i·cal·ly
    # non·bi·ol·o·gist
    # non·bit·ing
    # non·black
    # non·body
    # non·bond·ed
    # non·bot·a·nist
    # non·brand
    # non·break·able
    # non·breath·ing
    # non·breed·er
    # non·breed·ing
    # non·broad·cast
    # non·build·ing
    # non·burn·able
    # non·buy·ing
    just to give you some idea the rest are here http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...y&va=nonbelief
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    Which of these two are correct:

    An atheist has a disbelief in the existence of God.
    An atheist believes that God does not exist.


    The latter sentence is correct.
    sorry this is not quite correct, you cannot say the atheist believes god does not exist, he has no literal belief in a god/gods.
    so he lacks belief in god/gods. Saying he believes god does not exist, makes the assumption he believes the negative, whereas he doesn't, he simply has no beliefs in god/gods whatsoever.
    an atheist is: a non-believer, a person who lacks belief.
    an atheist is: a unbeliever, a person who does not believe.
    non-belief and unbelief are the state or quality of not believing.
    an atheist has no belief, he is simply without belief in god/gods, devils/demons, elves, dragons, unicorns, and anything else you care to imagine.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    Well, by the previous reply, I would be considered a "pure agnostic". I believe both are possibilities. There is no non-belief in the equation. An atheist believes that god is not a possibility. A theist believes that not god is not a possibility. The only non-belief I can think of would be better described as "apathetic", or "indecisive".
    I'm afraid I must disagree again.

    I'm a theist, but I don't believe that the non-existence of God is not a possibility.

    There are also atheists who believe that existence of a god is a possibility, but that the existence is nevertheless unlikely.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    There are also atheists who believe that existence of a god is a possibility, but that the existence is nevertheless unlikely.
    The 'possibility' you refer has equal weighting with the FSM and the Celestial Teapot. Possible, but unlikely.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    There are also atheists who believe that existence of a god is a possibility, but that the existence is nevertheless unlikely.
    The 'possibility' you refer has equal weighting with the FSM and the Celestial Teapot. Possible, but unlikely.
    You've just basically repeated what I said.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    just to give you some idea the rest are here http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...y&va=nonbelief
    Dictionary.com : Non-belief, no entry.

    Reader's Digest Great Encyclopaedic Dictionary, no entry. Nonbeliever exists. "Disbelief" is the antonym of belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    an atheist has no belief, he is simply without belief in god/gods, devils/demons, elves, dragons, unicorns, and anything else you care to imagine.
    He does have a belief. He believes that the aforementioned do not exist. If he had NO belief, then he would be apathetic. He simply doesn't care enough to make a decision either way. But he has decided on the matter.

    belief: noun. 1.something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

    The atheist has heard both sides of the story. He has weighed the evidence and decided that in his opinion, god does not exist.

    It is his belief that god does not exist.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

    You've just basically repeated what I said.
    Did I? .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    I'm a theist, but I don't believe that the non-existence of God is not a possibility.
    Then something like this:

    Strong agnosticism or positive agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for humans to know whether or not any deities exist.

    An agnostic theist is one who views that the truth value of certain claims, in particular the existence of god(s) is unknown or inherently unknowable but chooses to believe in god(s) in spite of this.

    There are also atheists who believe that existence of a god is a possibility, but that the existence is nevertheless unlikely.
    Do you mean agnostic atheism?

    There are several specific beliefs that are within the defined limits of agnostic atheism. An agnostic atheist may be described as a person who does not believe in God or gods and who holds one or more of the following to be true:

    The existence or nonexistence of deities is not known or is unknowable.
    The knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of deities is unimportant.
    The claim to knowledge of existence or nonexistence of deities is best avoided.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    TvEye, you may be interested in these definitions:

    [1]Atheist: someone who holds that it is unlikely (and, in extreme cases, impossible) that god exists.
    [2]Theist: someone who holds that it is likely that god exists (and in extreme cases, god definitely exists).
    [3]Pure (Huxley's) Agnostic: someone who holds that she doesn't know the likeliness of god's existence.
    [4]E-Agnostic: someone who holds that the likeliness of god's existence and non-existence is equal.

    [5]Agnostic atheist: someone who holds that she doesn't know whether god exists, but that it is unlikely that it does.
    [6]Gnostic atheist: someone who holds that she knows that god doesn't exist.
    [7]Agnostic theist: someone who holds that she doesn't know whether god exists, but that it is likely that it does.
    [8]Gnostic theist: someone who holds that she knows that god exists.
    [9]Pure agnostic: someone who holds that she doesn't know that god exists, and she doesn't know the likeliness of god's existence.

    *The 'E' on #4 means 'equal probability'.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Just for fun:

    [1]Atheist: someone who believes that it is unlikely (and, in extreme cases, impossible) that god exists.
    [2]Theist: someone who believes that it is likely that god exists (and in extreme cases, god definitely exists).
    [3]Pure (Huxley's) Agnostic: someone who believes that she doesn't know the likeliness of god's existence.
    [4]E-Agnostic: someone who believes that the likeliness of god's existence and non-existence is equal.

    [5]Agnostic atheist: someone who believes that she doesn't know whether god exists, but that it is unlikely that it does.
    [6]Gnostic atheist: someone who believes that she knows that god doesn't exist.
    [7]Agnostic theist: someone who believes that she doesn't know whether god exists, but that it is likely that it does.
    [8]Gnostic theist: someone who believes that she knows that god exists.
    [9]Pure agnostic: someone who believes that she doesn't know that god exists, and she doesn't know the likeliness of god's existence.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    [2]Theist: someone who holds that it is likely that god exists (and in extreme cases, god definitely exists).
    Thanks though. I always thought the definition of a theist was a person who believes that god definately exists.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    Just for fun:

    [1]Atheist: someone who believes that it is unlikely (and, in extreme cases, impossible) that god exists.
    [2]Theist: someone who believes that it is likely that god exists (and in extreme cases, god definitely exists).
    [3]Pure (Huxley's) Agnostic: someone who believes that she doesn't know the likeliness of god's existence.
    [4]E-Agnostic: someone who believes that the likeliness of god's existence and non-existence is equal.

    [5]Agnostic atheist: someone who believes that she doesn't know whether god exists, but that it is unlikely that it does.
    [6]Gnostic atheist: someone who believes that she knows that god doesn't exist.
    [7]Agnostic theist: someone who believes that she doesn't know whether god exists, but that it is likely that it does.
    [8]Gnostic theist: someone who believes that she knows that god exists.
    [9]Pure agnostic: someone who believes that she doesn't know that god exists, and she doesn't know the likeliness of god's existence.
    "Believe" doesn't fit with "pure agnostic". The pure agnostic knows that she doesn't know the likeliness.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    [2]Theist: someone who holds that it is likely that god exists (and in extreme cases, god definitely exists).
    Thanks though. I always thought the definition of a theist was a person who believes that god definately exists.
    Nope. That would be a gnostic theist. A theist in general would hold that it's likely.

    If you'd view 'definitely' to mean 'completely likely', then you'll see that the above definition is the best (it encompasses both gnostic and agnostic theists).
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    "Believe" doesn't fit with "pure agnostic". The pure agnostic knows that she doesn't know the likeliness.
    Strong agnosticism or positive agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for humans to know whether or not any deities exist.

    Are we referring to the same group, but with a different name? Or am I missing something?
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    "Believe" doesn't fit with "pure agnostic". The pure agnostic knows that she doesn't know the likeliness.
    Strong agnosticism or positive agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for humans to know whether or not any deities exist.

    Are we referring to the same group, but with a different name? Or am I missing something?
    Strong agnosticism would be a truth claim; however, I speak of someone who says she doesn't know.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    just to give you some idea the rest are here http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...y&va=nonbelief
    Dictionary.com : Non-belief, no entry.

    Reader's Digest Great Encyclopaedic Dictionary, no entry. Nonbeliever exists. "Disbelief" is the antonym of belief.
    I never said it was a word on it's own, perhaps you missed what I said, or are you just being factious.
    here it is again, I've highlighted the main part this time ok. "the "non" prefix however does change the meaning of words, the "non" prefix is used extensively for all sorts meaning changes, it may not exist as a word on it's own, but as a hyphen it can make perfect sense."
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    an atheist has no belief, he is simply without belief in god/gods, devils/demons, elves, dragons, unicorns, and anything else you care to imagine.
    He does have a belief. He believes that the aforementioned do not exist. If he had NO belief, then he would be apathetic. He simply doesn't care enough to make a decision either way. But he has decided on the matter.

    belief: noun. 1.something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

    The atheist has heard both sides of the story. He has weighed the evidence and decided that in his opinion, god does not exist.

    It is his belief that god does not exist.
    you still have it totally wrong, would you say a new born baby, has a belief. does it believes that the aforementioned do not exist. If it had NO belief, then he would be apathetic. it simply doesn't care enough to make a decision either way. But it has decided on the matter.?
    we are born atheist. A=without, theist=God, without belief in god/gods, in fact godless.
    think about it for a while and then get back to me, if you still dont get it.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Strong agnosticism would be a truth claim; however, I speak of someone who says she doesn't know.
    If she doesn't know and neither can/does anyone else, then it would fit into what I posted as "Strong/Positive Agnosticism" (sounds like we're talking about the same thing).

    If she doesn't know, but someone else might have the necessary data:

    Weak agnosticism, or empirical agnosticism (also negative agnosticism), is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable and therefore one should withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Strong agnosticism would be a truth claim; however, I speak of someone who says she doesn't know.
    If she doesn't know and neither can/does anyone else, then it would fit into what I posted as "Strong/Positive Agnosticism" (sounds like we're talking about the same thing).

    If she doesn't know, but someone else might have the necessary data:

    Weak agnosticism, or empirical agnosticism (also negative agnosticism), is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable and therefore one should withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available.
    Ok. Sounds good to me.

    I guess "pure/Huxley's agnosticism" would encompass strong and weak agnosticism.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59 Re: Are agnostics atheists? 
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Are they?
    Edit: and I mean Huxley-type agnostics, btw.
    they cant be the same why would you think that. One your born as (atheist) so you have no belief in Gods, the other is learnt[agnostic), you make a Conscious decision to say your unsure whether theres a god.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    you still have it totally wrong, would you say a new born baby, has a belief. does it believes that the aforementioned do not exist. If it had NO belief, then he would be apathetic. it simply doesn't care enough to make a decision either way. But it has decided on the matter.?
    we are born atheist. A=without, theist=God, without belief in god/gods, in fact godless.
    think about it for a while and then get back to me, if you still dont get it.
    I understand. I will concede that babies do not have a belief and "non-belief" would be applicable in that case.

    But once we stop being babies, and become exposed to religion - as we ALL have been - we make a decision. Whether "yes" (Now I have been exposed, and I believe this), "no" (Now I have been exposed, and I do not believe this) or "maybe" (Now I have been exposed, and I will believe this is a possibility), we all make a decision to accept or reject religion. We form opinions.

    A person may be born with non-belief, but once he is exposed to religion, he chooses whether to accept or reject it. Once you are exposed to it, you must form an opinion. If you don't, you are apathetic. You don't care enough to formulate an opinion on the subject.

    An atheist is not a newborn baby who's never heard of any of this stuff. He's heard the arguments of both sides (at least, I should hope he has) and formulated an educated opinion. It is his belief that deities do not exist.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Children are born neither theist or atheist as they are unable to form the concepts of belief.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Geezer, we are NOT born atheist. We are born purely agnostic.

    Babies don't conclude that gods' existence is unlikely.

    Babies DON'T KNOW whether gods exist or not; so they are agnostic.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

    Babies DON'T KNOW whether gods exist or not; so they are agnostic.
    Nope. Babies are unable to form concepts of committment, knowledge and doubt.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

    Babies DON'T KNOW whether gods exist or not; so they are agnostic.
    Nope. Babies are unable to form concepts of committment, knowledge and doubt.
    And as a result can't accept or deny God because they don't know it. They don't not believe in God and they don't believe in God-why? Because they don't know that stuff. So no one is born atheist.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Geezer, we are NOT born atheist. We are born purely agnostic.

    Babies don't conclude that gods' existence is unlikely.

    Babies DON'T KNOW whether gods exist or not; so they are agnostic.
    do you know what a agnostic is I posted this on page one this thread.
    "Gnostic = a belief with absolute knowledge that God exists,
    A-gnostic = a belief without the absolute knowledge that God exists."
    so where did these babies get the knowledge.
    babies are born without a belief or the knowledge of anything supernatural, be they gods of elves, etc... technically there atheist.

    svwillmer this was posted up by susan sometime ago
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    A-Theist.

    The "A" prefix means without/non/aint got no.
    As in....
    Asexual=having no sex or sexual organs.(not a belief theres no sex organs)
    Amoral=without moral.(not a belief theres no morals)
    Apolitical=not political.(not a belief theres no politics)
    Atypical=not typical.(not a belief there not typical)
    Asymmetric=not symmetrical.(not a belief theres no symmetry)
    Atheist=not theist.(not a belief theres no god)

    thats IT. no other assumptions can be made from it.
    so as you say
    Quote Originally Posted by svwilmer
    And as a result can't accept or deny God because they don't know it. They don't not believe in God and they don't believe in God-why? Because they don't know that stuff. So no one is born atheist.
    so they're in effect without belief in god, they're in effect without knowledge of god, wouldn't you agree?

    edit typo
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    you still have it totally wrong, would you say a new born baby, has a belief. does it believes that the aforementioned do not exist. If it had NO belief, then he would be apathetic. it simply doesn't care enough to make a decision either way. But it has decided on the matter.?
    we are born atheist. A=without, theist=God, without belief in god/gods, in fact godless.
    think about it for a while and then get back to me, if you still dont get it.
    I understand. I will concede that babies do not have a belief and "non-belief" would be applicable in that case.

    But once we stop being babies, and become exposed to religion - as we ALL have been - we make a decision. Whether "yes" (Now I have been exposed, and I believe this), "no" (Now I have been exposed, and I do not believe this) or "maybe" (Now I have been exposed, and I will believe this is a possibility), we all make a decision to accept or reject religion. We form opinions.

    A person may be born with non-belief, but once he is exposed to religion, he chooses whether to accept or reject it. Once you are exposed to it, you must form an opinion. If you don't, you are apathetic. You don't care enough to formulate an opinion on the subject.

    An atheist is not a newborn baby who's never heard of any of this stuff. He's heard the arguments of both sides (at least, I should hope he has) and formulated an educated opinion. It is his belief that deities do not exist.
    Must Atheists Deny or Affirm the Existence of Every Alleged God?


    Myth:
    Once you are introduced to an idea you cannot stay neutral about it. You can brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject it, or do something in between. But, you cannot return to a lack of belief position if lack of belief is defined as a non-intellectual commitment or non-action concerning it. Complete neutrality about a concept is impossible since all concepts have an effect upon the hearer and illicit a response whether it be emotional and/or intellectual.


    Response:

    Christians' objections to defining atheism as simply the absence of belief in gods can extend to blatant misrepresentation of what should be a simple concept in order to divert attention from what atheism really is. In the case of this myth, we find that people will inexplicably distort the simple nature of "not believing the truth of a proposition" in order to pretend that it's not possible to merely lack belief in the truth of someone's claims. This makes the myth easy to refute.

    To begin with, it is true that exposure to a concept will have some sort of effect on a person — even if that effect is pretty minor and perhaps even unconscious. If we go so far as to discuss and ponder a concept, then we will surely have some sort of reaction to it. Our reactions might be intellectual, emotional, or both.

    None of this, however, prevents us from maintaining some sort of "neutrality" on the subject. Thus we have the first error in the myth: being affected by an idea is not the same as not being neutral on an idea. Perhaps it could be argued that 100% perfect and complete neutrality is impossible, but only because we humans aren't prefect at anything. Excepting such an extreme possibility, there doesn't appear to be any good reason to assert that we cannot stay relatively neutral about an idea we have been exposed to.

    The next step which the myth attempts to make is to equate neutrality with a lack of belief, claiming that a "lack of belief" in something is the same as non-intellectual commitment, non-action, and thus complete neutrality. This is a rather complex attempt to describe something quite simple: if someone makes a claim, and I don't accept that claim as true, then I lack belief in the truth of the claim — even if I don't take the extra step of asserting that the claim is false. There is nothing here about non-intellectual commitment, non-action, or neutrality.

    Given some claim which I don't believe, but also don't describe as false, there are many possible steps which might be open to me. I might think that the truth or falsehood of the claim is so important that I commit myself to a detailed investigation to learn as much as I can. I might think that the truth or falsehood of the claim would be very dangerous, and so commit myself to take significant action to try to prevent possible harm. I might find the claim to be too vague or incoherent to make sense of. I might find the claim to be so trivial that I just don't care if it's true or not.

    An important question raised here is why people would go so far in redefining such a simple concept like "lack of belief." I am inclined to think that Christians who repeat this myth haven't taken much time to think about the topic and, more importantly, haven't taken the time to talk to any atheists or philosophers about it. If they had, their misconceptions would be cleared up rather quickly; then again, that would entail admitting that one might be mistaken about atheists and what they believe. How often have you found Christians and other religious theists admit such a thing
    Austin Cline
    http://atheism.about.com/od/definiti...ismNeutral.htm
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Geezer, we are NOT born atheist. We are born purely agnostic.

    Babies don't conclude that gods' existence is unlikely.

    Babies DON'T KNOW whether gods exist or not; so they are agnostic.
    do you know what a agnostic is I posted this on page one this thread.
    "Gnostic = a belief with absolute knowledge that God exists,
    A-gnostic = a belief without the absolute knowledge that God exists."
    so where did these babies get the knowledge.
    babies are born without a belief or the knowledge of anything supernatural, be they gods of elves, etc... technically there atheist.

    svwillmer this was posted up by susan sometime ago
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    A-Theist.

    The "A" prefix means without/non/aint got no.
    As in....
    Asexual=having no sex or sexual organs.(not a belief theres no sex organs)
    Amoral=without moral.(not a belief theres no morals)
    Apolitical=not political.(not a belief theres no politics)
    Atypical=not typical.(not a belief there not typical)
    Asymmetric=not symmetrical.(not a belief theres no symmetry)
    Atheist=not theist.(not a belief theres no god)

    thats IT. no other assumptions can be made from it.
    so as you say
    Quote Originally Posted by svwilmer
    And as a result can't accept or deny God because they don't know it. They don't not believe in God and they don't believe in God-why? Because they don't know that stuff. So no one is born atheist.
    so they're in effect without belief in god, they're in effect without knowledge of god, wouldn't you agree?

    edit typo
    Correct, I do agree.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Geezer, we are NOT born atheist. We are born purely agnostic.

    Babies don't conclude that gods' existence is unlikely.

    Babies DON'T KNOW whether gods exist or not; so they are agnostic.
    do you know what a agnostic is I posted this on page one this thread.
    "Gnostic = a belief with absolute knowledge that God exists,
    A-gnostic = a belief without the absolute knowledge that God exists."
    so where did these babies get the knowledge.
    babies are born without a belief or the knowledge of anything supernatural, be they gods of elves, etc... technically there atheist.
    Your definitions are nonsense.

    Gnostic = possessing knowledge.
    Agnostic (adj.) = without knowledge.

    Agnostic (n.) = Three main meanings have been associated with "Agnostic" since Thomas H. Huxley invented the term in the mid-19th century
    • Huxley defined agnosticism as follows: "... it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism." 11
    • "... an agnostic is someone who not only is undecided concerning the existence of God, but who also thinks that the question of God’s existence is in principle unanswerable. We cannot know whether or not God exists, according to an agnostic, and should therefore neither believe nor disbelieve in him." 12
    • An agnostic is undecided about whether or not God exists.


    - http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm

    Gnosticism is not restricted to belief in God. There ARE gnostic atheists.

    Further, your definition of agnosticism is misleading. As shown above, agnostics don't profess to any beliefs.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    we find that people will inexplicably distort the simple nature of "not believing the truth of a proposition" in order to pretend that it's not possible to merely lack belief in the truth of someone's claims.
    You were given two propositions.

    Proposition 1 is that deities don't exist.
    Proposition 2 is that deities do exist.

    If you are neutral - which atheists aren't - then you believe that both propositions are possible.
    Atheists go with proposition 1.
    Religious people go with proposition 2.
    Apathetic people just don't care.

    By not believing the truth of proposition 2, you are believing the truth of proposition 1.

    Let me put this to you another way:

    Proposition 1 is that traveling faster than light is possible.
    Proposition 2 is that traveling faster than light is not possible.

    If you are neutral, both propositions are possible.
    Or your belief is that proposition 1 is correct.
    Or your belief is that proposition 2 is correct.
    Or you're apathetic.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Geezer, we are NOT born atheist. We are born purely agnostic.

    Babies don't conclude that gods' existence is unlikely.

    Babies DON'T KNOW whether gods exist or not; so they are agnostic.
    do you know what a agnostic is I posted this on page one this thread.
    "Gnostic = a belief with absolute knowledge that God exists,
    A-gnostic = a belief without the absolute knowledge that God exists."
    so where did these babies get the knowledge.
    babies are born without a belief or the knowledge of anything supernatural, be they gods of elves, etc... technically there atheist.
    Your definitions are nonsense.
    how so, huxley states it clearly here, and you posted it. "# Huxley defined agnosticism as follows: "... it is wrong for a man to say he is certain ( absolutely sure( a belief with absolute knowledge)) of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. Therefore the agnostic is the opposite. as huxley states here. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism."
    # "... an agnostic is someone who not only is undecided concerning the existence of God, but who also thinks that the question of God’s existence is in principle unanswerable. We cannot know whether or not God exists, according to an agnostic, and should therefore neither believe nor disbelieve in him." (A belief without the absolute knowledge that God exists.)
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Gnostic = possessing knowledge.(a belief with absolute knowledge that God exists)
    Agnostic (adj.) = without knowledge.(a belief without the absolute knowledge that God exists
    exactly. and thanks, for verifing my definition.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Agnostic (n.) = Three main meanings have been associated with "Agnostic" since Thomas H. Huxley invented the term in the mid-19th century
    • Huxley defined agnosticism as follows: "... it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism." 11
    • "... an agnostic is someone who not only is undecided concerning the existence of God, but who also thinks that the question of God’s existence is in principle unanswerable. We cannot know whether or not God exists, according to an agnostic, and should therefore neither believe nor disbelieve in him." 12
    • An agnostic is undecided about whether or not God exists.


    - http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm

    Gnosticism is not restricted to belief in God. There ARE gnostic atheists.

    Further, your definition of agnosticism is misleading. As shown above, agnostics don't profess to any beliefs.
    but what would you class as the middle ground what word would you use to define the middle ground?. when they say they cannot know whether a god exists.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    we find that people will inexplicably distort the simple nature of "not believing the truth of a proposition" in order to pretend that it's not possible to merely lack belief in the truth of someone's claims.
    You were given two propositions.

    Proposition 1 is that deities don't exist.
    Proposition 2 is that deities do exist.

    If you are neutral - which atheists aren't - then you believe that both propositions are possible.
    you should have read further, I quote "To begin with, it is true that exposure to a concept will have some sort of effect on a person — even if that effect is pretty minor and perhaps even unconscious. If we go so far as to discuss and ponder a concept, then we will surely have some sort of reaction to it. Our reactions might be intellectual, emotional, or both.

    None of this, however, prevents us from maintaining some sort of "neutrality" on the subject. Thus we have the first error in the myth: being affected by an idea is not the same as not being neutral on an idea. "
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    Atheists go with proposition 1.
    wrong, the have no belief whether deities, exist or not. they choose neutrality.
    The rest of you post is now irrelevant.
    you need to prove how one cannot remain neutral to a concept, you haven't succeeded, try again.
    "if someone makes a claim, and I don't accept that claim as true, then I lack belief in the truth of the claim — even if I don't take the extra step of asserting that the claim is false." I remain neutral.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Martin Fry from 31 Church Street, Abbey Hulton, Stoke-On-Trent either exists or he doesn't. I don't know what all your babbling about emotional reactions is about. If someone proposes to you that Martin Fry lives at 31 Church Street, Abbey Hulton, then you either believe that or you don't, or you just don't care, or you reserve judgement for for more evidence. Either way, your belief is either A) Martin exists. Or B) Martin does not exist, C) Martin may or may not exist, or D) I don't care. Why would you want to get emotional about the whole thing?
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    Ok. If you want to get technical about it: firstly, the antonym of "belief" is "disbelief". The word "non-belief" does not exist. So arguments regarding the correct usage of a non-existent word are futile.

    Which of these two are correct:

    An atheist has a disbelief in the existence of God.
    An atheist believes that God does not exist.

    I assume you prefer the former? But, assuming you've studied English, you are aware that good practice is stating what is and not what isn't.

    As you can see, by reading those two sentences, the meaning of the former has been obscured. It is unclear whether an atheist does not believe in God, since there are levels of disbelief.

    The latter sentence is correct.
    I'd say "an atheist does not believe in God", not "an atheist believes that God doesn't exist."

    But I guess it's irrelevant anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    Martin Fry from 31 Church Street, Abbey Hulton, Stoke-On-Trent either exists or he doesn't. I don't know what all your babbling about emotional reactions is about. If someone proposes to you that Martin Fry lives at 31 Church Street, Abbey Hulton, then you either believe that or you don't, or you just don't care, or you reserve judgement for more evidence. Either way, your belief is either A) Martin exists. Or B) Martin does not exist, C) Martin may or may not exist, or D) I don't care. Why would you want to get emotional about the whole thing?
    who's being emotional, why! would you think that, I dont know.
    Theres a giraffe who lives on the moon, you either believe that or you dont, or you could remain neutral.
    A, the giraffe exist, B, the giraffe doesn't exist, and C, you remain neutral to whether the giraffe exist or doesn't.
    I choose the latter.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Theres a giraffe who lives on the moon, you either believe that or you dont, or you could remain neutral.
    A, the giraffe exist, B, the giraffe doesn't exist, and C, you remain neutral to whether the giraffe exist or doesn't.
    I choose the latter.
    By your argument, you are NOT atheist. Agnostic is neutral. Atheism is not. Atheist is "B, the giraffe does not exist".

    If you severely doubt that the giraffe exists, but it is possible, then you are agnostic atheist:

    Agnostic atheism—the view of those who do not know of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods, and do not believe in them. An agnostic atheist would say "I don't know, and I don't think so."

    Or, conversely:

    Agnostic theism (also called religious agnosticism)—the view of those who do not claim to know existence of God or gods, but still believe in such an existence. An agnostic theist would say "I don't know, but I think so."

    Or if neither of us can know whether the giraffe exists or not:

    A strong agnostic would say "I can't know, and neither can you." <-- This is neutral.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Is this what you're talking about:

    An apatheist is someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to human affairs.

    Apathiest = apathy + atheist.

    As I have described previously, when I said A) God does exist, B) God doesn't exist, C) He may or may not exist, or D) I don't care: Apathetic.

    The eighteenth century French philosopher Denis Diderot, when accused of being an atheist, replied that he simply did not care whether God existed or not. In response to Voltaire, he wrote,

    It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God.

    Jonathan Rauch described apatheism as "a disinclination to care all that much about one's own religion and even a stronger disinclination to care about other people's".
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Geezer, we are NOT born atheist. We are born purely agnostic.

    Babies don't conclude that gods' existence is unlikely.

    Babies DON'T KNOW whether gods exist or not; so they are agnostic.
    do you know what a agnostic is I posted this on page one this thread.
    "Gnostic = a belief with absolute knowledge that God exists,
    A-gnostic = a belief without the absolute knowledge that God exists."
    so where did these babies get the knowledge.
    babies are born without a belief or the knowledge of anything supernatural, be they gods of elves, etc... technically there atheist.
    Your definitions are nonsense.
    how so, huxley states it clearly here, and you posted it. "# Huxley defined agnosticism as follows: "... it is wrong for a man to say he is certain ( absolutely sure( a belief with absolute knowledge)) of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. Therefore the agnostic is the opposite. as huxley states here. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism."
    # "... an agnostic is someone who not only is undecided concerning the existence of God, but who also thinks that the question of God’s existence is in principle unanswerable. We cannot know whether or not God exists, according to an agnostic, and should therefore neither believe nor disbelieve in him." (A belief without the absolute knowledge that God exists.)
    You missed (or rather deliberately ignored) the third definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Gnostic = possessing knowledge.(a belief with absolute knowledge that God exists)
    Agnostic (adj.) = without knowledge.(a belief without the absolute knowledge that God exists
    exactly. and thanks, for verifing my definition.
    I didn't verify your definition. The definition of 'gnosticism' is not confined to belief in God.

    Let me give equally biased and misleading definitions as yours:

    Gnostic = a belief with absolute knowledge that God doesn't exist.
    Agnostic = a belief without absolute knowledge that God doesn't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Agnostic (n.) = Three main meanings have been associated with "Agnostic" since Thomas H. Huxley invented the term in the mid-19th century
    • Huxley defined agnosticism as follows: "... it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism." 11
    • "... an agnostic is someone who not only is undecided concerning the existence of God, but who also thinks that the question of God’s existence is in principle unanswerable. We cannot know whether or not God exists, according to an agnostic, and should therefore neither believe nor disbelieve in him." 12
    • An agnostic is undecided about whether or not God exists.


    - http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm

    Gnosticism is not restricted to belief in God. There ARE gnostic atheists.

    Further, your definition of agnosticism is misleading. As shown above, agnostics don't profess to any beliefs.
    but what would you class as the middle ground what word would you use to define the middle ground?. when they say they cannot know whether a god exists.
    I call them agnostics (hence 'can't know'). A = without. Gnosis = knowledge.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •