Atheism or agnosticism?Follow

Given that "God does not exist" is the stock phrase of the webbernetz atheist, I'm not seeing reason to worry about the difference.

Except that kinda depends on how you define them, isn't it? As stated above, some people define atheism in a very broad context as any "lack of belief" in a god. Which would make agnosticism a subset (or at least overlap) of atheism. Unfortunately, that's not a very useful definition of atheism since it doesn't help us distinguish anything. IMO, it's just more useful to define them in ways that does make them exclusive sets so as to avoid confusion about where someone actually stands.



The problem is, as DSD states, there are a lot of atheists who are absolutely certain that god does not exist, cannot exist, and anyone who believes in god is a moron, and even just accepting the possibility that some form of divine might exist will result in argument from them. These are also the people who are most involved in secular movements and agendas (both politically and socially). Not surprising since they actually care a lot about what is quite obviously a belief.

We kinda need a term for them, don't we. And honestly, the word "atheist" makes the most sense. If someone isn't sure, they're an agnostic. Period. If they are sure that god exists, they are a theist. Period. If they are sure that god does not exist (any god), they are an atheist. All the other combinations were IMO inventions after the fact by people who for some reason want to use different labels in order to avoid criticism of their position or to "fit in" to some larger group I guess.

Dunno. IMO they just confuse the issue because you get people calling themselves agnostics who are clearly atheists (by my definition), and people calling themselves atheists who are clearly agnostic.




Sorry. IMO you are wrong. The definition doesn't say a "lack of belief". It specifically says someone "denies or disbelieves". Disbelief is a belief in the opposite, not a lack of belief in the subject at hand. The prefix "dis" means to reverse the meaning. So a believer is sure god exists, and a disbeliever is sure god doesn't exist. When you disbelieve or deny something you are specifically claiming that it is "not true". It does not allow for the possibility of uncertainty, just as belief does not allow for the possibility of uncertainty. An agnostic both lacks belief *and* disbelief in something.


I'll point out again that the reason I use that set of definitions is because they are useful. The ones you're trying to use are not, and serve only to muddle the issue.

Edited, Apr 22nd 2011 2:51pm by gbaji

I think that if there is a God, it is so far beyond our comprehension as to be invisible to us. I don't believe in a God any more than a bacterium believes in humanity.

Man you'll argue about anything. You're also wrong, and wrote a hilariously long and completely in-character post.

Note that it's "refusal to believe" and not "believing the opposite". Insert any other synonyms for refusal, the bottom line is "not believing".



Edited, Apr 22nd 2011 8:00pm by bsphil

I knew I should have written it in base pairs.

...hence the term "agnostic atheist".

They are totally different things. I am an agnostic atheist. There are also agnostic theists (actually very common). Fundamentally, they address different questions.

Whether you are atheist or not depends on how you answer the question, "Do you believe there is a god(s)?"
Whether you are an agnostic or not depends on how you answer the question, "Do you believe it is possible to know with certainty whether or not there is a god(s)?"

Atheism is a LACK of belief in God, and says nothing about what the person actually DOES believe except perhaps by process of elimination. A popularly humorous characterization of this argument is that atheism is a religion the same way not fishing is a hobby.

Edit: I could probably stand to check if bsphil has replied to something before I bother to.

Edited, Apr 23rd 2011 12:48am by Kachi

But it becomes this way to many people, a religion of sorts. Their belief in their disbelief is so overwhelming that they feel the need to push their (dis)beliefs onto anyone who broaches the topic. Some go so far as to become exactly what they loathe about religious folk, proselytizing their lack of belief to the point even other secular folk roll their eyes and take a step back. And those who go this far, can't even realize they have become the "enemy" they are so worked up over.

Im not saying all do this. But with anything, some people go to the extreme in trying to convert others to their way of thinking. And then, it does become a religion of some sort.

I have a friend down here, who, over the past year or so, has become like this. She's even become part of the Free Thought Society which has essentially become her "church". They protest together, have potluck dinners, made billboards and then talk on the news about it. And while I appreciate the message, to hear her talk, shes become a fanatic in this cause, and anyone who even hints at a differing opinion than one she offers in regards to this topic is the biggest idiot to ever walk the earth. You could only be more pathetic if you were actually religious too.

That's ridiculous. It is not this forum, it's a select few members on this forum. As always though, that small group is very vocal so it stands out as representing the forum, when in fact, it is not the case.

We could always take a poll to find out how many.

[quote=Almalieque
This is what I noticed from this forum. If you mention that you are religious, then you're instantly criticized. It's one thing to not believe in God, but when you start ridiculing others who believe in something that isn't any more believable than what you believe in, then you are crossing that line which you are referencing to.[/quote]

lesson to learn: Its comments like this that create the feeling of Us vs. Them in any sensitive topic, and makes it harder to actually have a mature conversation. Don't take your observations from a few people and broadly color the entire population the same. It makes you look like an ignorant idiot both in this forum, and anywhere else you apply this grossly overgeneralization technique to. I dont go around saying every Christian I meet is a homophobic racist KKK ******* intent on destroying any other faith out there that isnt their own, because it's only a select few people out of millions of people who share the same faith that are actually like that. Give the other side equal credit, whether it be in this forum or in the actual world, mmmkay?

But Alma, how is this forum different? Why are you singling out this forum? Have you never met an atheist before coming here?

By stating *this forum* as opposed to *some people on this forum* you overgeneralize and create a broad stroke of stereotyping that does indeed, make you look like an idiot and whether or not your intention is to be malicious, that is what the end result becomes. Its the refusal to take responsibility of stereotyping that does indeed cause part of the issues when you have 2 sides that disagree on a hot topic, such as faith. By continuing the stereotype you cause more harm. Is it a personal problem? Partially. Im frankly sick and tired of hearing about "those damn atheists/agnostics" and "those damn Christians". It pisses me off when Im lumped into a category of highly vocal assholes by religious folk who dont care to take the time to learn not everyone not of a faith is a person without morales. Just as Im tired of other people saying all christians are sheep bleating their faith to others. Do both sides exist? Yes. But does that mean each person who believes one way or the other goes to an extreme each time? No. And thus if you make broad statements you are an idiot for continuing that harmful allusion. And if you cant see why that counts as creating an Us vs. Them atmosphere then you're even more of an idiot. /shrug



Edited, Apr 23rd 2011 1:48pm by DSD