Atheism revisited

[Happy Ent]

[quote name='scrahan' post='1672331' date='Feb 3 2009, 18.44']As I understand it. Agnostics do not believe in God, but have reserved judgement in his non-existence. Atheists, on the other hand, believe in the non-existence of God.[/quote]
There are of course many definitions.

I find it [i]useful[/i] to use the word agnosticism to describe your evaluation of the evidence: an agnostic agrees that there is no evidence of the existence of god(s).

An atheist doesn’t believe in god(s). But atheism is [i]a conclusion[/i], just like theism. It may be based on many things. An agnostic atheist is somebody who (1) sees no evidence for the existence of god and (2) therefrom concludes that gods don’t exists. Most atheists are like that.

But you could be atheist for many other reasons. Like having [i]logically inferred[/i] the nonexistence of God from various axioms about Him. That wouldn’t make you an agnostic atheist but something else. “Ontological atheist” or “strong atheist” or whatever.

You could also be an agnostic theist. Sure, you agree that there is no evidence, but since it’s a question of [i]Faith[/i], not evidence, you believe in some specific deity. But you could also be a theist because you actually had a revelatory experience. That would make you a theist, but certainly not agnostic.

— but there are many definitions. Pick one you find useful.

[Teri]

[quote name='Ken Stone' post='1672386' date='Feb 3 2009, 10.24']Atheism deals with belief while Agnosticism deals with knowledge, so they are two separate things completely. An Agnostic holds that it is impossible to know if God exists, while an Atheist doesn't believe that God exists (doesn't hold the belief that God exists). The vast majority of Atheists are Atheist-Agnostic (I don't believe God exists but it is impossible to know for sure), although there do exist Gnostic-Atheists (Not only do I not believe in God, but I know that God doesn't exist). On the same note it seems to me that most rational Theists I know are also Agnostic (I believe in God even though it is impossible to know he exists), although they would never label themselves as such.[/quote]

I would reserve the word "agnostic" for someone who is more on the fence than just "it is impossible to know for sure." Literally speaking, it is "impossible to know for sure" that there are no invisible fairies with little butterfly wings and flower petal raiment living in my garden and dancing in rings at night, since there is nothing that could disprove it, but I wouldn't call myself agnostic on the garden fairy question.

Using the word agnostic generally implies that one is reserving judgement, not coming down firmly on one side or the other. If your judgment of the likelihood of something being true (or of it being false) is on the order of 1 in a million or less chances, then calling yourself agnostic about that matter is stretching the word to the point of making it useless.

[Guest Raidne]

[quote name='Ken Stone' post='1672386' date='Feb 3 2009, 13.24']Atheism deals with belief while Agnosticism deals with knowledge, so they are two separate things completely. An Agnostic holds that it is impossible to know if God exists, while an Atheist doesn't believe that God exists (doesn't hold the belief that God exists). The vast majority of Atheists are Atheist-Agnostic (I don't believe God exists but it is impossible to know for sure), although there do exist Gnostic-Atheists (Not only do I not believe in God, but I know that God doesn't exist). On the same note it seems to me that most rational Theists I know are also Agnostic (I believe in God even though it is impossible to know he exists), although they would never label themselves as such.[/quote]

I don't think that works out very well, for two major reasons.

The first is that the phrasing the agnostic position "it is impossible to know if God exists" (which, by the way, does not describe my position as an agnostic anyway - maybe it is possible, how the hell would I know?) and phrasing the atheist position as not holding the belief that God exists reduces atheism to being nothing more than one of the necessary conditions for agnosticism, this making all agnostics atheist. Not good.

The second thing is that you're creating straw man positions. Either that, or your definition of agnosticism has no meaning. Because [i]nobody[/i] believes that they [i]know[/i] that God exists. They just believe that they believe that God exists. So, [i]everyone[/i], even theists, are agnostic. Also not good.

It seems to be that there's no reason to make it more complicated. An atheist is a person believes there is no God, and an agnostic is a person who doesn't hold any belief about the existence of God.

And of course, people probably fall on a scale and that would be useful information from an empirical/social science perspective. But let's just lay our points down at either end and what they mean first.

[Walpurgisborn]

[quote name='Ken Stone' post='1672386' date='Feb 3 2009, 13.24']Atheism deals with belief while Agnosticism deals with knowledge, so they are two separate things completely. An Agnostic holds that it is impossible to know if God exists, while an Atheist doesn't believe that God exists (doesn't hold the belief that God exists). The vast majority of Atheists are Atheist-Agnostic (I don't believe God exists but it is impossible to know for sure), although there do exist Gnostic-Atheists (Not only do I not believe in God, but I know that God doesn't exist). On the same note it seems to me that most rational Theists I know are also Agnostic (I believe in God even though it is impossible to know he exists), although they would never label themselves as such.[/quote]
You do realize I'm working with a definition of knowing that includes it as a subset of believing. Stating that the the two concepts is unrelated is disingenious by my standards.

[Walpurgisborn]

[quote name='Happy Ent' post='1672406' date='Feb 3 2009, 13.41']There are of course many definitions.

>>>

— but there are many definitions. Pick one you find useful.[/quote]

I think that might be part of the problem here, I'm thinking most of us are probably in agreement on the general nature of things, but we're using very different definitions.

[Ken Stone]

[quote name='Raidne' post='1672415' date='Feb 3 2009, 12.45']I don't think that works out very well, for two major reasons.

The first is that the phrasing the agnostic position "it is impossible to know if God exists" (which, by the way, does not describe my position as an agnostic anyway - maybe it is possible, how the hell would I know?) and phrasing the atheist position as not holding the belief that God exists reduces atheism to being nothing more than one of the necessary conditions for agnosticism, this making all agnostics atheist. Not good.[/quote]

I'm not sure you read what I wrote exactly. I said that there are people who believe in God that fall under the category of Agnostic, because belief and knowledge are two different things. It is possible to believe in God while not knowing he exists. Hence the term "faith". Most Theists fall in this category.

The easiest thing to do is break down the word. What does "Gnostic" mean? What does it mean when you put an "A" on a word? There you go.

[quote name='Raidne' post='1672415' date='Feb 3 2009, 12.45']The second thing is that you're creating straw man positions. Either that, or your definition of agnosticism has no meaning. Because [i]nobody[/i] believes that they [i]know[/i] that God exists. They just believe that they believe that God exists. So, [i]everyone[/i], even theists, are agnostic. Also not good.[/quote]

That's not true either. There are plenty of people who KNOW God exists. They have TV Shows and talk about it. There are millions of people watching those shows that also KNOW God exists. You personally are agnostic so that position doesn't make much sense to you apparently. Regardless those people exist and I KNOW that because I have met them.

[Ken Stone]

[quote name='scrahan' post='1672416' date='Feb 3 2009, 12.45']You do realize I'm working with a definition of knowing that includes it as a subset of believing. Stating that the the two concepts is unrelated is disingenious by my standards.[/quote]

Your are right. Not unrelated but referring to different things. The words are Latin so it is relatively easy to break them down into their component parts and figure out what they refer to.

[Walpurgisborn]

[quote name='Ken Stone' post='1672431' date='Feb 3 2009, 13.55']Your are right. Not unrelated but referring to different things. The words are Latin so it is relatively easy to break them down into their component parts and figure out what they refer to.[/quote]
That's specious, noxious has little do with it's root word of nox.

Also Gnosis is Greek, and doesn't just mean "knowing". That word is episteme. Gnosis referred to a deep, intuitive understanding. Something rather like, I don't know, a belief.

[Ken Stone]

[quote name='scrahan' post='1672442' date='Feb 3 2009, 13.01']That's specious, noxious has little do with it's root word of nox.

Also Gnosis is Greek, and doesn't just mean "knowing". That word is episteme. Gnosis referred to a deep, intuitive understanding. Something rather like, I don't know, a belief.[/quote]

When you know something you have a deep intuitive understanding of it. When you believe something you think it is true. I believe in plenty of things I don't understand, like string theory and the big bang. People believe in God while not understanding him.

[Guest Raidne]

[quote name='Ken Stone' post='1672428' date='Feb 3 2009, 13.53']I'm not sure you read what I wrote exactly. I said that there are people who believe in God that fall under the category of Agnostic, because belief and knowledge are two different things. It is possible to believe in God while not knowing he exists. Hence the term "faith". Most Theists fall in this category.

The easiest thing to do is break down the word. What does "Gnostic" mean? What does it mean when you put an "A" on a word? There you go.[/quote]

I have no idea what Gnostic means, but it mostly relates to the Gnostic sect and their beliefs.

Gnosis is a particular kind of knowledge, as distinct from sophia, techne, episteme, phronesis, etc. The Greeks had [i]loads[/i] of different kinds of knowledge. It's tough to translate very well, but it's something like having knowledge of what Plato describes as the fundamental principle of the all. In today's parlance, it would probably be like knowledge of God. So the opposite is [i]not[/i] having knowledge of God.

But we've gotten [i]all kinds[/i] of messed up there, because we're saying "knowledge" like we're talking about episteme, and we're not. We're talking about a lack of gnosis. So it's like a lack of a belief in spiritual knowledge.

I personally don't find this to be very useful in breaking this all down, but it ain't looking so helpful for your point either, you know?

[quote]That's not true either. There are plenty of people who KNOW God exists. They have TV Shows and talk about it. There are millions of people watching those shows that also KNOW God exists. You personally are agnostic so that position doesn't make much sense to you apparently. Regardless those people exist and I KNOW that because I have met them.[/quote]

You know what - if God spoke to them, truly, or if they saw God or whatever, then fine, they can say they know that God exists. Otherwise, no they don't. This is what people mean when they say that they don't need to "know" that God exists, because they have faith. Asking whether they know God exists is a nonsensical question. I KNOW that position exists, and it makes sense to me because I was Christian until I was 17 and that's what I thought. And so did the people who went to church with me, because that was our Church's official position. It also allows for positions like skeptical fideism.

I will say that what HE said makes sense to me, and I can see the utility in having those further divisions.

[Guest Raidne]

[quote name='Ken Stone' post='1672431' date='Feb 3 2009, 13.55']Your are right. Not unrelated but referring to different things. The words are Latin so it is relatively easy to break them down into their component parts and figure out what they refer to.[/quote]

This should be clear by now, but I think you mean Greek.

[Walpurgisborn]

Damn you Raidne.

For just being better at this than me.

[Ken Stone]

[quote name='Raidne' post='1672447' date='Feb 3 2009, 13.05']I will say that what HE said makes sense to me, and I can see the utility in having those further divisions.[/quote]

I prefer HE's take also and he hit upon the point I was trying to get too, but failed to make. That is Agnostic is not a more tempered form of Atheist, as seems to be the common understanding.

[Walpurgisborn]

Also, anyone want a spin off thread on believing vs. knowing?

[Guest Raidne]

[quote name='Ken Stone' post='1672453' date='Feb 3 2009, 14.10']I prefer HE's take also and he hit upon the point I was trying to get too, but failed to make. That is Agnostic is not a more tempered form of Atheist, as seems to be the common understanding.[/quote]

Yeah, I also think it's a totally different kind of position, but nevertheless, I can never really say which I am. Isn't that just puzzling?

I guess I'll have to suspend belief on whether I'm an agnostic or an atheist.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote][b]Me:[/b] Ummm...you're the one that seems to require god in the equation, not us. You're the one who needs something 'a bit larger' behind it all, not us. Ignorance is the answer at the moment because at the moment we don't have the answer. We'll continue to look for the answers of course much as we always have. I just don't see the point or need in offering a completely made up solution that has absolutely no basis simply because the answers are difficult.

[b]Azor:[/b] I understand you're speaking specifically to religion. And I respect that. But when I coined 'require' there, I meant it comme ca: my belief doesn't require yours, [b]yours shouldn't require mine or any others.
[/b]

[b]Me: [/b] Ummm...it doesn't. Its weird that you'd suggest it does.

[b]Azor:[/b] I'm not sure why you'd think it weird. You have no problem whatsoever issuing proclamations of rampant idiocy and even less savory things toward those who don't share your vision or lack thereof, in respect to God.[/quote]

Is English your 6th language or something? Do you know how to type a post that's at least remotely related to the shit you're responding to? I mean look at the exchange: "Your believe shouldn't need mine" (which by the way absolutely noone suggested that it does or should, you pulled that out of your ass), "It doesn't", 'Its not weird, you're an idiot!'.

Are you trying to be obtuse? Does any of that really make a lick of sense to you? Is unrelated, random nonsense followed by insults really all that you can manage? And never in the history of internet debate has the term sophistry ever been used for any purpose other than to denigrate, so please, take that shit and shove it as well.

[JGP]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1672499' date='Feb 3 2009, 12.49']Is English your 6th language or something? Do you know how to type a post that's at least remotely related to the shit you're responding to? I mean look at the exchange: "Your [i]believe[/i] shouldn't need mine" (which by the way absolutely noone suggested that it does or should, you pulled that out of your ass), "It doesn't", 'Its not weird, you're an idiot!'.

Are you trying to be obtuse? Does any of that really make a lick of sense to you? Is unrelated, random nonsense followed by insults really all that you can manage? And never in the history of internet debate has the term sophistry ever been used for any purpose other than to denigrate, so please, take that shit and shove it as well.[/quote]

The sophists were entirely admirable, it's only in modern times the term has become a denigration. Insofar as me pulling shit out of my ass, I’m puzzled. Your contempt for religion in general and an individual’s belief in God isn’t a secret. You have a track record of this. But maybe I’m being unfair by illustrating your own history. I don’t know.

[scratches head]

Are you having a breakdown, EHK, or a bad day, or is this the oft used debate tactic of claiming personal affront in order to evade answering difficult questions?


ETA: I have to step out to a meeting with the contractor who is building our home. I'll be back in a couple hours, but I'd rather see us work toward resolving this instead of allowing it to devolve further. I didn't insult you intentionally, EHK.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Azor Ahai' post='1672543' date='Feb 3 2009, 14.27']Insofar as me pulling shit out of my ass, I’m puzzled. Your[b] contempt for[/b] religion in general and an [b]individual’s belief in God[/b] isn’t a secret. You have a track record of this. But maybe I’m being unfair by illustrating your own history. I don’t know.[/quote]

My 'history' was irrelevant to the discussion, not readily evident in anything I was saying, and completely unrelated to anything we were actually talking about. You're the one who apparently brought whatever personal baggage you had to the thread. And the bolded part is bullshit.

[quote]ETA: I have to step out to a meeting with the contractor who is building our home. I'll be back in a couple hours, but I'd rather see us work toward resolving this instead of allowing it to devolve further.[b] I didn't insult you intentionally, EHK.[/b][/quote]

Out of the clear blue sky while I'm trying to puzzle out why you think my belief needs yours (a suggestion likewise pulled out of your ass), you accuse me of 'proclamations of rampant idiocy'? And now you fail to see how that JUST MIGHT be intentionally insulting? Cram it up your ass.

[quote]Are you having a breakdown, EHK, or a bad day, or is this the oft used debate tactic of claiming personal affront in order to evade answering difficult questions?[/quote]

What the hell is your game kid? Are you trying to be a dick for no apparent reason? Do you plan on keeping this passive-aggressive bullshit going all day?

[Bellis]

<mod> Stay cool, guys. </mod>