Agnostics lack belief. Atheism requires you do believe, without a doubt, that there is no God. I am an Agnostic beacause I doubt everything, both the existence and the non-existence of God. I am incapable of belief either way. There is no faith in me. So there is a difference, and a big one at that.
Pluss, I do not want to be associated with fundies, be they religious or atheist.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I would say that you moved the goal posts.
[/QUOTE]
What do you mean? There is a great deal of evidence in favor of theism, and a great deal of evidence against it, so a person can legitimately question which body of evidence is more compelling. I certainly don’t disagree with you that the same is true of witchcraft (or ghosts, or alien abduction). But it’s not comparable to the peanut butter monster concept, for which there is plenty of evidence against, but absolutely no evidence of any kind in favor.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Right, a definition doesn’t have to include that. But if you wanted to try and include describe the belief of all theists, you’d have to say “they believe in a god, perhaps some accept they may be wrong”.
[/quote]
That’s overkill. I’ve never seen a definition of theist that would include that they don’t have to be positive that their belief must be correct.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Your answer certainly works as far as getting across the general belief system of some agnostics.
[/quote]
No, it gets across the general belief system of all agnostics.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Mine gets across them all, by encompassing those who may be uncertain.
[/quote]
No, yours gets across none of them.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I don’t have to include it in defining agnosticism, but I do have to include it in defining agnostics.
[/quote]
Sorry, that makes zero sense.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Just as describing theism only requires “they believe in god” but describing the overall beliefs of theists would require saying “they believe in god, some accept they may be wrong”.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not necessary to bring up that people can accept they can be wrong to label them.
Your answer as to how an agnostic would answer the question you asked is just plain incorrect. When asked “Is there enough information to support the existence of a god?” he will not answer “I don’t know. Perhaps we can’t know.” He will answer “no”. The factthat he will answer ‘no’ is what defines him as an agnostic! I don’t know how to make this any clearer. I’m done discussing this.
[QUOTE=Darwin’s Finch]
I am agnostic because, just as the term implies, one cannot know whether or not God (or any god) exists; he is unfalsifiable. I have brought this up several times here on this board wherein some clever wag will point to our imperfection as “proof” that an intelligent designer cannot exist. I say that’s sloppy thinking: our preceived perfection or imperfection tells us nothing whatsoever about the presence or absence of an intelligent designer. We can obviate the need for such a being by finding naturalistic explanations for phenomena, but we still cannot prove, one way or the other, such a being’s existence or non-existence. In other words, such things are beyond the purvue of science.
[/quote]
Again, while I agree that any God cannot be proven not to exist, do you also deny that a God could be “proven” to exist, in the loose sense of the term. Would asking for a proof of God, in the face of overwhelming evidence for one, be the same thing as asking for a “proof” of evolution in the face of overwhelming evidence? Of course the evidence for evolution exists, that for any god does not.
You’re using a definition of atheism not used by any atheist I know. Few if any atheists claim they know that any God does not exist, in the strict sense of know. Many believe, like you, that no god exists. Your very words make you a strong atheist.
If you believe that no gods exist, haven’t you discounted the notion also? Discounting someone’s story is strong way of saying you don’t believe in it. Plus, as Holmes showed, absence of expected evidence might well be evidence of something. If Joe claims that a UFO with a flaming exhaust landed on his field last night, and you find no evidence of burn marks, isn’t that evidence of the absence of that UFO, at least as Joe described it? It’s not proof of the nonexistence of the UFO, but certainly it’s evidence.
[QUOTE=Autumn Almanac]
There is a great deal of evidence in favor of theism, …
[/QUOTE]
It’s all hearsay.
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
It just may not be shared with anyone. All definitions I’ve seen and the way the word is used in the vernacular uses ‘unknowable’.
[/quote]
Ok. I’ve heard otherwise, and not just in this thread.
“It may not be unknowable, but I, personally, don’t know.”
Phrase it this way: “I know that we can’t know anything about god.”
[QUOTE=Septima]
Agnostics lack belief.
[/quote]
There is nothing precluding theists from being agnostic.
[QUOTE=Septima]
Atheism requires you do believe, without a doubt, that there is no God.
[/QUOTE]
Why do you believe this is the definition of atheism? Do you realize most atheists and grammarians disagree? Do you realize the prefix ‘a’ means without and atheism broken down is “without theism”?
[QUOTE=Marley23]
“It may not be unknowable, but I, personally, don’t know.”
[/quote]
That makes no sense. You’re defining an agnostic as one says god’s existence may be unknowable? Where are you getting this from? I’ve NEVER seen agnostic defined that way. An agnostic is one who “a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable”.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Phrase it this way: “I know that we can’t know anything about god.”
[/QUOTE]
Okay, and where’s the contradiction?
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Does believing that there is no Santa Claus look like a belief system to you?
[/QUOTE]
You see this is the kind of lazy argument I expect from a “True Believer” in Atheism. We know plenty about Santa and his story. We know enough to know it is a lovely little fable that gives kids and some adults joy and few of the worst Atheist & Fundies absolute fits.
I feel the same way about every religion I have seen, their own text usually provides enough proof that the inconsistencies are too extensive to believe. However, that I have not wandered across a religion that makes sense does not mean that something as inscrutable as a Divine Being(s) does not exist. You have apparently gathered enough data to make the absolute statement that there is no Divine Being(s). I find a large hole in the logic and so I consider it another belief system.
I know this is upsetting to hard atheists, but it is hard to see it any other way.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
“Unknowable” and “unknown” are not the same thing. All agnostics, in my definition which may be shared by nobody, says they doesn’t know if there are gods. Some agnostics, sometimes called ‘hard agnostics,’ say that it’s impossible to know anything about gods, including whether or not gods exist. I take issue with that because I think it’s a contradiction. If you can’t know anything about gods, how can you know that you can’t know anything about them?
[/QUOTE]
I agree with you, I think I would be classified as a Soft Agnostic. I don’t really care, I am basically non-religious and not an Atheist.
[QUOTE=Septima]
Agnostics lack belief. Atheism requires you do believe, without a doubt, that there is no God. I am an Agnostic beacause I doubt everything, both the existence and the non-existence of God. I am incapable of belief either way. There is no faith in me. So there is a difference, and a big one at that.
Pluss, I do not want to be associated with fundies, be they religious or atheist.
[/QUOTE]
I think most religious people and most Atheists are not fundies. Each have their loud and crazy sounding members that seem to draw the most press however. Otherwise I agree with what you said.
Jim
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
That’s overkill. I’ve never seen a definition of theist that would include that they don’t have to be positive that their belief must be correct.
[/quote]
You aren’t getting this. I am not saying that a definition of theist requires mentioning their acceptance of being wrong. A definition of theism works perfectly in saying just that; they believe in a god. As you say, no mention of maybe being wrong is necessary.
However, in a summary of what theists believe, it is perfectly acceptable, and indeed reasonable, to say that some of them accept they may be wrong. I am not defining theism and nor do I claim to be; I am simply summarising what theists believe. The same is true here; I was summarising what agnostics believe. Not defining agnosticism. A definition of agnosticism certainly works perfectly well just by saying “They don’t think the existence of god is knowable”. You don’t seem to be getting that providing a definition is not what I was doing. As I said at the time; that’s what an agnostic would say (perhaps). Not a definition of the category they’re in.
Again; it was not a definition of agnosticism. It was a summary of what agnostics believe. A definition of overall belief.
[QUOTE=askeptic]
It would really help if you guys would cite where you are getting these definitions from. It seems to me like we are all pulling definitions out of our asses.
The harder part is that I have seen different definitions in different dictionaries. How do we resolve this? Clearly we don’t seem to be able to agree on meanings of words.
[/QUOTE]
I was raised atheist and am now agnostic (with a two-year bout of Christianity in there). Those are what they mean to me, and I will stand by the validity of those interpretations until someone gets back to me with a single, universally-accepted definition of what it means to be a believer in any particular faith.
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Why do you believe this is the definition of atheism?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t, but it’s a usefull shorthand. Which word do you have a problem with.
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Do you realize most atheists and grammarians disagree?
[/QUOTE]
Grammarians?
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Do you realize the prefix ‘a’ means without and atheism broken down is “without theism”?
[/QUOTE]
Sounds about right. Don’t see what you’re getting at.
[QUOTE=What Wxit?]
I think most religious people and most Atheists are not fundies. Each have their loud and crazy sounding members that seem to draw the most press however. Otherwise I agree with what you said.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, of course! I didn’t mean it like that. I have nothing against religion, nor atheism, in general, just the fundementalist variety of either one. And thank you.
[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
An Agnostic believes there is not sufficient evidence to support a notion of God.
[/QUOTE]
dictionary.com: Agnostic-a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable
These are not the same thing. Your definition is based on insufficient evidence. The other one declares that there can be no evidence. As long as you are talking about what you believe and what you choose to call it then your personal preference is fine. When you engage the world at large we need mutually agreed apon definitions.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
You see this is the kind of lazy argument I expect from a “True Believer” in Atheism. We know plenty about Santa and his story. We know enough to know it is a lovely little fable that gives kids and some adults joy and few of the worst Atheist & Fundies absolute fits.
[/quote]
And we don’t know enough about the origins of religions to conclude they were made up?
Would ‘invisible unicorns’ work better for you than Santa?
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
I feel the same way about every religion I have seen, their own text usually provides enough proof that the inconsistencies are too extensive to believe. However, that I have not wandered across a religion that makes sense does not mean that something as inscrutable as a Divine Being(s) does not exist.
[/quote]
Wouldn’t it be a little too much of a coincidence that incredible beings that people made up actually exist despite knowing there seems to be plenty of evidence for things working fine without the supernatural being invoked?
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
You have apparently gathered enough data to make the absolute statement that there is no Divine Being(s). I find a large hole in the logic and so I consider it another belief system.
[/quote]
What does the amount of data have to do with it? Again, are there any holes in your logic that Santa (invisible unicorns) don’t exist to be a belief system?
How can one belief of something not existing be part of a belief system?
[QUOTE=askeptic]
dictionary.com: Agnostic-a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable
These are not the same thing. Your definition is based on insufficient evidence. The other one declares that there can be no evidence. As long as you are talking about what you believe and what you choose to call it then your personal preference is fine. When you engage the world at large we need mutually agreed apon definitions.
[/QUOTE]
So what is the agreed upon term for someone that just holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown but not unknowable.
Is there such a term, I ask as several self-declared agnostics in this thread, don’t match to your chosen definition.
Jim
[QUOTE=askeptic]
It’s all hearsay.
[/QUOTE]
The evidence in favor of the Judeo-Christian God is the Bible and associated scholarship and archaeology; the logical arguments of Thomas Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, and others; and the testimony of millions of people who claim to have firsthand experience. Is it convincing? Perhaps not-- the documentation is incomplete and contradictory, and many if not all of the claims conflict with our scientific knowledge of reality! But ultimately convincing or not, there is a mountain of evidence. Show me the mountain of similar evidence in favor of peanut butter monsters, and I will concede that it is an apt analogy.
[QUOTE=Septima]
I don’t, but it’s a usefull shorthand. Which word do you have a problem with.
[/quote]
We’ve been going over and over how atheists don’t have to be positive about anything and you write, “Atheism requires you do believe, without a doubt, that there is no God.” Guess which part I have a problem with? It’s not useful shorthand at all as it is inaccurate and is purposefully used over and over by theists who want to make arguments such as "It takes as much faith to be an atheist as it does a Christian.
[QUOTE=Septima]
Sounds about right. Don’t see what you’re getting at.
[/quote]
Seriously? You don’t see what I’m getting at?
I’m getting at all that is required to be an atheist is to be without belief in God/gods. There is no requirement that “you do believe, without a doubt, that there is no God”.
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
And we don’t know enough about the origins of religions to conclude they were made up?
Would ‘invisible unicorns’ work better for you than Santa?
Wouldn’t it be a little too much of a coincidence that incredible beings that people made up actually exist despite knowing there seems to be plenty of evidence for things working fine without the supernatural being invoked?
What does the amount of data have to do with it? Again, are there any holes in your logic that Santa (invisible unicorns) don’t exist to be a belief system?
How can one belief of something not existing be part of a belief system?
[/QUOTE]
And when logic fails, start parsing and quoting someone else. I am well aware of the IPU and FSM and they are wonderful analogies and as likely to exist as the God of the Bible, Koran or Torah. I already stated clearly at least twice, I do not believe in any religion. I just see that there is still the possibility that a Divine Being(s) exist.
You believe in the Non-Existence of God. I do not. My belief is that there may be a Divine Being(s) and that no religion on Earth is correct in their belief. I also leave open the chance I am wrong. I will take my hits later if I am wrong. I won’t worry about in the meantime. You see no proof of God and therefore God does not exist. This sounds so simple. I see no proof in the non-existence of God or the existence of God.
You quote Dawkins like he is an apostle, it is actually fairly humorous. Dawkins misses out on the entire concept of the multiverse, parallel universes and the fact that there is still much we do not know yet. In the end, Science may lead us back to a Creator or it might not.
Jim
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
So what is the agreed upon term for someone that just holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown but not unknowable.
Is there such a term, I ask as several self-declared agnostics in this thread, don’t match to your chosen definition.
Jim
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know jim. I wasn’t offering the definition as the correct one but merely to demonstrate that there is apparently no agreed definition. Apparently agnostic means diferent things to different people. That is fine. But that being the case it is goofy to say that agnostics believe X because aparently some agnostics believe Y while others believe 9.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
And when logic fails, start parsing and quoting someone else.
[/quote]
That’s a bullshit statement.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
I also leave open the chance I am wrong.
[/quote]
So do I.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
You see no proof of God and therefore God does not exist.
[/quote]
No. I see strong evidence that all knowing, all powerful beings don’t exist.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
You quote Dawkins like he is an apostle
[/quote]
In what way did I do that?
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
it is actually fairly humorous. Dawkins misses out on the entire concept of the multiverse, parallel universes and the fact that there is still much we do not know yet.
[/QUOTE]
Do you think he thinks there isn’t much we don’t know yet? One need not be positive that God doesn’t exist to believe he doesn’t.