Nope. We usually have no trouble discussing religion and belief on these boards because of the word “God”. The same can’t be said when we use the word “agnostic”.
I think a better case that can be made that “theism” and “atheism” are sub-sets of agnosticism.
My guess is that none of us knows if there are gods or not–agnostic.
Some blindly guess there are…or that it is more probable that there are… and call themselves theists. Some blindly guess there are not…or that it is more probable that there are not…and call themselves atheists.
If you believed the Catholic God existed, would you want to believe it did?
I’ve always felt the distinction goes back to the root words: god and knowledge.
An atheist is somebody who doesn’t believe in God’s existence. An agnostic is somebody who thinks God may exist but doesn’t believe that we have any specific knowledge about God - they’re somebody who doesn’t believe in religion.
I really don’t give a fuck about Huxley, and I find his logic (at least as you have explained it) silly. I assume you don’t think there are 11 foot tall pink bunnies (remember, these bunnies have the characteristic of being unknowable). Does that make you an agbunniest or an abunniest? What if there were a bunch of people who *did * believe in them. If they asked you if you believe would you say “no”, “I don’t know”, or “I can’t know”? If you say the first, then by your own definition you are taking the reverse position of “there-are-bunnyists”.
Letting your position be defined by the presence of another position makes no sense; i.e., if you are an agnostic with regards to god because there is an active belief system in place, but an atheist with regards to 11 foot bunnies because there is not a large group of people who believe.
I don’t like the term athiest because I don’t think it necessary to have a special term for the belief that one particular thing, out of the infinite variety of possible things, does not exist. But that is the term we are stuck with.
Let’s look at the term agnostic. It can mean one of two things: “I don’t know if there is a god”, or “I can’t know if there is a god”. The first is the same as athiests. No rational person believes in something until proof is given, nor denies it afterwards.
The position that one can’t know if god exists makes no sense to me. The only way you couldn’t know if god exists is if he existed outside of the physical world in such a way that he could never interact with it in a predictable or measurable way. By that token one could say that there are an infinite number of possible things that they are agnostic about. Why make up a special term for not knowing if the particular unknowable thing is god?
That may be “a” definition of agnosticism (not a very good one in my opinion)…but not “the” definition of it.
Not sure where or when the “and I don’t care” was dreamed up…but I am an AGNOSTIC…and I sure as hell care and am interested, which is why I spend so much time discussing this matter.
I am positive we cannot know (in any meaningful sense of that word) that gods do not exist. If gods do exist, the case can be made that the gods could allow themselves to be revealed…so it is at least possible that at some point, it could be known that gods exist.
(I blindly guess that will never happen)
Here’s how I learned it.
Answer two separate questions…
Q1: Do you affirmatively assert that you have faith in your heart that a god exists?
A1(a): If yes, then you are a theist (with faith in a god).
A1(b): If anything other than yes (e.g., no, maybe, not sure, it’s possible but I cant really say, I don’t care, etc.), then you are an atheist (without faith in a god).
Q2. Do you affirmatively assert that you know in you mind that a god exists?
A2(a): If yes, then you are a gnostic (with knowledge).
A2(b): If anything other than yes (e.g., no, maybe, not sure, it’s possible but I cant really say, I don’t care, etc.), then you are an agnostic (without knowledge).
A1(a) + A2(a) = Gnostic (“Strong”) Theist
A1(a) + A2(b) = Agnostic (“Weak”) Theist
A1(b) + A2(b) = Agnostic (“Weak”) Atheist
A1(b) + A2(a) = Gnostic (“Strong”) Atheist
The person who says, “There may be god but I just can’t say” is an atheist just as much as the person who flat out says, “There is no god” because neither person affirmatively asserts faith in a god.
The person who says, “I have my intellectual doubts, but I maintain faith anyway” is an agnostic theist.
That’s flat-out incomprehensible to me. It doesn’t make any sense at all. If everyone is an agnostic, then the word has zero meaning.
Many people think they know, and that’s where the rubber meets the road. I don’t think your view (“they think they know, but they don’t”) really enters into it.
There are some people out there who believe and wish they didn’t, and vice versa, I just find that it’s rare. So I wasn’t clear on where you stood. (You also said you call yourself Catholic, not that you are Catholic, which made it even less clear.)
The view that we have no say in our own beliefs is a little limited, in my opinion.
And I do not much give a fuck that you do not give a fuck about Huxley. Not really sure why you mentioned it, but thank you for sharing.
Actually, it was a brilliant…and the move to offer it for consideration was courageous.
If you ever open your mind enough to find the logic compelling rather than silly…it would be to your advantage.
That’s what the position of “atheism” is all about. It wouldn’t exist without theism.
It’s not necessarily a belief. All one has to do to be an atheist is be without a belief. And it’s a useful term because so many people are theists.
It can mean even more than that, and it has in this very thread. Some of the meanings aren’t even similar.
Why?
If everyone is a human…does the word “human” have zero meaning for you?
Okay…you can think that if you choose. You can think you are Napoleon Bonaparte also if you choose. But my guess is that nobody KNOWS if there are gods or not. My comment stands.
I am getting a clearer picture of why I was corrected on content while no correction of content was made to others with whom I was engaged and who were more in violation of policy than I, though.
I absolutely love reading this kind of bullshit. You actually think that atheists sit around strategizing about what they are going to call themselves and whether they should change their title based on the latest nonsense coming from the theist camp (which is never anything new, by the way).
I can assure you, you have spent waaaay more time sitting around trying to figure out atheist strategies for strategic naming of themselves than atheists ever have. Because atheists don’t care. They don’t believe in god. That’s it. Their position is so incomprehensible to you that you constantly have to make up their “real” motivations, like hiding from god or wanting to do whatever they want, or whatever Kent Hovind is blogging this week. I suspect that this is some sort of defense mechanism to keep the focus on atheists’ “beliefs” because turning the spotlight on your own beliefs is too scary, being that they are completely contradictory and nonsensical.
I don’t think you understood Huxley then. I don’t think he was talking about the “term” athiest, but that the “nature” of atheism is determined by the fact that it is in opposition to theism.
It loses it’s ability to distinguish between types of people. For example if the terms person and human person have the same meaning, then you can just leave out the term human as it has no purpose.
Likewise, if every belief is an agnostic belief, then the term agnostic has no value. It’s like multiplying both sides of an equation by 1 an infinite number of times. Just a giant waste of time that changes nothing.
That’s not a good comparison. We’re talking about beliefs on the subject of gods. You are saying ‘there is an argument that all beliefs on the subject are subsets of agnosticism.’ So this would mean everyone is an agnostic, whether they believe in god fervently or if they reject the idea completely. It makes the definition of agnostic so broad that it would be useless.
I know your opinion is that nobody knows for a fact if there are gods or not. But we are talking about people’s beliefs, and agnostic does not describe everyone’s beliefs.
I didn’t ask you to withdraw it. But I don’t think using the word “guess” as a substitute for all other words, like “believe” or “think,” makes everybody into an agnostic.
If you have a question about moderating, send me a private message or ask me in the About This Message Board forum. I’d like for this thread to stay on topic and I did not moderate any posts in here.
I understand Huxley. I don’t know why you think I don’t. I was responding to what you wrote, not Huxley.
You are way out of focus here, Shirley.
I don’t really give a rat’s ass what atheists think about the word…or what lexicographers do either. Or about their strategy…if they have such a thing.
I was merely responding to something that was posted by someone else.
Fact is, I wish we would all drop the designations and simply speak about what our takes are on the issues at hand…rather than constantly debating the meanings of the words of designation.
And if you implying that I am proffering a theistic outlook here, you are very wrong.
Yeah, well I hear a lot about things being a “waste of time” here. Lots of stuff that does not fit neatly into the atheistic niche seems to gain that designation.
Good for a laugh, I guess.
Anyway…if you want to think the word “human” has zero meaning…you certainly are free to do so.
It looks like you didn’t understand a word of this. He did not say the word has no meaning. He said it’s redundant in an example sentence, which gives it no meaning in that context.
Let’s try this: You’re in a room full of 50 people, and you’re looking for a guy named Jeff. You ask the person at the door which one is Jeff. You’re told “Oh, he’s the human.” Has this helped you identify Jeff?
The answer is no, so it is not a useful descriptor. By analogy, if you describe everyone’s religious views as agnostic, it is not useful. You over-broadened the word.
Let’s assume you are sitting on an island cut off from all communication. While you are gone a new belief system comes into place; let’s call it Xism. Xists call those who do not believe in X, aXists.
So does that somehow change your beliefs? Does not believing in X require a leap of faith? Does not believing in X become a religion? Is there some special responsibility put upon you to display that you don’t think that X exists vs not believing in X? Does not believing X exists make you stubborn, or unreasonable, or close minded? Were you sitting there all that time as an active aXist, or when you come home do you now become one?
Let’s say that Xists think that X exists, but it is not measurable, or predictive, and is unknowable. Well since X is unknowable, I guess I’m an agXist, because being an aXist is not a reasonable position: there just might be an X. I can’t be sure because it is in-detectable, so I’ll just waffle on it.