If you’re looking from a vague perspective, then you have a point on the functional similarities, but the moment you look a little closer, you can still distinguish these different peoples easily.
This begs the question, if you can’t tell the difference between an agnostic, a theist, or an atheist, why would people make the broad claim that god-belief is a psychologically unhealthy delusion?
Yes, but “majority” isn’t.
I was expecting that, but I think it’s unfair. You nitpicked at the corners of my definition, forcing me to amplify it. It’s easy for you to do, because you don’t have to provide a definition of your own.
I said, and I stand by it, that agnostics and atheists are functionally the same. Everything that follows has been you introducing new terms to the equation, forcing me to add new terms to balance what you’ve added.
e.g., you made the football heavier. I get to move the goalposts in response.
indeed
Has anyone actually made that claim?
Well, if they walk into a bar …
What do you mean by psychologically unhealthy? Not all delusions are, only ones that cause you to behave in unhealthy ways. Theists who commit harm to others because God told them to would qualify, don’t you think? I don’t see how atheism and agnosticism, whatever it means, could be unhealthy unless there was a real god. Unhealthy in this sense - there have been many places and times where atheism could be physically if not psychologically unhealthy.
True , but that’s irrelevant.
But not untrue
I didn’t say that wasn’t true. My point is that it’s irrelevant because many believers are also functionally the same.
It’s not about function. We can observe without much effort that whether someone believes, doesn’t believe, or is undecided, is has almost nothing to do with their overall character. Hell an atheist might go through the motions of belief for several reasons.
And that’s logically vacuous. Froot Loops and Cheerios are both doughnut shaped. You come in and say, “Doughnuts are also doughnut shaped.” Well, yeah, they are. And if they’re small enough, and crunchy enough, then they’re a lot like Froot Loops.
And then you accuse me of “moving the goalposts” by adding the “if they’re small enough and crunchy enough” requirement. The problem is, you’re the one who changed the game in the first place, by tossing in six billion believers and saying, “Some of them look like unbelievers.” Yeah, some of them do. Most of them don’t, but, yeah, some very few believers are so inactive in their belief, they look like non-believers.
None of this undermines, in any way, my observation that atheists and agnostics look very much the same. You’re adding to the claim, but you aren’t taking anything away from it.
I don’t have to. It’s a meanless observation. It doesn’t add anything to the discussion or the subhect.
But hey, if you want to believe you made a relevant point, be my guest. This thread is all about people having faith.
Faith and logic are quite different.
Atheism and agnosticism are quite similar. You’ve not succeeded in rebutting that, only in being insulting.
and moving the goalposts as you did tells me you see the problem in your logic
I’m agnostic and I still occasionally attend church with a friend.
I commented on your argument only.
AS an expiriment as you go about your day, see if you can tell which of the people you run into are believers and which aren’t by how they function.
See if you can tell if they believe or not by whether they believe or not when they are considerate and kind toward others, or self invloved , or downright jerks.
I have not taken it out of context. The first two times I quoted you saying “I’m not a theist”, I included the second part of the sentence where you say you’re an agnostic. The first time I quoted the sentence and said I don’t know what definition of agnosticism you’re using that is mutually exclusive from atheism, because that’s sure what it looked like.
You replied that you did not imply that agnosticism was mutually exclusive to atheism and that you call yourself agnostic because your response to “Does God exist?” is “I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone else does either.”
After reading the above, quoting you saying “I’m not a theist” without the second part is not taking you out of context as not knowing if God exists is irrelevant to first part of your statement. “I’m not a theist” is all I need to know regarding your God belief. What you “know” or don’t is irrelevant. You replied that me concluding that you must have definitions for atheism and agnosticism that are mutually exclusive was extreme and that you go by old school definitions:
***"When someone answers “Do you believe in God?” with “yes I Do” they are a theist.
if they answer with “I’m undecided. God may or may not exist” then they are agnostic
If they answer with “No I don’t believe in God or gods” they are atheist.
I’m aware those are simplified definitions and there are lots of nuances and variations among real people. An intellecdtual honest atheist will acknowledge they can’t really know, just as an honest theist will. I don’t see any need for more labels and subcatagories."***
Great. Those definitions of atheist and theist aren’t mutually exclusive to your definition of agnostic, so what’s the problem with me using your quote “I’m not a theist” on it’s own?
According to two statements I’ve quoted you saying several times (“I’m not a theist” and "“I’m not a believer”), the obvious conclusion is that you’re an atheist according to your own definitions. Whether or not God may exist is irrelevant to belief or lack of it. If you’re going to claim the first part of your definition of an agnostic (“I’m undecided”) is in regards to belief, then you’re still an atheist according to your definitions because you already said that you’re not a theist or a believer, so you’re not undecided in regards to belief. You’re without any.
Also, if the first part of your definition of an agnostic (“I’m undecided”) is in regards to belief, why have you claimed multiple times that you’re not using definitions of agnosticism that are exclusive to theism and atheism? In that case it would be. It would also be a definition change to your earlier statement:
***I have zero interest in a semantic discussion or the subcatagories of agnostic atheist etc. I did not say or imply that agnostiocism was mutually exclusive of atheism.
I call myself an agnostic because my response to “Does God exist?” is I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone else does either.***
Your response above is not in regards to what one believes, but about reality. Not mutually exclusive to theism or atheism. Many atheists and theists would answer the question the same way.
But then you give expanded definitions:
You do realize after all of the times you claimed that you did not imply that atheism is mutually exclusive to agnosticism, you defined it that way above, don’t you?
Read what I was replying to again and the person’s response to my “Hmm.” He seems to have understood what I was getting at. My guess is that you’ve misinterpreted me somehow.
Trinopus, so I (and others) can better understand the dialogue between you and cosmosdan, can you tell us what definition you’re using for agnosticism? Doing so may also change the dialogue between the two of you if cosmosdan thinks you are using “agnosticism” with a definition that you didn’t intend.
I was trying to use the most commonplace version: an agnostic is someone who admits he doesn’t know whether or not there is a God, or whether any religion is the “true” one. There might be, or there might not be. Such a person tends not to practice any given religion, because he doesn’t see any way to know which one is right. Why worship Odin, if there’s just as much chance that Zeus is the real king of the gods?
Early in this thread, some people were saying that there isn’t any real meaningful difference between atheism and agnosticism. I am not going that far. I’m only saying they’re similar. Neither the atheist nor the agnostic worship, nor pray, nor attend services, nor make declarations of faith. They both do this for very much the same reason: they haven’t seen enough evidence to persuade them that a given religion is valid.
This is, really, a fairly commonplace observation, all but tautological. A proper response might have been, “True, but so what?”
I did not develop this point further, to argue that atheism and agnosticism are wholly the same, and that there is no point in the division into two categories. Again, others made that point, but not me. Instead, I supported the division, saying that it serves certain useful purposes.
My only point was that atheists and agnostics are likely to be allies, getting along comfortably together. Both are opposed to theocracy. Both adhere to other systems of morality. Both are completely compatible with secular or humanist values.
That fits some atheists and also some theists.
True…but that doesn’t rebut the statement.
Like… “Cats and dogs are both quadrupeds.” “Wrong! Elephants are also quadrupeds!”
I wasn’t trying to rebut a statement. I’m just confused because it seemed to me you were using theism and atheism in ways that are mutually exclusive to agnosticism.
Since your definition of agnostic is in regards to what one doesn’t “know”, and you admit an agnostic can be a theist (presumably because theism is based on what is believed), how are agnostics necessarily functionally the same as atheists? Can’t an agnostic theist go in his backyard and pray every night, for example- something an atheist wouldn’t do?
It was more of a rhetorical question based on the implications of your “functionally the same” idea.
Well, I suppose I’m not the proper person to answer what psychologically unhealthy means. The topic creator is the one who is questioning why the delusions of faith, religion, and the afterlife aren’t treated the same as other unhealthy delusions.
Even if it is a delusion, and it is not always rightfully called a delusion at all, that still doesn’t mean it’s unhealthy.
I think extreme theists who commit harm to others is partially where the idea of an “unhealthy delusion” comes from. I was addressing the fact that people use the phrase psychologically unhealthy in a BROADER sense than is accurate.
And I’m certainly not saying that agnosticism and atheism are somehow unhealthy. If anything agnosticism and atheism would be the control variables to compare theism to.
Well, in my opinion, there’s a huge amount of overlap between atheism and agnosticism – and in my opinion, there is no overlap between theism and either atheism (by definition!) or agnosticism (not be definition, but in practice.)
If an agnostic says, “I don’t know if there is a god,” and the theist says, “There is a god, and his name of Carlos, and he created the Moon and the Stars,” it seems difficult for there to be any overlap.
I suppose you might find some overlap out in the far fields of abstract academic deism, but once you get into formal theism, how could an agnostic qualify as a theist? How can someone who says “I don’t know” also say “I believe?”
I don’t think I’ve ever admitted that. I don’t believe it, at this point, but am willing to listen to arguments to support the idea.
At this point in time (again, I’m willing to listen) my thoughts are that an agnostic cannot also be a theist, and that agnostics do not pray. To whom would they pray?
“Hey, if anybody’s listening?” It isn’t wholly a foolish idea. Saint Paul noted that the ancient Athenians had a temple dedicated to “The Unknown God,” presumably to cover all possible bases.
But a theist need not make that claim. A theist must just be with the belief that at least one god exists. If we change your second statement slightly (see bold), the same person can make both of the following statements:
*“I don’t know if there is a god.”
“I believe there is a god, and his name of Carlos, and he created the Moon and the Stars.”*
The above person would be an agnostic theist.
I know a lot of people like that. They claim that they don’t “know” that God exists (and/or that it is something that in unknowable) but believe He does based on faith. They even claim it’s virtuous to have belief without needing proof. There are also that say they “know” in their hearts God exists (and of course they wouldn’t be agnostic), but I’ve met several people that believe and don’t “know.” Several posters on this board are self described agnostic theists (using the definitions you provided).
Well, it seemed to me you did indirectly when you replied "true"in the italicized dialogue between us below, but maybe I misunderstood you.
You: I was trying to use the most commonplace version: an agnostic is someone who admits he doesn’t know whether or not there is a God, or whether any religion is the “true” one. There might be, or there might not be.
Me: That fits some atheists and also some theists.
You: True…but that doesn’t rebut the statement.
The first section of the Wikipedia article below puts it well in just a few sentences.
RUN, TRINOPUS, RUN LIKE THE WIND!!
Oh NO,… I’m to late. …Alas, poor Trinopus.