Split from pedophile priest thread

[sam-i-am]

Ey up, the Zen masters are joining in....

Because to be an atheist is to believe that there is no God. It's not just a lack of belief in one, as I said that's agnosticism,

You've said that twice now Booj and I'm sorry but you're wrong. Agnostics don't believe there is no God, they believe it's impossible to prove if there is or is not a God.

you can still be agnostic if you think the truth is unknown ..but not necessarily unknowable

That sentence is meaningless.

[HvyFuel]

That sentence is meaningless.

it means that you can be an agnostic and still believe that the truth of god existence ...is knowable

In that case it's wrong.You can't.

[troy]

You can also be an agnostic atheist, they are not mutually exclusive.

eta or an agnostic theist even

Edited April 15, 2010 by troy

[weed_G]

ag·nos·tic

–noun

1.

a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

2.

a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

–adjective

3.

of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.

4.

asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

You can also be an agnostic atheist, they are not mutually exclusive.

no you can't and yes they are

Edited April 15, 2010 by weed_G

[troy]

Feels like punch and Judy here

[HvyFuel]

ag·nos·tic

–noun

1.

a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

2.

a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

–adjective

3.

of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.

4.

asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

Well done, you've just proved you're wrong. You stated agnostics accept the existence of God 'can be knowable'. Your quotes show it can't. Ta

[weed_G]

it can also just mean they are not sure either way ..that doesn't mean to say they also have to believe it's unknowable to qualify as an agnostic ..it just means they don't know ..the definition is pretty explicit

Edited April 15, 2010 by weed_G

[sam-i-am]

and

[weed_G]

and nothing ..hvy's wrong im right

[sam-i-am]

I was with you all the way until the dictionary definitions came up. The word and gives victory to Hyv I'm afraid

[weed_G]

if you don't understand the terms of the definition ..the loss is all yours

[distracted]

This might help from the OED:

Agnostic

A. n. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

[suggested by Prof. Huxley at a party held previous to the formation of the now defunct Metaphysical Society, at Mr. James Knowles's house on Clapham Common, one evening in 1869, in my hearing. He took it from St. Paul's mention of the altar to ‘the Unknown God.’ R. H. HUTTON in letter 13 Mar. 1881.]

1870 Spect. 29 Jan. 135 In theory he [Prof. Huxley] is a great and even severe Agnostic, who goes about exhorting all men to know how little they know. 1874 MIVART Ess. Relig. etc. 205 Our modern Sophiststhe Agnostics,those who deny we have any knowledge, save of phenomena. 1876 Spect. 11 June, Nicknames are given by opponents, but Agnostic was the name demanded by Professor Huxley for those who disclaimed atheism, and believed with him in an ‘unknown and unknowable’ God; or in other words that the ultimate origin of all things must be some cause unknown and unknowable. 1880 BP. FRASER in Manch. Guardn. 25 Nov., The Agnostic neither denied nor affirmed God. He simply put Him on one side.

atheist

A. n. 1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

[a1568 COVERDALE Hope of Faithf. Pref. Wks. II. 139 Eat we and drink we lustily; to-morrow we shall die: which all the epicures protest openly, and the Italian atheoi.] 1571 GOLDING Calvin on Ps. Ep. Ded. 3 The Atheistes which say..there is no God. 1604 ROWLANDS Looke to it 23 Thou damned Athist..That doest deny his power which did create thee. 1709 SHAFTESBURY Charac. I. I. §2 (1737) II. 11 To believe nothing of a designing Principle or Mind, nor any Cause, Measure, or Rule of Things, but Chance..is to be a perfect Atheist. 1876 GLADSTONE in Contemp. Rev. June 22 By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole Unseen, or to the existence of God.

Edited April 15, 2010 by billious

[Randalizer]

So agnostic atheist makes no sense at all. The atheist has made up their mind, the agnostic has an open mind.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Randalizer

[weed_G]

. n. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

Qualifying agnosticism

Hume contended that meaningful statements about the universe are always qualified by some degree of doubt.[12]. He asserted that the fallibility of human beings means that they cannot obtain absolute certainty except in trivial cases where a statement is true by definition (i.e. tautologies such as "all bachelors are unmarried" or "all triangles have three corners"). All rational statements that assert a factual claim about the universe that begin "I believe that ...." are simply shorthand for, "Based on my knowledge, understanding, and interpretation of the prevailing evidence, I tentatively believe that...." For instance, when one says, "I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy," one is not asserting an absolute truth but a tentative belief based on interpretation of the assembled evidence. Even though one may set an alarm clock prior to the following day, believing that waking up will be possible, that belief is tentative, tempered by a small but finite degree of doubt (the alarm might break, or one might die before the alarm goes off).

I would say a) is closer to common use, but I can see how they are both valid albeit different ..if it's the case that b) is absolute and a) is invalid then we need a new word for the middle ground between atheism and theism as agnostic isn't fit for purpose ..having a view as final as: god is unknowable/unprovable ..doesn't sound that open minded to me

believer/agnostic

---------------------

a)

believer: I have seen God

agnostic: It's not that I don't believe you ..but I personally don't have enough information to say either way if you have or not

b)

believer: I have seen God

agnostic: No you haven't, because it's not possible to know either way

[Boojum]

Because to be an atheist is to believe that there is no God. It's not just a lack of belief in one, as I said that's agnosticism,

As to atheists I have to disagree also, you're reversing the meaning imo. An atheist is someone who does not believe in God/s, not believes there isn't a God as there's nothing to believe in. And you can sigh all you like, you're still wrong.

I don't think I am. I may be but nothing has been said that changes my view of atheism. If an atheist does not believe in God then logically that means he/she believes there isn't a God. It's a situation with two possibilities - either there is a God (or Gods) or there isn't. If you believe one possibility then by extension you must disbelieve the other. You either believe in something, don't believe in it or don't know. A belief on one side requires an equal disbelief on the other side.

Though regarding agnosticism, I concede that I worded it very badly which is pretty useless in a discussion that is partly about semantics As per Billious' post "The Agnostic neither denied nor affirmed God. He simply put Him on one side." - that sums up my understanding of agnosticism, it comes under the 'don't know' heading. Perhaps, as some people claim, it is sitting on the fence but I think that's a fairly harsh accusation when it comes to things that cannot be proven nor disproven, it seems to me to be the only sensible position. I genuinely don't know whether there is a God or not, and I don't think it's possible for me to know, so I can't come down on either side of the question of belief. And coming down on either side of the question is to hold a belief, since the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven. Holding any opinion about something that cannot be proven is a belief, even if it is a belief in the absence of something. Any decision one makes in the absence of incontrovertible evidence is an act of faith. And that's the point I was trying to make in the first place (obviously very badly, mea culpa so apologies to anyone concerned for being sarcastic earlier in the discussion, I guess I just wasn't expressing myself properly, maybe I'm still not), atheism is an act of faith and therefore a belief.

E2A I think I'm right in my understanding of atheism and that my logic is sound, but I only have my own thoughts to go on so my conviction that I'm right is not proven, therefore it is an act of faith - I believe I'm right but I can't say I AM right.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Boojum