I've been looking for a site where I could discuss my particular agnosticism...and some considerations I have about atheism. I intend to do it courteously...and I hope I succeed. (I'm sure I will.)
Interesting that merely registering sorta entangled me in one of those "considerations" I mentioned above.
I was asked to identify as "atheist" or "non-atheist"...and when I selected "non-atheist" I was asked to identify my "belief."
I chose "other"...but the fact is, I have no "belief" on the specific issue of, "Do any gods exist or not."
Interesting that the issue would arise so soon.
Anyway...I see problems with labels like "atheist" or "agnostic"...so rather than actually label myself "agnostic" (as I did in this thread title), I usually set forth MY agnosticism, which is:
I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
There is actually no such thing as an agnostic in the way you describe since its impossible to both believe in gods and disbelieve in them at the same time. If you carefully examine your thoughts, you'll find that you indeed lean one way or the other - but not both ways at once.
@Randy
"If you carefully examine your thoughts, you'll find that you indeed lean one way or the other - but not both ways at once."
Likewise, if you carefully examine your beliefs you'd see that they cling upon the desire for unassailable answers.
None are forthcoming.
There are also people called Apatheists who simply don't care at all but they too, lean one way or the other when carefully examined.
Everyone does lean one way or the other. There is no middle ground to the question of belief in a god. You either believer there is or believe there isn't. I like the term Apatheist and think that it is much more descriptive of the people calling themselves "Agnostic" without a clue as to what the word means. At least apatheist is about a position of belief towards "Theism."
is agnostics something close to a deist??
or they're just neutral but bends a lot when confronted??
agnostic
noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
Why would anyone believe something existed that they couldn't know anything about? This is how I would describe all fictional claims that no evidence can be presented for, and are unfalsifiable, so could not be falsified even if they were untrue.
Of course there are agnostics "the way I describe."
I am one.
What specifically do you find contradictory with:
I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.
"I do not know if gods exist or not;"
Do you general believe things when you don't know if they are real?
"I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST"
That would depend how define them of course, but this doesn't logically infer their existence is possible. There is no reason an invisible unicorn can't exist, but I have no idea whether it is possible or not, and so I do not believe the claim until some objective evidence can be demonstrated for it.
"I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;"
Have you heard of Occam's razor? It would seem to apply here.
"I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction..."
Guess? If there is no evidence that something exists why would you believe it does?
The reason I think we're struggling is because whilst I can see the logic in the statement you don't know either way, I can see no logic in claiming to not believe they exist but claiming not to be an atheist. Atheism is simply the absence or lack of belief in a deity, so either you believe a deity exists or you are an atheist. What you know or can prove is a different matter, and that is where agnosticism might be valid, alongside either belief or disbelief, but as I said if agnosticism means you can know nothing about something, then why on earth you believe it was true?
Edited for grammar and clarity: 22/4/18
Hmm answering your specific question:
No reason to suspect gods cannot exist? Not even suspect a little? All gods? What about the flying spaghetti monster? What about the "LogicForTW-is-awesome-you-all-should-bow-down-to-him" god I just made up? I suppose you mean, that perhaps some god somewhere yet discovered or forgotten may possibly remotely exist. Also look at my post below about the commonly held accepted definitions of god. (requires worship etc.)
I can sort of see, well even "LogicForTW-is-awesome-you-all-should-bow-down-to-him" god does have a tiny tiny TINY! remote chance to exist, but is that any way to operate? There is a tiny tiny chance that a sole winning billion dollar lottery ticket will blow in to your hand right now. But is it any way to operate to say, well it is possible, I must plan around and operate around that could happen to me right now all my money problems are solved! Ofcourse not.
I obviously agree with your 3rd line (must exist etc)
Your fourth line, you do not see enough evidence to make a meaningful guess in either direction? Really? What do you consider to be evidence? To me, the evidence that the gods are made up by humans, (see my definition of gods in my post below again.) Is completely overwhelming. There is so much of it you would have to be blind to pretty much all collected knowledge you have so far, why do you dismiss or not really consider the the roman gods? the greek gods? Egyptian gods, the muslim god? The christian god, the flying spaghetti monster god, the "LogicForTW-is-awesome-you-all-should-bow-down-to-him" god? Because there is no evidence for it, but lots of evidence they were made up by humans. At least I hope that is why you dismiss pretty much every god idea.
Now, if you made the statement above more like:
"I do not know if a greater being exist or not, it seems based on all available collected evidence and knowledge so far. that: it is quite unlikely a greater being does exist, but I, and others do not know enough to dismiss the possibility all together of some sort of greater being, because I and others do not know everything." I would agree with you wholeheartedly and would not find the statement contradictory.
Not knowing if god exists or not is called being confused. It has nothing to do with what you "believe." Agnostic is the position of having "No knowledge." No one has any knowledge about God or Gods. People believe they have knowledge but when challenged that knowledge amounts to "NOTHING." So, people only believe they have knowledge but the knowledge is fictitious, fake, made up, and unable to be substantiated or verified in any way. Everyone is without KNOWLEDGE. It's a fact as far as I have seen. So, it logically follows that everyone is agnostic. All believers and non-believers alike are agnostic. Agnosticism is not some magic ground between Atheism and Theism. The ground between "A God Exists" and "No God Exists" is "Atheism." Atheism is the position on non-belief in Theist claims. It is the middle ground. Agnosticism is about KNOWLEDGE of which there is none. Atheism is about belief.
@orignal post
It comes down to accepted definitions really. I consider myself a strong atheist, but! I do believe there is a possibility of some sort of being that may be greater than humans that had some sort of hand at some point great or small in us being here today. I think that possibility is small, but I certainly am not arrogant enough to think I know everything about everything.
As for gods specifically, of the human thought of kind, requiring worship, being all powerful, created the universe etc, I find that extremely, extremely!! unlikely. Basically; the evidence that one of the various religions "gods" created man, is very weak to non existent, and is very self contradictory and creates all kinds of paradoxes. Where: on the inverse side, the evidence that man created the various god concepts is overwhelming, and much better explains the whole gods ideas and how they came to be, in a sane, easy to understand way.
To me it is like arguing if the sun will rise from what we call the east tomorrow or not. The evidence and basic sensibility that the sun will rise from the east tomorrow is overwhelming, where the evidence that it will not, is pretty much non existent.
That said I always welcome discussion with agnostics, and agnostics have my respect, infinitely much more so then folks that cling to the various religions despite the huge availability of information available to them instantly in today's world.
"To me it is like arguing if the sun will rise from what we call the east tomorrow or not. The evidence and basic sensibility that the sun will rise from the east tomorrow is overwhelming, where the evidence that it will not, is pretty much non existent."
Bingo!
This statement challenges views expressed very well.
(unless your earth is flat...lol. :P)
"I chose "other"...but the fact is, I have no "belief" on the specific issue of, "Do any gods exist or not."
Hi Frank, welcome. If you have no belief in a deity you are by definition an atheist, however you can still be an agnostic as agnosticism is a statement about knowledge not belief. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. I am an agnostic on all unfalsifiable claims, as I must be, but if I think nothing is known or can be known (agnosticism) about a claim then why would I believe that claim to be true?
If you don't like the label then you needn't adopt it, but while it is possible to not know in an absolute sense that a deity exists, it is not possible to both not believe one exists, and *not not believe one exists, you either believe they do or you don't, the positions are logical negations of each other.
Whether I am agnostic about claims for deities would depend on the claim and how that deity is defined, but I would remain an atheist until proper evidence was presented. If I told you I had flown to the moon last night using magic you couldn't disprove the claim, only point to the fact it denies known physical laws and was unevidenced, but then these are precisely the kind of claims religions use.
@Frank Apisa: I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
I'm agnostic about unicorns. I've never seen one, and there's nothing like a unicorn in the fossil record. But if a rhinoceros can have a horn, why not a horse? I have clear definition of a unicorn. It's a horse with a horn on its snout. So if I see one, I'll know what it is and stop being agnostic.
You're agnostic about gods. So presumably you have some kind of definition of a god, and you'll recognize one if you encounter it. What is that definition?
I've come to the conclusion that an atheist, both historically and literally, is a person that negates or opposes the existence of God. Its inherent in the very word, a- (negation) theos (gods). In this sense, atheism isn't the absence of a belief in God, but its polar opposite. It is a person who believes the universe, and themselves, to be without gods.
People like you are neither theist nor atheist. Those categories, as you have shown, do not describe your position, your attitude, nor your beliefs.
@ John6
Wow, and to think all these guys working on dictionaries have got their definitions so wrong. Is there no end to your talents Johnny boy?
Step forward and claim your reward for putting the Oxford and Cambridge works, the Miriam Webster volumes and of course Collins English all out of business at a stroke with your brilliance and incisive reasoning.
Coupled with your revolutionary new methods of logic solving, and your rewriting of evolutionary theory we shall be proud to gather our grandchildren around us and whisper "John6ix Breezy, I knew him before he became an unreadable hieroglyph" and remain warm in the reflections of your multifaceted glory.
I actually wouldn't be surprised if that ends up being the case, arrogant as that may sound.
@ Little Johnny
Arrogant? you? Never, just an honest assessment of your assured genius. I can see the parades, the chanting crowds, the good burghers, with not a cognitive dissonance in sight. All singing your praises in true pitch while you accept the accolades and flowers from pretty young virgins with a justifiably proud, yet humble mein.
@John
Awwwwwwww SNAP! J6B done gone and got himself some snazzy bling fontage. Sweeet! Looking sharp, dude!
*low, quiet, mono-tone sports announcer voice*
John Breezy bounces the ball in front of himself as he studies the court. He reaches back with his racket while tossing the ball high above his head. With a crushing swing of the racket he propels the ball like a cannon shot across the net onto his opponent's side of the court.
Old Man reads the serve expertly and dashes to the ball with a nimble grace to deliver a vicious backhand that launches the ball into a line-drive trajectory at a blinding speed toward the opposite corner of the court from where Breezy was caught flat-footed.
John Breezy scrambles desperately toward the ball and just manages to reach it in time to get his racket underneath it. And - oh noooo - he sends the ball on a high and slow lob back across the net where Old Man is waiting with a wicked smile and a gleam in his eyes.
With an almost casual manner, Old Man advances to a prime position and awaits the dropping of the ball as it begins its descent from the lofty heights. And - OOOOH! - what an incredibly vicious backspin he put on that ball as he smashed it back across the net directly at Breezy like a bullet out of a gun. This does not look good for Breezy, ladies and gentlemen.
Re: Watching tennis with Tin Man
:-D
"Watching tennis with Tin Man"
me, just came from men's room, walking towards sushi and t-man on the bleachers:
saying: "what did i missed sush?"
@John
Re: "...negates or opposes the existence of God..."
I'd call that the definition of an anti-theist, John- not an atheist. And yes- there are a lot of anti-theist atheists around. Some are anyi-theist about ALL theism, some only about specific religions or sects of that religion or features of those religions or sects.
I was talking to a couple of atheists online yesterday. One had been told the reason her youngest child had autism is because she rejected god. Another had been told god would harm his children to punish him because he had rejected god. Both had been told this by close family members. Not surprisingly, both were strongly anti-theist against the Christian sects they'd been raised in as a result of hearing stuff like that.
It was old hat to the lady with the lady with the autistic child, but the guy who'd suffered the emotional blackmail threat to his children was fit to be tied- he was ropeable. He'd gotten used to the blackmail bit about him going to Hell- but then his family hit on this new approach: directly threaten his kids, and he'll scamper back to the church, toot suite. Didn't work: just turned a previously tolerant atheist into a very angry anti-theist. The fact that his family can believe and WORSHIP such a horrible deity gave him ample reason to negate and oppose said deity. To denounce it, loudly and publicly. You could say he was engaged in a battle of good against evil for his family's souls.
"I was talking to a couple of atheists online yesterday. One had been told the reason her youngest child had autism is because she rejected god. Another had been told god would harm his children to punish him because he had rejected god. Both had been told this by close family members. Not surprisingly, both were strongly anti-theist against the Christian sects they'd been raised in as a result of hearing stuff like that."
And in between these appallingly cruel claims on behalf of their religion they will sententiously lecture you that it's all above love.
Cognitive dissonance like irony is something theists and religious apologists often give the impression they don't understand at all.
The prexix a- does not need to imply negation, it could also mean a lack of something. For example, an asexual lacks sexuality, asymmetry is the lack of symmetry, and atheism is the lack of theism (belief in god(s)). https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/a-#Etymology_5
Further, I think most atheists would accept the god hypothesis if evidence for that hypothesis were to arise. Well, can't speak for everyone but I can speak for myself. But until that evidence comes, there is no reason to believe in gods much like there is no reason to believe in fairies and leprechauns - until evidence for fairies and leprechauns arises.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
"I've come to the conclusion that an atheist, both historically and literally, is a person that negates or opposes the existence of God."
Well you cherry pick science and logic to redefine what is real, so I see no reason you should suddenly have an epiphany of how egotistical and idiotic this behaviour is when dealing with word definitions, so it's fairly predictable you would also cherry pick which word definitions you'll accept or not, and redefine the latter in a biased arbitrary and ad hoc fashion.
You're consistent, that much I will have to grant you.
"Its inherent in the very word, a- (negation) theos (gods)."
Except the word isn't a-theos is it? It's a-theism, so you are again simply lying with clumsy semantics. The only thing inferred from the word atheism is the lack or absence of theism. Your claim is nonsense, a fashionable and dishonest attempt by religious apologists to reverse the burden of proof, as they know they can't properly evidence the claim their theism makes, that the deity they choose to believe in is real.
" It is a person who believes the universe, and themselves, to be without gods."
Another tedious attempt to reverse the burden of proof with semantics by dishonestly implying atheism is a claim and not the disbelief of one. Tell me Breezy do believe the universe and yourself to exist without invisible unicorns? Could you evidence that "belief" for us please? Is it a faith based religious belief you have that you and the universe exist without invisible unicorns? No matter how many times you do this it's still naught but tedious duplicity.
"People like you are neither theist nor atheist. "
If he's not a theist then he can ONLY be an atheist, and vice versa.
" Those categories, as you have shown, do not describe your position, your attitude, nor your beliefs."
Well he did make a contradictory claim at the start where he implied not to believe in religions claims but said he didn't think he was an atheist, so it's for him to clarify what he believes or does not believe, but agnosticism is not about belief or the lack of it, it says you can know nothing about a claim, which is true of all claims that are unfalsifiable, why would anyone believe something they can know nothing about, and which they couldn't falsify even if it was false?
Science recognises unfalsifiable claims as useless and they are referred to as not even wrong, they can tell us nothing. I can see why someone would not believe such a claim as it can't be evidenced, but I'm at a loss as to why someone would believe such a claim, as it means they could literally believe anything.
Hi and welcome, Frank.
I don't dread agnostics- it would be rather self-limiting, because there's a lot of you around. :-)
I'm fine with your self-definition, but curious about your definition of "gods". What do you mean by "gods"?
I know a lot of people who are sure the churches, synagogues, mosques and temples all have it completely wrong, but they believe in the power of the Universe. They believe the Universe gives you what you need ( if not what you want). Many of them believe in karma, too. Now, I call that sort of belief "theist"- especially if karma's part of it- but my friends who hold those beliefs certainly don't. In fact, they'd find being called a theist more than a little insulting- they describe themselves as spiritual.
That's why I'm curious about your definition of the "gods" you may/may not believe in. What do these gods do/not do? What is their relationship with human beings and other species? Did they set creation in motion, then walk away? I'd call that belief "deist". Did they set creation in motion, then hang around to apply a guiding hand here and there, and keep a benevolent eye on us? I'd call that belief "theist". That's why knowing what you mean by "gods" is key to me understanding your position.
I hope you reply to my post, and I hope you hang around. :-D
Frank Apisa,
"I chose "other"...but the fact is, I have no "belief" on the specific issue of, "Do any gods exist or not.""
The first thing is to define what you mean by the word "gods". The answer to the question will be based on how you define "gods or god".
This forum doesn’t work like most forums; I'm not even sure how to quote. So I’m going to respond to one item…and see if that can be followed to an end. Then move on to another. Sheldon’s comment came first on the list, so I am using his comment first. I promise to get to all the others after we deal with this one item.
Sheldon, you wrote:
"The reason I think we're struggling is because whilst I can see the logic in the statement you don't know either way, I can see no logic in claiming to not believe they exist but claiming not to be an atheist. Atheism is imply the absence or lack of belief in a deity, so either you believe a deity exists or you are an atheist. What you know or can prove is a different matter, and that is where agnosticism might be valid."
I understand that SOME atheists want “atheism” to mean the absence of a belief in a deity....and that SOME dictionaries define it that way. But that essentially is the result of a mistake about the etymology of the word. I certainly do not accept that definition (which is only one among many)…so that may explain why I say what I do. (We can discuss its etymology if you want.)
Anyway, let’s talk about this word “believe” (and its friend “belief”) for a second.
In the context of a discussion about the true nature of the REALITY of existence (which includes discussions about whether or not any gods exist)…the words “believe” and “belief” are merely disguises for a blind guess.
There is no way to KNOW that gods exist or not. Both are possible. Theists claim it is more likely that at least one god exists…and claim that the preponderance of evidence points in that direction. Atheists claim it is more likely that no gods exist…and claim that the preponderance of evidence points in that direction.
They are using THE SAME “evidence.”
Frankly, none of the “evidence” points in either direction as far as I can see. Atheists mostly blindly guess there are no gods and theists mostly blindly guess there is at least one (the one they worship).
As I see it, one cannot come to the conclusion “There is at least one god” or “There are no gods”…using logic, reason, science, or math. All one can do is to make a guess in either direction.
As I said…I DO NOT MAKE THAT GUESS.
Let’s discuss that.
Sure some atheists claim that, others do not.
Pages