Jump to content

On The Notion That 'all Agnostics Are Atheists' ...


Recommended Posts

Lol no, not really. Maybe there are "other dimensions" after this life. Why would that automatically point to a "god?"

Right?

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

"But we don't actually know that the universe exists.  We simply perceive it through senses that could be inaccurate.  Even the science that "proves" the existence of the universe is perceptual."  

I've been doing some online reading tonight, trying to understand the differences between an agnostic and atheist, and I've seen thoughts expressed like below:   As I see it though, this is no

Well a agnostic is just a person who is uncertain of whether or not there is a god. Agnostics keep in mind that god may exist but his existence cannot be proven or disproven. You can say agnostics are

I don't think anyone knows if there is anything after death or not. But in terms of the existence of god, I am a hard atheist. I absolutely do not believe in the existence of god. Is that a contradiction? smile.png

 

 

Lol no, not really. Maybe there are "other dimensions" after this life. Why would that automatically point to a "god?"

Right?

 

smile.png

Who knows?  Maybe when we die, we open our "eyes" and find ourselves surrounded by giant cats.  Or stalks of broccoli.  Perhaps as I approach my death, I will be sure to have catnip and a steamer with me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you go and sample some of my posts I think I can back up the claim that i am an agnostic in the truest sense of the word. I don't know, it can't be proven, and except when people who do have faith that there is or is not a deity intrude upon my life I usually don't care.

 

That said, the concept can make for some interesting discussions at times.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding (I can't read the whole thread tight now so I could be repeating someone here):

A theist believes in a personal and transcendent God who created the universe and intervenes with it in some way.

An atheist does not believe this; in other words they are not convinced by the evidence given. Deists and pantheists are not theists; they would technically be atheists and would probably identify as such if 'atheist' weren't such a loaded word with certain undesirable connotations. An agnostic believes there is no way you can know for sure. These two concepts usually overlap, but they don't have to. Some people believe they are absolutely certain that no god exists. And some people might believe in 'something out there, even if they are 'agnostic' in the sense that they don't think they can know for sure.

To summarize, they are two separate but related concepts that often overlap, but not 100% of the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't think anyone knows if there is anything after death or not. But in terms of the existence of god, I am a hard atheist. I absolutely do not believe in the existence of god. Is that a contradiction? :)

 

 

 

Lol no, not really. Maybe there are "other dimensions" after this life. Why would that automatically point to a "god?"

Right?:)

 

Who knows?  Maybe when we die, we open our "eyes" and find ourselves surrounded by giant cats.  Or stalks of broccoli.  Perhaps as I approach my death, I will be sure to have catnip and a steamer with me.

I can't stop laughing! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a common misconception about atheism -- the soft kind -- can be summed up nicely with a simple analogy.

 

Consider the difference in meaning between the words 'raise' and 'rise.'

 

We use raise to imply a controlled action, such as raising our hands.

 

We use rise to imply something that occurs naturally without control, such as the sun rises.

 

Hence, the confusion surrounding the word disbelieve.  It implies control.  More accurately, however, the soft atheist doesn't control this action, it is just the natural consequence of what occurs when no evidence is forthcoming -- thus, disbelieve to a soft atheist is closer to rise than raise. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator

The analogy fails due to semantics.  I rise each morning.  It is a controlled action.

There is a part of me that also rises every morning, but it is not a controlled action; often it's due to dreaming about Beyonce.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The analogy fails due to semantics.  I rise each morning.  It is a controlled action.

 

I don't think it fails so much as you found an exception to the rule.  English is riddled with them. 

 

 

http://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/cw-raise-rise.htm

 

If you raise something, it means that you elevate it - you move it up or lift it to a higher level.

 

If something rises, it means that it elevates itself - it goes up itself. No external force is needed to lift it. But note that there is not always a physical movement; sometimes the meaning is just "to increase".

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not the problem it used to be, sadly. 

 

But seriously, the main difference between rise and raise is that one is an intransitive verb and the other transitive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, transitive and intransitive is gobbledygook to this non-linguistics major. 

 

But I do know I can't rise myself in the morning.  I've always thought we speak of it as if it's a natural, thoughtless process -- one of those quirks of language and how we think about things. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator

I hate to argue with a fellow home brewer, Ro-bear, but I have to stick with Vigile on this one.  It rises whether I want it to or not.  This morning it was Rhianna's fault.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Going back to the thought that "there is nothing between atheist and theist" I would add that reality is frequently too messy for absolute categories, even in science. Light is both a particle and a wave, for example. There's a continuum that extends from belief to non-belief and many people linger in the middle. Agnostic is a useful term for that lingering.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Orbit,

 

I must respectfully disagree with you in that I do not consider myself to be "lingering" as you put it. I am an agnostic, pure and simple.

 

I don't know, and to some extent do not care, if there is a "God" (or gods) or not. So far as I know, it can not be proven either way.

 

I have upset more than a few people on this forum by saying that in my opinion, there is little difference between a Christian who is steadfast in their belief and an athiest who is stadfast in their disbelief. I would be willing to accept either position based upon an acceptable proof. (Given that even "logic" itself is incomplete thanks to Godel, that will be a difficult task, indeed.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can be permanently in the middle, which is what the agnostic category is. I didn't mean to suggest an inevitability of motion towards one or the other, I agree with your characterization of atheists as being steadfast in their beliefs. The thing that probably upsets people is that atheists' beliefs are based on evidence, and theists' beliefs are not, and they perceive that as an important difference,

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.