Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Agnosticism

DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 10:05:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It seems a lot of people here understand that "atheism" is, most inclusively, the mere lack of belief in the existence of deities. But I still see some people using the archaic, original definition of "agnosticism". (Hell, I even saw someone post Richard Dawkins' terribly uninformed seven-point belief spectrum.)

When the term "agnostic" was first coined in the nineteenth century, "atheism" still held the definition "belief in the non-existence of deities". Back then, agnosticism was a middle-ground; it was neither an affirmation nor a rejection of the claim "A deity exists". It was a lack of position.

However, ever since the twentieth century, the term "atheist" has become more inclusive. Simply put, anyone who is not a theist is an atheist. An atheist can be one who believes in the non-existence of deities or one who neither believes in the existence nor non-existence of them.

This leaves the old definition of "agnostic" obsolete. Nowadays, "agnosticism" is the position that nothing is known or can be known about a particular phenomena (such as the existence of deities). Just as the opposite of "atheism" is "theism", the opposite of "agnosticism" is "gnosticism". Yes, "gnosticism" carries an archaic definition, too, one that is highly irrelevant to current philosophy. It's modern and relevant definition is the position that the truth of a particular phenomena can be known with certainty.

Gnosticism and agnosticism are ontological stances (concerning knowledge), while theism and atheism are epistemological stances (concerning belief). The two ontological stances are mutually exclusive of each other, but not of the two epistemological stances (which are also mutually exclusive of each other). Everyone must fit into one of the two categories, theism or atheism, and must fit into one of the two categories, gnostic or agnostic.

One can be a gnostic theist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or agnostic atheist, depending on how they answer these two questions:
1. "Do you believe a deity exists?" (Yes: theist; No: atheist)
2. "Do you believe it can be known for certain whether or not a deity exists?" (Yes: gnostic; No: agnostic).

This thread seems a little jumbled, but I just wanted to contribute to this community by making all this information publicly available. I'm sure many of you already knew this stuff, but a reminder never hurts, and if you didn't know this stuff, then you learned something new :D
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 5:31:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Good post. Essentially, Theism and Atheism deal with Theology whereas Gnosticism and Agnosticism deal with Epistemology.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
IFLYHIGH
Posts: 5,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 5:44:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I guess that makes me an agnositic atheist. Isn't the nonbelief in and of itself a belief? You don't believe I'm Hitler. You can't prove that nor can you prove it either so it's a belief.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 6:33:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/12/2012 5:44:07 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
I guess that makes me an agnositic atheist. Isn't the nonbelief in and of itself a belief? You don't believe I'm Hitler. You can't prove that nor can you prove it either so it's a belief.

Hitler died in 1945, it's 2012, therefore you cannot be Hitler. There I proved it.
IFLYHIGH
Posts: 5,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 7:21:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That would make Hitler 123 years old today. Not impossible given the current human aging rate. And really, I used Hitler because he is a funny person to pretend to be. Replace Hitler with Obama or Elvis or anybody that is me. Heck, I could of been you when I wrote it, you can't prove it. heheheheheeh, inception.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 7:40:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/12/2012 6:33:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/12/2012 5:44:07 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
I guess that makes me an agnositic atheist. Isn't the nonbelief in and of itself a belief? You don't believe I'm Hitler. You can't prove that nor can you prove it either so it's a belief.

Hitler died in 1945, it's 2012, therefore you cannot be Hitler. There I proved it.

Necessary a posteriori for the win.
Riza_Rosette
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 3:07:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/12/2012 5:44:07 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
I guess that makes me an agnositic atheist. Isn't the nonbelief in and of itself a belief? You don't believe I'm Hitler. You can't prove that nor can you prove it either so it's a belief.

No, non-belief is not a belief.

Also, there is much evidence to support the statement "You are not Hitler". Therefore, that statement should be believed to be true. There is no evidence for or against the existence of deities, nor could there possibly be, so the statement "A deity exists" should not be believed to be true or false. It is indeterminate.

However, the purpose of this thread is to simply explain the different stances, not explain which one I feel is most logical. So with that said, I just want to make sure I clarify: if one believes the statement "a deity exists" to be true, he/she is a theist, while all others are atheists. This includes those who believe it to be false and those who believe it to be indeterminate (neither believe it's true nor false).

So just as labeling yourself an "agnostic" isn't enough to denote whether you are atheist or theist, labeling yourself as "atheist" isn't enough to denote whether you believe in the non-existence of deities or neither believe in the existence nor non-existence of them.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 3:09:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hm, oops. Didn't realize the computer was still logged into my gf's account lol. Now I just feel silly... Anyway, I was the one who posted that last one...
IFLYHIGH
Posts: 5,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 11:27:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/13/2012 3:07:21 AM, Riza_Rosette wrote:
At 3/12/2012 5:44:07 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
I guess that makes me an agnositic atheist. Isn't the nonbelief in and of itself a belief? You don't believe I'm Hitler. You can't prove that nor can you prove it either so it's a belief.

No, non-belief is not a belief.

: Also, there is much evidence to support the statement "You are not Hitler". Therefore, that statement should be believed to be true. There is no evidence for or against the existence of deities, nor could there possibly be, so the statement "A deity exists" should not be believed to be true or false. It is indeterminate.

However, the purpose of this thread is to simply explain the different stances, not explain which one I feel is most logical. So with that said, I just want to make sure I clarify: if one believes the statement "a deity exists" to be true, he/she is a theist, while all others are atheists. This includes those who believe it to be false and those who believe it to be indeterminate (neither believe it's true nor false).

So just as labeling yourself an "agnostic" isn't enough to denote whether you are atheist or theist, labeling yourself as "atheist" isn't enough to denote whether you believe in the non-existence of deities or neither believe in the existence nor non-existence of them.

Yes, there is much evidence to support I'm not Hitler, but that doesn't mean the believer has to accept it. So while the statement shouldn't be believed to be true, it could be depending on the persons interpretation of evidence.

Evidence is not absolute. While it can make things highly improbable or vice versa, there is always room for different interpretations, hence I could still say I'm Hitler. Why do even continue this forum? I care little if people call me agnostic or atheist or insane....
IFLYHIGH
Posts: 5,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 11:29:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I forgot to add my finishing line.
So yes, non belief is still belief. Belief in the highly probable, but still belief.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 11:53:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/13/2012 11:27:46 AM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
There is no evidence for or against the existence of deities, nor could there possibly be, so the statement "A deity exists" should not be believed to be true or false. It is indeterminate.

Its actually true or not true, if we are talking about true dichotomies. However, yes, you are supposed to accept it as "Not true".

Belief necessarily addresses one claim. What we have, is two claims.

A diety exists.

A diety does not exist.

To each claim, there are two possible stances you can take.

A diety exists, and you accept the claim to be true, or you do not accept it to be true.

A diety does not exist, and you accept the claim to be true, or you do not accept it to be true.

If you do not accept the claim of "A diety exists" to be true, then you disbelieve the claim. It is not a belief, it is a disbelief.
IFLYHIGH
Posts: 5,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 12:08:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/13/2012 11:53:16 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/13/2012 11:27:46 AM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
There is no evidence for or against the existence of deities, nor could there possibly be, so the statement "A deity exists" should not be believed to be true or false. It is indeterminate.

Its actually true or not true, if we are talking about true dichotomies. However, yes, you are supposed to accept it as "Not true".

Belief necessarily addresses one claim. What we have, is two claims.

A diety exists.

A diety does not exist.

To each claim, there are two possible stances you can take.

A diety exists, and you accept the claim to be true, or you do not accept it to be true.

A diety does not exist, and you accept the claim to be true, or you do not accept it to be true.

If you do not accept the claim of "A diety exists" to be true, then you disbelieve the claim. It is not a belief, it is a disbelief.

So should we start defining Christianity is the nonbelief that a God doesn't exist? If you say no and that it must be the belief that God does exist, than why does Atheism not follow the same rule? All I am saying is that belief and nonbelief are one of the same thing. Until you have absolute evidence that a God doesn't exist, then you must believe he doesn't. So in a very wierd and confusing way, you could say you don't believe and do believe in the same thing. You don't believe in something because you BELIEVE that something not to be true.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 2:10:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/13/2012 12:08:53 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
So should we start defining Christianity is the nonbelief that a God doesn't exist?

Yes, we can identify them as a nonbelief that a God doesnt exist, but that would be meaningless, because a nonbelief that a God does not exist does not necessarily mean that you accept the belief that a God does exist.

If you say no and that it must be the belief that God does exist, than why does Atheism not follow the same rule?

Even though i answered yes, i will touch up on this question you asked.

The reason why atheism does not have to follow the same rules, is because atheism is simply the non-belief of the claim that a God exists. Thats all. You do not have to accept the claim that No Gods exist in order to be an atheist.

Theism and Atheism ONLY address the claim of "God exists". If you say yes, i accept that claim to be true, then you are a theist. Anything else, and you are an atheist.

All I am saying is that belief and nonbelief are one of the same thing. Until you have absolute evidence that a God doesn't exist, then you must believe he doesn't.

No one said that rejecting the claim that a God exists, necessariliy means that you have to accept the claim that no Gods exist. I dont. I do not accept the claim that a God exists. However, Non-belief is still not belief.

So in a very wierd and confusing way, you could say you don't believe and do believe in the same thing. You don't believe in something because you BELIEVE that something not to be true.

If youre going to go that route, then no, because youve sort of changed the claim.

God exists is true.
God exists is not true.

Now those are basically the new claims that you are reffering to. In this case, they coincide directly with "God exists, God does not exist", and you still have 2 different claims.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 2:12:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/13/2012 12:08:53 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
So should we start defining Christianity is the nonbelief that a God doesn't exist? If you say no and that it must be the belief that God does exist, than why does Atheism not follow the same rule? All I am saying is that belief and nonbelief are one of the same thing. Until you have absolute evidence that a God doesn't exist, then you must believe he doesn't. So in a very wierd and confusing way, you could say you don't believe and do believe in the same thing. You don't believe in something because you BELIEVE that something not to be true.

No, Christianity is more than simply not believing "God doesn't exist" to be true. It's believing that statement to be false.

However, for some atheists, it is neither believing it to be true nor false: a lack of belief.

Of course if you believe a statement to be true, then you also lack the belief it's false, and if you believe a statement to be false, then you also lack the belief it's true. But for some atheists, they don't believe it to be true or false.
IFLYHIGH
Posts: 5,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 3:27:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Yes, we can identify them as a nonbelief that a God doesnt exist, but that would be meaningless, because a nonbelief that a God does not exist does not necessarily mean that you accept the belief that a God does exist."

If you don't believe that God does or doesn't exist, then what is choice C? Law of excluded middle.

"No one said that rejecting the claim that a God exists, necessariliy means that you have to accept the claim that no Gods exist. I dont. I do not accept the claim that a God exists. However, Non-belief is still not belief."

Again, law of excluded middle. You either believe the proposition or the negation of the claim. So yes, while you have nonbelief in the proposition, you still have belief in the negation. Its just the opposite with Christians, they have nonbelief in the negation, and belief in the proposition.

I think Dakotas last paragraph coincides with my above explanation except for his last sentence that some Atheist neither believe nor disbelieve. Again, as explained above, you cannot believe or not believe both the proposition and the negation because this violates law of excluded middle.

Has my reasoning gone astray as it usually does?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 8:50:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 10:05:21 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:

Gnosticism and agnosticism are ontological stances (concerning knowledge), while theism and atheism are epistemological stances (concerning belief). The two ontological stances are mutually exclusive of each other, but not of the two epistemological stances (which are also mutually exclusive of each other).

Err, gnosticism and agnosticism are epistemological stances.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 10:52:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/13/2012 3:27:57 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
"Yes, we can identify them as a nonbelief that a God doesnt exist, but that would be meaningless, because a nonbelief that a God does not exist does not necessarily mean that you accept the belief that a God does exist."

If you don't believe that God does or doesn't exist, then what is choice C? Law of excluded middle.

"No one said that rejecting the claim that a God exists, necessariliy means that you have to accept the claim that no Gods exist. I dont. I do not accept the claim that a God exists. However, Non-belief is still not belief."

Again, law of excluded middle. You either believe the proposition or the negation of the claim. So yes, while you have nonbelief in the proposition, you still have belief in the negation. Its just the opposite with Christians, they have nonbelief in the negation, and belief in the proposition.

I think Dakotas last paragraph coincides with my above explanation except for his last sentence that some Atheist neither believe nor disbelieve. Again, as explained above, you cannot believe or not believe both the proposition and the negation because this violates law of excluded middle.

Has my reasoning gone astray as it usually does?

The law of excluded middle states that every statement of fact must necessarily be either true of false. I agree with this. But we do NOT have to either believe every statement of fact to be either true or false. No one is believing a proposition and its negation to both be true, and no one is believing the proposition and its negation to both be false. We are neither believing a proposition and its negation to be either true or false.

To put it simply, you are confusing (a) believing a statement to be neither true nor false with (b) neither believing a statement to be true nor false.

(a) is clearly contradictory. You cannot believe something is both true and false, nor can you believe something to be neither true nor false.

(b) is simply withholding judgement of the validity/invalidity (truth/falsity) of a claim until a belief can be justifiably supported.
IFLYHIGH
Posts: 5,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 12:04:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/13/2012 10:52:18 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/13/2012 3:27:57 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
"Yes, we can identify them as a nonbelief that a God doesnt exist, but that would be meaningless, because a nonbelief that a God does not exist does not necessarily mean that you accept the belief that a God does exist."

If you don't believe that God does or doesn't exist, then what is choice C? Law of excluded middle.

"No one said that rejecting the claim that a God exists, necessariliy means that you have to accept the claim that no Gods exist. I dont. I do not accept the claim that a God exists. However, Non-belief is still not belief."

Again, law of excluded middle. You either believe the proposition or the negation of the claim. So yes, while you have nonbelief in the proposition, you still have belief in the negation. Its just the opposite with Christians, they have nonbelief in the negation, and belief in the proposition.

I think Dakotas last paragraph coincides with my above explanation except for his last sentence that some Atheist neither believe nor disbelieve. Again, as explained above, you cannot believe or not believe both the proposition and the negation because this violates law of excluded middle.

Has my reasoning gone astray as it usually does?

The law of excluded middle states that every statement of fact must necessarily be either true of false. I agree with this. But we do NOT have to either believe every statement of fact to be either true or false. No one is believing a proposition and its negation to both be true, and no one is believing the proposition and its negation to both be false. We are neither believing a proposition and its negation to be either true or false.

To put it simply, you are confusing (a) believing a statement to be neither true nor false with (b) neither believing a statement to be true nor false.

(a) is clearly contradictory. You cannot believe something is both true and false, nor can you believe something to be neither true nor false.

(b) is simply withholding judgement of the validity/invalidity (truth/falsity) of a claim until a belief can be justifiably supported.

The claim is that God exist.
The preposition is that God exist
The negation is that God doesn't exist.
You say that atheism is not believing the preposition nor the negation. In order to not believe either the preposition nor the negation, then there is only one choice left, you believe both the preposition and the negation are unknowable(As you said). But this position is defined as Agnosticism, not Atheism. Atheism is defined as having nonbelief in God, not the nonbelief that God exist or doesn't exist.

So they don't believe in the preposition, agreed. The quarell were having is that I say they have belief in the negation while you say they don't. But if they didn't believe in the negation, then they would be Agnostics, not Atheist.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 1:29:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 12:04:32 AM, IFLYHIGH wrote:
The claim is that God exist.
The preposition is that God exist
The negation is that God doesn't exist.
You say that atheism is not believing the preposition nor the negation. In order to not believe either the preposition nor the negation, then there is only one choice left, you believe both the preposition and the negation are unknowable(As you said). But this position is defined as Agnosticism, not Atheism. Atheism is defined as having nonbelief in God, not the nonbelief that God exist or doesn't exist.

So they don't believe in the preposition, agreed. The quarell were having is that I say they have belief in the negation while you say they don't. But if they didn't believe in the negation, then they would be Agnostics, not Atheist.

You should reread the OP, the purpose of which was to dispel those common misconceptions about the definitions of "atheism" and "agnosticism" you have. If we were somehow having this conversation in the late 1800s, you'd be right, but this is the 21st century, and words change over time.
IFLYHIGH
Posts: 5,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 4:10:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"An atheist can be one who believes in the non-existence of deities or one who neither believes in the existence nor non-existence of them."

You have given Atheism the same definition of Agnosticism.
Your latter part def. of Atheism- One who neither believes in the existence nor the non-existence of God(s)
Agnosticism- One who neither believes in the existence nor non-existence of God(s)
The actual def. of Atheism- The nonbelief in God(s)
All the definition above says that atheism don't believe in the proposition of the claim God(s) exist. It says nothing about them not believing that God(s) doesn't exist as well, this definition is already taken by Agnosticism.

Definiton of Atheism today. The nonbelief in the propsition that God(s) exist. Also, the belief in the negation that God(s) exist.
Definiton of Atheism in the 18th century. The belief in the negation that God(s) exist. Also, the nonbelief int the proposition that God(s) exist.

All modern scholars have done is inverse the definition of Atheism, they have not changed it at all. All nonbeliefs of a claim require belief in either the negation of the claim, or belief that the claim is unknowable. Interesting post by the way, I now know what to say to an Atheist who believes that Atheism requires no belief.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 4:16:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Not in the religious studies world-

Agnostics just do not know. They hold no stance on validity; neutral.
Atheists are exclusively against any religious supernatural happening. They deny, deny, deny.
Gnostics are people who "know"- Marx, Lennon, Stalin, etc.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2012 1:34:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 4:16:54 PM, comoncents wrote:
Not in the religious studies world-

Agnostics just do not know. They hold no stance on validity; neutral.

I think it's important to note that Agnostics aren't just passively ignorant. Most of them vehemently argue that it is not POSSIBLE to know.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2012 1:36:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/13/2012 8:50:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Err, gnosticism and agnosticism are epistemological stances.

Oh, yes, you're right, thanks for pointing that out! Forgive the error in the OP, but I did switch the two terms "ontological" and "epistemological".
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2012 1:40:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 4:16:54 PM, comoncents wrote:
Atheists are exclusively against any religious supernatural happening. They deny, deny, deny.

1. Atheists do not believe in deities, but that doesn't mean they don't believe in other supernatural phenomena. I've met atheists who have believe in ghosts and the afterlife and such.
2. The only thing I deny, deny, deny is the validity of logical arguments for the existence of God. I don't deny a deity might (or might not) exist.
IFLYHIGH
Posts: 5,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2012 2:11:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/16/2012 1:40:09 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/14/2012 4:16:54 PM, comoncents wrote:

1. Atheists do not believe in deities, but that doesn't mean they don't believe in other supernatural phenomena. I've met atheists who have believe in ghosts and the afterlife and such.
2. The only thing I deny, deny, deny is the validity of logical arguments for the existence of God. I don't deny a deity might (or might not) exist.

1) You are correct are there. I have even wondered the afterlife is real because of NDE's.
2) I'm still unclear on how your an atheist. If you believe that a deity could exist but that there isn't any substantial proof that proves or disproves a God, then how are you not Agnostic? Not knowing if god exist or doesn't exist doesn't make you atheist, it is what you believe. I don't know if God is real or not real. But given the evidence, I believe, or have faith, that a God is not real. And thats all being an Atheist really means, is believing God does not exist. Any neutral stance, and your agnostic. So do you believe in the proposition or negation that God exist?
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 7:19:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/16/2012 1:40:09 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/14/2012 4:16:54 PM, comoncents wrote:
Atheists are exclusively against any religious supernatural happening. They deny, deny, deny.

1. Atheists do not believe in deities, but that doesn't mean they don't believe in other supernatural phenomena. I've met atheists who have believe in ghosts and the afterlife and such.

See, this goes against what a atheist really is at the core. An atheist is not supposed to believe in ghosts and the afterlife- those people are agnostics that argue against religion based on principle.

2. The only thing I deny, deny, deny is the validity of logical arguments for the existence of God. I don't deny a deity might (or might not) exist.

That is ok. You are not an atheist by definition of what an atheists is in religious studies. I took religion in college, and we would never count you as atheist based on what you said above. In a research, or poll, we would label you agnostic. The atheists are the ones that do not believe in any religious supernatural- ghosts, NDE's connected to an afterlife, ADC's, etc; nothing. You can label yourself anything, but we would never agree in the religious studies community.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 7:27:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 7:19:07 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 3/16/2012 1:40:09 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/14/2012 4:16:54 PM, comoncents wrote:
Atheists are exclusively against any religious supernatural happening. They deny, deny, deny.

1. Atheists do not believe in deities, but that doesn't mean they don't believe in other supernatural phenomena. I've met atheists who have believe in ghosts and the afterlife and such.

See, this goes against what a atheist really is at the core. An atheist is not supposed to believe in ghosts and the afterlife- those people are agnostics that argue against religion based on principle.

2. The only thing I deny, deny, deny is the validity of logical arguments for the existence of God. I don't deny a deity might (or might not) exist.

That is ok. You are not an atheist by definition of what an atheists is in religious studies. I took religion in college, and we would never count you as atheist based on what you said above. In a research, or poll, we would label you agnostic. The atheists are the ones that do not believe in any religious supernatural- ghosts, NDE's connected to an afterlife, ADC's, etc; nothing. You can label yourself anything, but we would never agree in the religious studies community.

The core of atheism deals only with gods. That's it period. If you want to find prohibitions against ghosts, you'll have to go elsewhere, like naturalism.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 10:21:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 7:27:25 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/17/2012 7:19:07 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 3/16/2012 1:40:09 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/14/2012 4:16:54 PM, comoncents wrote:
Atheists are exclusively against any religious supernatural happening. They deny, deny, deny.

1. Atheists do not believe in deities, but that doesn't mean they don't believe in other supernatural phenomena. I've met atheists who have believe in ghosts and the afterlife and such.

See, this goes against what a atheist really is at the core. An atheist is not supposed to believe in ghosts and the afterlife- those people are agnostics that argue against religion based on principle.

2. The only thing I deny, deny, deny is the validity of logical arguments for the existence of God. I don't deny a deity might (or might not) exist.

That is ok. You are not an atheist by definition of what an atheists is in religious studies. I took religion in college, and we would never count you as atheist based on what you said above. In a research, or poll, we would label you agnostic. The atheists are the ones that do not believe in any religious supernatural- ghosts, NDE's connected to an afterlife, ADC's, etc; nothing. You can label yourself anything, but we would never agree in the religious studies community.



The core of atheism deals only with gods. That's it period.

Not as we define it in religious studies.
The atheist does not believe in anything- ghosts, supernatural, gods, NDE's, ADC's- nothing.
If there is any question into any of those topics we label those people, in religious studies, agnostic.
I did my BA in Political Science and Religious Studies. I am just telling you how they are defined in a professional setting. You can call yourself whatever makes you feel better, but as it pertains to religious studies, he is an agnostic.