|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 5, 2017 2:33:29 GMT
Agnostic refers to whether you have knowledge of a god, not whether you believe in one. If you have no knowledge of a god, you can still believe in one or not.
But you either believe, or you don't. There is no middle ground there, and agnostic isn't a middle ground. if you don't believe one to be true you are an atheist.
You can label yourself as agnostic and that's fine, but you are still an atheist in that case.
Just wanted to make that clear because a lot of people seem to think agnostic is in the middle somehow.
|
|
|
Post by bonerxmas on Mar 5, 2017 4:13:44 GMT
well the middle ground is, "i dont have enough information yet, need to do more reading, so i havent decided what i believe"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 4:21:59 GMT
Agnostic refers to whether you have knowledge of a god, not whether you believe in one. If you have no knowledge of a god, you can still believe in one or not.
But you either believe, or you don't. There is no middle ground there, and agnostic isn't a middle ground. if you don't believe one to be true you are an atheist.
You can label yourself as agnostic and that's fine, but you are still an atheist in that case.
Just wanted to make that clear because a lot of people seem to think agnostic is in the middle somehow. Sorry but it is a middle ground. I don't believe in god(s) existence or non-existence; nor do i know of god(s) existence or non-existence That's a purely middle ground
|
|
|
Post by Nostalgias4Geeks🌈 on Mar 5, 2017 4:27:53 GMT
I don't not believe. That's fairly middle ground.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 4:30:05 GMT
I don't not believe. That's fairly middle ground. Don't and not cancel each other
|
|
|
Post by Nostalgias4Geeks🌈 on Mar 5, 2017 4:36:43 GMT
Oh well, I'm sure you know what I mean lol.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 5, 2017 5:11:57 GMT
Agnostic refers to whether you have knowledge of a god, not whether you believe in one. If you have no knowledge of a god, you can still believe in one or not.
But you either believe, or you don't. There is no middle ground there, and agnostic isn't a middle ground. if you don't believe one to be true you are an atheist.
You can label yourself as agnostic and that's fine, but you are still an atheist in that case.
Just wanted to make that clear because a lot of people seem to think agnostic is in the middle somehow. You do not have a definition of "knowledge." You cannot take a group of people and tell which ones have "knowledge" of god or not. Several people with the same bad attitude you have would put the people from the group in different categories. It would be different if you had some idea yourself what you even mean. A continuum of certainty is a very fair model of the perception of sensible people. If -100 is absolute certainty the information is false and +100 is absolute certainty the information is true than zero is no certainty. No, it is not the "middle" in the sense of location on a map. It is the middle of the graph modelling degrees of certainty though.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 5, 2017 5:43:44 GMT
I don't not believe. That's fairly middle ground. Don't and not cancel each other In casual speech and writing and in impromptu speech and writing the rules are less strict. Before computers came along any writing was expected to be more circumspect than impromptu speech. On the computer writing can be quite impromptu though. Moreover the double negative actually serves in this context.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 5, 2017 6:42:23 GMT
Sorry but it is a middle ground. I don't believe in god(s) existence or non-existence; nor do i know of god(s) existence or non-existence That's a purely middle ground Sorry, but it's a completely different topic, not a middle ground between atheism and theism.
You are either atheist or theist and can't be in between. You can either be agnostic or gnostic regarding your knowledge of a subject.
You've had this told to you by numerous people right now, so I have to think you're just trolling at this point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 6:43:04 GMT
Sorry but it is a middle ground. I don't believe in god(s) existence or non-existence; nor do i know of god(s) existence or non-existence That's a purely middle ground Sorry, but it's a completely different topic, not a middle ground between atheism and theism.
You are either atheist or theist and can't be in between. You can either be agnostic or gnostic regarding your knowledge of a subject.
You've had this told to you by numerous people right now, so I have to think you're just trolling at this point.
Criticism Those such as William Lane Craig who define atheism as the denial of the existence of a god say agnosticism and atheism are incompatible.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 5, 2017 6:47:42 GMT
You do not have a definition of "knowledge." You cannot take a group of people and tell which ones have "knowledge" of god or not. Several people with the same bad attitude you have would put the people from the group in different categories. It would be different if you had some idea yourself what you even mean. A continuum of certainty is a very fair model of the perception of sensible people. If -100 is absolute certainty the information is false and +100 is absolute certainty the information is true than zero is no certainty. No, it is not the "middle" in the sense of location on a map. It is the middle of the graph modelling degrees of certainty though. I'm referring to a claim by the individual to have knowledge.
These aren't just my ideas, I'm explaining what the terms actually mean.
A continuum of certainty can exist yes, but you either believe or you don't, and either way, agnostic is not a middle ground position.
Just for the record I am an active member of an atheist community, and pretty much everybody regards themselves as both atheist and agnostic. I'm trying to tell you what the terms mean. This isn't a debate.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 5, 2017 6:49:04 GMT
Criticism Those such as William Lane Craig who define atheism as the denial of the existence of a god say agnosticism and atheism are incompatible. And he's wrong. Both in his definition of atheism and that it is incompatible with agnosticism. This isn't a debate. He's wrong.
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Mar 5, 2017 8:35:34 GMT
Agnostic refers to whether you have knowledge of a god, not whether you believe in one. If you have no knowledge of a god, you can still believe in one or not.
But you either believe, or you don't. There is no middle ground there, and agnostic isn't a middle ground. if you don't believe one to be true you are an atheist.
You can label yourself as agnostic and that's fine, but you are still an atheist in that case.
Just wanted to make that clear because a lot of people seem to think agnostic is in the middle somehow. Absolutely agree. (A)theism is about belief in a god. (A)gnostism is about knowledge. Basically anyone who claims to have knowledge is either lying or insane - so believer or not we're all agnostics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 9:45:20 GMT
well the middle ground is, "i dont have enough information yet, need to do more reading, so i havent decided what i believe" In relation to the Christian God, it doesn't take much reading at all (from a dispassionate perspective) to know that it cannot be true. So such a person would likely be somewhat emotionally biased towards wanting to believe in God. Or they're illiterate.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 5, 2017 10:16:59 GMT
(A)theism is about belief in a god. (A)gnostism is about knowledge. Basically anyone who claims to have knowledge is either lying or insane - so believer or not we're all agnostics. I disagree. I tend to be materialist, so I believe that if God existed, it would be possible to know about it. As far as I know, agnosticism is not only a claim to not have knowledge of God; it's also a claim that knowledge of God is not possible. Therefore, I am a non-agnostic weak atheist. I don't believe a deity exists; I believe that if a deity existed, it would be possible to find evidence for it; and I believe that such evidence has not been found. But I still disagree with the OP about either believing or not believing. I believe it's possible to not believe in God and at the same time also not not believe in God. Meaning: not caring at all.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 5, 2017 13:38:24 GMT
<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5> ... You have no definition then, just as I said. I understand trying to accept various points of view. I think that's what you're trying to do. I try to accept various points of view myself. Where you fail is that you're not tracking points of view. If you say you "know" something then from your point of view you might (or might not), from my point of view however you think you know it. Can you see the difference that arises from points of view yet? I don't believe you're deliberately disrespecting my point of view. I think you're trying to do just the opposite. The attempt is failing though. Other atheists I've met usually are trying to be "nice" and accepting individual's own various new ideas. I try the same thing. Tinkering with definitions is not the way to do that. What you're doing wrong is trying to make definitions that are "right." Definitions are neither right nor wrong. Definitions are just labels. How a label is applied can be right or wrong. Your definition of "gnosis" never has any more than one person who subscribes to it and has no use in communication since there is nowhere to apply it correctly to another person. In order for a definition to be useful to more than one person they must all subscribe to the same standard. Having no standard means having no definition at all. Do you now understand why we do not use the word "gnosis"? Do you understand why it is not in the dictionary with a lower case 'g'? Do you understand why the software on this board puts the wavy red "misspelled" line under it? It is not a word. It has no use in communication. Even people rather certain they know some god do not use it since that would be rude. I don't believe you're being a bully on purpose. One explanation might be that you're less intelligent than the people who make the rules. Another might be that you attended inferior schools or no schools at all. No, none of you are delivering any meaning. Because I do accept various points of view (successfully) I can recognize some definition of "gnosis" that has more than one person subscribing to it. If some group, religious or otherwise, develops a standard definition that the members of the group accept as "gnosis" then I can track that point of view. It doesn't have to be mine to keep track of it. My point of view still might be that they think they know that thing. I would accept however that members who have met their group's standard have met that if that's what the group says. There is a difference between being nice and thoughtless repetition. Some beliefs are stronger than others and you're failing to track that (You still aren't good at it). I can help you with this. I have a clear marker where the line between agnostic and atheists can be drawn. If there is a debate on the existence of a god, those who believe there is one are theist, those who believe there is no god are atheist, and those who take no side are agnostic. Suppose one of the agnostics develops a slight belief during the debate that there is no god. The moment he speaks out in the debate marks him as "atheist" rather than "agnostic" because you can't speak out unless you believe something. That same agnostic was in the middle before. Had the debate gone differently he instead might have developed a belief there is a god. During the debate a strong believer one way might drift toward the other side step by step. "Atheists" claiming to "lack" belief and then join debates saying there is no god are morally wrong. Quite often the reason an atheist is one derives from his inability to understand the language used. So I've noticed. It would have to be communication first anyway. You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 14:10:06 GMT
Criticism Those such as William Lane Craig who define atheism as the denial of the existence of a god say agnosticism and atheism are incompatible. And he's wrong. Both in his definition of atheism and that it is incompatible with agnosticism. This isn't a debate. He's wrong. No he is right. We are done here.
|
|
skyhawk0
Sophomore
Gonna be busy awhile before I can look at being active here, but good to stay in touch with you all!
@skyhawk0
Posts: 114
Likes: 39
|
Post by skyhawk0 on Mar 5, 2017 14:19:36 GMT
Agnostic refers to whether you have knowledge of a god, not whether you believe in one. If you have no knowledge of a god, you can still believe in one or not.
But you either believe, or you don't. There is no middle ground there, and agnostic isn't a middle ground. if you don't believe one to be true you are an atheist.
You can label yourself as agnostic and that's fine, but you are still an atheist in that case.
Just wanted to make that clear because a lot of people seem to think agnostic is in the middle somehow. Sorry but it is a middle ground. I don't believe in god(s) existence or non-existence; nor do i know of god(s) existence or non-existence That's a purely middle ground If you don't believe in any god's existence, then you're an atheist by definition. Whether or not you believe in the non-existence of gods is the difference between a hard atheist and a soft atheist. T.H. Huxley coined the term 'agnostic' because he didn't like being grouped in with hard atheists. The term was meant from the start to cover a subset of what was included in the definition of 'atheist'. Which isn't to say that there aren't people who use it more in line with its construction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 14:22:32 GMT
Sorry but it is a middle ground. I don't believe in god(s) existence or non-existence; nor do i know of god(s) existence or non-existence That's a purely middle ground If you don't believe in any god's existence, then you're an atheist by definition. Whether or not you believe in the non-existence of gods is the difference between a hard atheist and a soft atheist. If i don't believe in any god's non-existence, then i am a theist by definition. Goes both ways.
|
|
|
Post by papalazarou on Mar 5, 2017 14:32:52 GMT
Sorry, but it's a completely different topic, not a middle ground between atheism and theism.
You are either atheist or theist and can't be in between. You can either be agnostic or gnostic regarding your knowledge of a subject.
You've had this told to you by numerous people right now, so I have to think you're just trolling at this point.
Criticism Those such as William Lane Craig who define atheism as the denial of the existence of a god say agnosticism and atheism are incompatible. What a ridiculous statement, that's up there with "atheists are just mad at God because..." Does that mean that theism is the denial of the non-existence of a god?
|
|