- Joined
- Jun 18, 2005
- Messages
- 1,910
- Reaction score
- 13,221
Agnostic atheism 😕 I always thought this was an either/or.
Any Atheist/Secularist/Humanist/Free-thinking premeds out there?
- Thread starter Cytotoxic
- Start date
Pretentious drivel. I, like many other people, don't believe in God. However, we also understand that there is also insufficient evidence to disprove God. Enjoy your "faith".
It is. People are idiots.
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,908
- Reaction score
- 2
Harsh words.
Agnostic atheism = weak atheism; it means you lack a belief in theism and are unconvinced by arguments for theism
Strong atheism = 100% sure that no god exists
Agnosticism = unsure on the whole god question
There is a pretty big distinction between all of those
True, but your picture of god is definitely affected by reality. Because of evolution, I find it highly unlikely that a theistic god could exist. Deistic or pantheistic pictures of god are more nebulous and harder to describe. But personal/theistic gods don't make much sense in my opinion.
You're awful confident for someone so wrong.
Gnosticism is an epistemic position, meaning it pertains to knowledge or what a person claims to "know." Theism refers to belief in a deity. An agnostic is someone who claims to not know whether there is a god or not. Within that, you could be a theist or atheist: "I believe in a god but I do not know for certain if one exists." Such as person would be an agnostic theist.
I would argue that nobody can adequately explain their religious position using only "agnostic." You've told us you don't know if there is a god, but what do you believe? If you hold a positive belief in a god, you are a theist. If you don't hold a positive belief in a god, you are an atheist. Some argue that an agnostic is someone who believes in a god but that the nature of that god is not and cannot be known, but that falls closer to deism. A-gnostic simply means without knowledge.
Lots of people in this thread have mistakenly assumed that atheism is the belief that no gods exist. Some atheists do think no gods exist (strong atheists), but it is not necessary to be an atheist; one simply has to lack belief in a god.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2008
- Messages
- 6,866
- Reaction score
- 3,113
No!!! Don't resurrect a "which religion are you" thread. A "senior member" should know better.
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,908
- Reaction score
- 2
it needs to get bumped every month or two just in case there isn't enough controversy on the boards!
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2008
- Messages
- 6,866
- Reaction score
- 3,113
I guess it could be mildly more entertaining than all the AMCAS question threads popping up...OUTSIDE OF THE AMCAS QUESTIONS THREAD!
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,908
- Reaction score
- 2
oh, it's a new app season alright
at least for several months we won't get any new "School X vs School Y vs School Z" threads and polls
OMG, more pseudo-intellectual drivel.
Athiesm means you DON'T believe in a God. If you don't believe, you have "faith" on the unknowable! The fact that a so-called weak athiest are even more stupid than a so-called strong athiest. How the hell can you say that you don't believe in God, yet don't claim that the statement "God doesn't exist" may not be a true statement unless you're an idiot? If you cannot, with certainty, say that "God doesn't exist" then your default position should be "I don't know if God exists". It's totally illogical any other way.
Agnostic is NOT synonymous with unsure in the theological debate. Agnosticism is the only logical conclusion because, at it's core, it states that the question CANNOT BE ANSWERED (at the very least, with the knowledge we currently have available at our disposal)! They're not confused one single bit. In fact, they're the most "sure" of everyone.
Sure, there are some *****s trying to blurr the lines between agnostics and athiests in order to garner a little name recognition in the more useless sects of academia, but they're relying on semantics to make their case when it's a logical debate.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2009
- Messages
- 3,003
- Reaction score
- 26
I too am a non-believer. However, I have no problem with people that do, as long as they are not hypocritical and/or try to force their beliefs on anyone else. If I were to criticize people who believed I would be a total hypocrite because it really bugs me when believers do that to me.
The thing is, I think that the general principles of most religions are not bad things, I just don't believe in the stuff beyond that...
The thing is, I think that the general principles of most religions are not bad things, I just don't believe in the stuff beyond that...
You're awfully confident I'm wrong while you simply rely on an illogical argument based on semantics. I don't care about semantics, lets be logical.
Per your definitions:
- Agnostic's claim that god(s) existence is unknowable.
- Athiests believe god(s) don't exist.
- Thiests believe god(s) do exist.
Can you both (a) claim that something is unknowable, and (b) claim that you believe something exists or does not exist?
The answer is NO! You can say, "I believe the probability that god exists is exceedingly slim.", but you MUST not say god(s) do or do not exist if you also claim that the existence of god is unknowable. That's illogical!
See above.
The ONLY way your argument makes any sense whatsoever is if you rely on a very heavy abuse of semantics.
EDIT: Also, make sure you know that having a term to describe an illogical position, such as agnostic atheist, does not give credibility to such illogical positions. It simply means that we have "named" it, much like we've named many other things.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,153
- Reaction score
- 12
I really do not think that I can go through another cycle. I am feeling like this is it, I am done, 4 years is enough, I just do not have it in me to do it again, Evaporating in cyberspace.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2009
- Messages
- 3,003
- Reaction score
- 26
Who is going to entertain me with random college football comments then?
I'd agree with you, but I never gave the definition of agnosticism that you paraphrased above. An agnostic is someone who says they personally do not know for certain if a god exists or not, which is quite different from saying that the question is unknowable. A person who believes that the question is unknowable is an agnostic atheist because: 1) they claim to not know for certain if there is a god or not, and 2) do not hold a positive belief in a god.
Do you recognize the difference between, and independence of, belief and certainty (knowledge)? For example, "I am not certain that I scheduled my appointment, but I believe I did." That would be a position analogous to agnostic theism. This is why such a label is not illogical as you accuse below; it has practical relevance.
Explain "abuse." I'm sorry if you think interpreting etymology and prefixes in a consistent manner is inappropriate. The modern definition of agnosticism which gives itself it's own special category has likely been born out of the fear of being labeled an "evil atheist," which is the real insult to semantics and consistent language.
a-gnostic = without knowledge
a-theist = without belief in a god
If you call yourself an agnostic, you are likely an atheist! You either believe in a god, don't believe in a god, or believe there is no god, and the second two get you the atheist label.
Last edited:
Let me give you a hypothetical. Say I come up to you and claim that worms migrate south for the winter to survive. I present the evidence that they would freeze to death in the ground otherwise. Obviously, you are not convinced by my "evidence." Since you do not hold the belief that worms migrate, you are an "amigrationist." Now, without further evidence and study of your own to the contrary, you would also be hesitant to say you believe worms don't migrate south for the winter. Heck, maybe they do! That would make you a "weak amigrationist."
In contrast to the worm study where there is plenty of evidence worms do not migrate, it is impossible to gather any kind of evidence to show that a god does not exist. This is why, at least in my opinion, strong atheism is not a tenable position to hold.
The main point here is that you can lack belief in something without believing the opposite. You don't have to have "faith in the unknowable," you simply say "I don't accept the evidence given to me as adequate." This is NOT synonymous with agnosticism, because atheism simply means lack of belief in a deity - not belief that there are no deities.
Agnosticism is synonymous with "without knowledge." If you are not sure if there is a god, you are agnostic...but do you believe there is one? Yes, I think agnosticism is the only reasonable conclusion, but alone it doesn't describe your position. See below.
There is no line between agnostics and atheists because they are entirely separate issues. One refers to knowledge and the other to belief. That is to say that I can believe in a god and claim to either be certain or uncertain of its existence. These are important distinctions.
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,908
- Reaction score
- 2
What? No. Atheism means you reject theism. A-theism. Get it, Mr. Infallible Med Student?
No, I reject faith. It doesn't take faith to reject faith.
God, you're an idiot. Here's the point:
I would never say that I am 100% sure that God exists, because then I would have to know everything, and I admit that I don't. All I say is that the arguments for theism are unconvincing. The burden of proof, in my opinion, is with theists to demonstrate the existence of God. If faith is all they have, I am not convinced.
Agnosticism is a term coined by theists to make nicer atheists part of their team.
Why are you being so hostile?
If your issue is with strong atheism (as in, 100% sure there is no God), then I agree with you.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2010
- Messages
- 6,208
- Reaction score
- 36
I always have a good time laughing to this argument. It tacitly reveals how even theists believe that "faith" is bull****. Otherwise, why would they have a problem with atheism being "faith" (in their eyes)? And funniest of all is that many religious beliefs put faith as the ultimate virtue.
I usually like telling people I actively don't believe in god because it pisses them off once I uncap their argument about "faith." Truth is I lean more toward the question being irrelevant because the natural evidence doesn't support a god that intervenes in every day life. Could a deistic sort of god or gods exist or have existed? Maybe, but it is unlikely.
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Messages
- 918
- Reaction score
- 2
D
deleted249431
Flying Spaghetti Monster I hope there are lots of people like you in Med School Rockaction. You have great taste in music and great taste in deities (or lack therefore of).
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 750
- Reaction score
- 619
You didn't apply what you learned in BIO101 methinks. That argument has been used by creationists all the time and is regularly debunked by evolutionary biologists.
You posted this a while ago so I'm not going to go on like a fool unless people ask.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2008
- Messages
- 529
- Reaction score
- 16
Oh hi! Getting picky about semantics and nomenclature when there's all sorts of different views re: knowledge and religion is a silly place to argue. I haven't heard the distinction between agnostic theism vs agnostic atheism before (even with some philosophy of religion classes, perhaps because it's a differentiation of a "maybe" rather than a stand alone ) but I like it because it well describes certain people I know who fall into both camps.
Personally, I fall (in however you want to describe it, no need to argue XP) into the view that I don't think there's a god, but I don't know for sure. Well, except for Discordia.
Personally, I fall (in however you want to describe it, no need to argue XP) into the view that I don't think there's a god, but I don't know for sure. Well, except for Discordia.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2008
- Messages
- 529
- Reaction score
- 16
I actually really like the teleological argument. The problem isn't that it isn't a good argument, but rather that it's not a full proof. I always find it interesting that the whole Shakespeare from monkeys with typewriters isn't used against it, since that seems such a common idea in our culture and is quite clearly an analogous counterargument.
If we landed on a distant planet and found what looked to be a ruined car, we'd probably guess it was built by intelligent life. So I like the teleological argument. But we wouldn't know for sure. Hell, as enough sci-fi shows have done, it could even be the intelligent life.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2010
- Messages
- 455
- Reaction score
- 2
The issue with that argument is: who says any of this requires an 'architect' or a 'creator'? Sure, as humans we may find the planet earth and the universe to be amazing. But who says any of this is out of the ordinaryfor the universe? Simple laws of probability, combined with the physical laws of the universe, perhaps suggest that our planet earth is nothing special.
That's not to say we shouldn't appreciate it, or be amazed by it; but in the grand scheme of things, it's ordinary. What, to us, may seem like a complex, intricate system may just be boring day-to-day stuff for the universe.
That's not to say we shouldn't appreciate it, or be amazed by it; but in the grand scheme of things, it's ordinary. What, to us, may seem like a complex, intricate system may just be boring day-to-day stuff for the universe.
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,908
- Reaction score
- 2
Eh, but maybe not. You know a car is designed because you already know humans design cars. There are plenty of complicated things in nature that arise naturally. Plus, psychologically, we are fitted by evolution to think that a dark image at night is a person and not a shadow. We always project ourselves into the environment...since we create things, we think something, like us, must have created us. It's just our natural, narcisstic way.
