# Agnostic vs Atheist = Massive misunderstanding on these forums



## Tfit84 (Feb 12, 2015)

These 2 positions are answers to 2 completely different philosophical questions. 

Agnostic = A position of KNOWLEDGE. "Is it POSSIBLE for human beings to KNOW if there is a god or not?" You can either be a Gnostic or Agnostic when answering this question. Gnostic meaning, its possible to know if there is or is not a god, and Agnostic meaning it is not possible. 

Atheism = A position of BELIEF. "Do you believe there is/are a god/gods?" You can answer this question many different ways by being Atheist (Lack of belief in deities), Theist, Polytheist, Deist etc etc etc. 

So according to this...I am an Agnostic/Atheist meaning; I do not claim to know if a god does or does not exist(Agnostic) And I do not believe in any gods(Atheist). 

If you are a christian you can be a gnostic theist (Claims to know god exists and believes a god exists), or agnostic theist (Believes a god exists but doesnt claim to know that this belief is true.) 

I hope this helps clear up the confusion.


----------



## macky (Jan 25, 2015)

Someone who gets it. This "strong atheism" vs "weak atheism" also confuses everyone. I try thinking of it like this:

Anti theism = belief that no gods exist.
Theism = belief that god(s) exist
Gnosticism = certainty
A-****** = Lack of ******

Tbh, even if they made this thread a sticky, they'll be peace in the middle east before this fact sinks in, cos people think "agnostic" means something by itself. Plus, the religious would rather conflate atheism to mean anti-theism so that they can shift the burden of proof.


----------



## Choci Loni (May 12, 2011)

Good points. 

People should start using the term ignosticism more as well. I think that's what fits me best. Everyone seems to be having a very strong opinion on something we can't even seem to define- and I believe that's a major source of needless conflict.


----------



## Tarantula152 (Aug 24, 2014)

*With Atheism, the biggest problem we have with most religious people is defining what we "believe in" because the whole point of Atheism is that we don't believe in anything.

I mean, we believe in pizza. Pizza is delicious. We can see it, smell it and eat it; so we believe in it's powers! When it comes to one creator of ALL OF THIS we simply laugh at that thought and don't even take it into consideration.*


----------



## Squirrelevant (Jul 27, 2008)

I agree overall. I even made a similar thread a few years ago. It's a problem when this misunderstanding is used to make both atheists and theists seem automatically unreasonable for taking a stance on the issue.

I'm just wondering... there are certain people out there who don't claim to know whether or not God exists, while also being genuinely undecided about whether they should believe as well. When I used to simply call myself agnostic, this was partly what I had in mind (in addition to the misunderstanding you are talking about). I couldn't even give a percentage value to either possibility of existence or non-existence. Is there even a label for such a position under this nomenclature? Agnostic...... undecided person?

These days, I'm perfectly comfortable calling myself an agnostic atheist, though, as I feel that disbelief should be the default option rather than indecision. I'd still like to have a label for the above position, despite finding it unreasonable, if only to assist in communication.


----------



## macky (Jan 25, 2015)

pointy said:


> I'm just wondering... there are certain people out there who don't claim to know whether or not God exists, while also being genuinely undecided about whether they should believe as well. When I used to simply call myself agnostic, this was partly what I had in mind (in addition to the misunderstanding you are talking about). I couldn't even give a percentage value to either possibility of existence or non-existence. Is there even a label for such a position under this nomenclature? Agnostic...... undecided person?


I don't think there should be an additional label. Theism refers to people who believe. If you can't honesty say "I do believe in a god", then you're an atheist.

Worrying about people lumping the undecided in with those who believe that theism is completely ridiculous, that's the labeller fallaciously jumping to conclusions. I still think you should call yourself an atheist agnostic due to being undecided.

Or you could label yourself by your name!


----------



## Tfit84 (Feb 12, 2015)

As macky said, you are an agnostic atheist. The degree to which you lack a belief in deities is irrelevant when considering the application of these terms.


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

If there's a topic that's been hammered to death, it's this one.


----------



## macky (Jan 25, 2015)

Foh_Teej said:


> If there's a topic that's been hammered to death, it's this one.


Is there honestly a topic in the religious debate that hasn't been hammered to death?


----------



## smop95 (Feb 17, 2015)

It's interesting that people seem to need some sort of ruler or god to keep their a**es
in line. I don't think there needs to be something that controls everything. Besides, this may not be the only planet out there with life on it. Would they have the same god(s) as us?
I do believe in some religious concepts though, but don't necessarily believe in any gods.
I tend to believe in reincarnation, and I also like the idea of karma. So what does that make me? I thought I was agnostic but now I'm questioning that.


----------



## Squirrelevant (Jul 27, 2008)

Tfit84 said:


> As macky said, you are an agnostic atheist. The degree to which you lack a belief in deities is irrelevant when considering the application of these terms.


I'm sorry, but as _I_ said, I'm an agnostic atheist. I was just considering a perspective other than my own. I thought I made that clear enough.


----------



## JustThisGuy (Mar 24, 2012)

macky said:


> Is there honestly a topic in the religious debate that hasn't been *hammered to death*?


I chuckled.

So, like, I think the only good way to solve this issue and find the answers, is to just open up the good book. And that book is American Gods.  Trust me, it's a goodie.


----------



## Tfit84 (Feb 12, 2015)

pointy said:


> I'm sorry, but as _I_ said, I'm an agnostic atheist. I was just considering a perspective other than my own. I thought I made that clear enough.


You explicitly asked if there was a "label" for someone like yourself....and i answered. I dont understand the hostility or why you said "i thought i made that clear enough." You did make it clear, and i answered the question you asked.

Im wondering what you think you "made clear enough" that would warrant such a response to me answering a question of yours? If you do not want a response, why would you ask a question? Seems very disconnected from reality as i guess i should expect from a forum like this.


----------



## Tfit84 (Feb 12, 2015)

smop95 said:


> It's interesting that people seem to need some sort of ruler or god to keep their a**es
> in line. I don't think there needs to be something that controls everything. Besides, this may not be the only planet out there with life on it. Would they have the same god(s) as us?
> I do believe in some religious concepts though, but don't necessarily believe in any gods.
> I tend to believe in reincarnation, and I also like the idea of karma. So what does that make me? I thought I was agnostic but now I'm questioning that.


I like the idea of an eternal paradise (heaven). Just because you "like" an idea, does not mean that you believe in said idea or claim to have knowledge of said idea.

Do you believe that people are reincarnated? If you do not, and just like the concept, that means you are an atheist according to the information you have laid out.


----------



## macky (Jan 25, 2015)

Tfit84 said:


> I like the idea of an eternal paradise (heaven). Just because you "like" an idea, does not mean that you believe in said idea or claim to have knowledge of said idea.
> 
> Do you believe that people are reincarnated? If you do not, and just like the concept, that means you are an atheist according to the information you have laid out.


Interestingly, belief in reincarnation is distinct from beliefs in gods. So by just believing in reincarnation, this guy's just as much of an atheist as the staunch rationalist. Gnosticist or not.


----------



## Squirrelevant (Jul 27, 2008)

Tfit84 said:


> You explicitly asked if there was a "label" for someone like yourself....and i answered. I don't understand the hostility or why you said "i thought i made that clear enough." You did make it clear, and i answered the question you asked.
> 
> I'm wondering what you think you "made clear enough" that would warrant such a response to me answering a question of yours? If you do not want a response, why would you ask a question? Seems very disconnected from reality as i guess i should expect from a forum like this.


I honestly don't understand why this discussion is even occurring. We are basically in agreement anyway and I was just wondering aloud about a tiny semantic issue. Here's the thread I made on this exact topic a while back for some context on how much we agree. I think we'll just have to label this a confusing misunderstanding and forget about it. I gave the response that I did because I had already said in my original post that I was an agnostic atheist.


> These days, I'm perfectly comfortable calling myself an agnostic atheist...


So I do admit to getting a little annoyed when people seemed to not be getting that. Instead people seemed to be thinking that I was the kind of person I described in my second paragraph. So I'm sorry if I came across a bit blunt or condescending in my response. Anyway, I don't like disputes like this crowding out threads, so this is the last post I'll be making here. You may contact me elsewhere if you feel the need. No ill will and all that. :hs


----------



## Jerusalem96 (Nov 22, 2014)

pointy said:


> I'm just wondering... there are certain people out there who don't claim to know whether or not God exists, while also being genuinely undecided about whether they should believe as well. When I used to simply call myself agnostic, this was partly what I had in mind (in addition to the misunderstanding you are talking about). I couldn't even give a percentage value to either possibility of existence or non-existence. Is there even a label for such a position under this nomenclature? Agnostic...... undecided person?


You mean the dilemma whether one who is in this situation should call oneself an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist? Because if being an agnostic means that one admits one's inability to prove one's belief, or the lack of knowledge of the truth of one's belief, then how can one even claim to believe in the divine (theist) or disbelieve in the existence or presence of the divine (atheist)? This is the case of the rationalist who then claims that the default position is being an atheist, not even pretending a belief in the divine. Rarely do we come across people who claim to be agnostic theists - unless they have fallen prey to the Pascal's Wager.

This can be resolved easily. If you are a rationalist, giving preference of the use of reason over faith/trust, then you first have to make the decision of being a gnostic or agnostic. Thereafter you make the decision of being a theist or atheist. But if you are humble (understanding the weakness of the human mind and senses) , _God-fearing_ and sincere then you would realize the importance of adopting faith/trust (in your parents and teachers and men of learning/science) - thus you would first decide on being an atheist or a theist before deciding on your position of knowledge. The human mind needs God.

of course one should be prepared to change one's mind in the face of new knowledge, understanding or revelation


----------



## Aribeth (Jan 14, 2012)

Sounds like this agnostic thing is a safety position to make as less people as possible have a problem with your views (which are secretly atheistic). "I DUNNO NOTHIN BUT IM SURE AS HELL OPEN."

Yeah right. Whatever you say. But you don't get bonus points for not having an opinion. Actually, you don't get any points at all.


----------



## Joe (May 18, 2010)

After being used to these topics for years, I came to the conclusion that arguing the semantics of what is an atheist/agnostic is pointless. The worst is when people call themselves agnostic atheist.


----------



## Blag (Dec 12, 2014)

TLR People should google. 
I got exactly the same info when i googled the terms, 5 years ago and today, no definitions changed.


----------



## Jerusalem96 (Nov 22, 2014)

Joe said:


> After being used to these topics for years, I came to the conclusion that arguing the semantics of what is an atheist/agnostic is pointless. The worst is when people call themselves agnostic atheist.


Why? Agnostism is a position of knowledge and atheism/theism is a position of belief. An agnostic atheist is one who holds the personal belief that there exists no divine, but admits one's inability to know the truth of this belief. On the other hand a gnostic atheist would not deny not knowing the truth of his or her belief - they know for certain that the divine does not exist. This is rarely the case


----------



## Joe (May 18, 2010)

Jerusalem96 said:


> Why? Agnostism is a position of knowledge and atheism/theism is a position of belief. An agnostic atheist is one who holds the personal belief that there exists no divine, but admits one's inability to know the truth of this belief. On the other hand a gnostic atheist would not deny not knowing the truth of his or her belief - they know for certain that the divine does not exist. This is rarely the case


that's exactly what i mean, why does anyone need to call them selves an agnostic atheist, its just needless

atheist is someone who believes there isn't a god, agnostic is unsure, religious believes in a god or spiritual figure no further specifics are needed imo


----------



## macky (Jan 25, 2015)

Joe said:


> that's exactly what i mean, why does anyone need to call them selves an agnostic atheist, its just needless
> 
> *atheist is someone who believes there isn't a god*, agnostic is unsure, religious believes in a god or spiritual figure no further specifics are needed imo


That definition is wrong, for reasons pointed out by myself and others earlier in the thread. It also represents exactly why further specifics are needed.


----------



## Joe (May 18, 2010)

macky said:


> That definition is wrong, for reasons pointed out by myself and others earlier in the thread. It also represents exactly why further specifics are needed.


isnt believing there isn't a god and not believing there is a god the same thing?


----------



## macky (Jan 25, 2015)

Joe said:


> isnt believing there isn't a god and not believing there is a god the same thing?


No it isn't. The default is not to believe a claim until it is proven to be true. Saying god doesn't exist is in itself a claim. And anyone saying so needs to provide evidence.

Me, you and 20 people are at a party. If my watch went missing and someone said you, Joe, stole it and expected me to just take their word for it, me saying "I'm not gonna believe you until you show some evidence" is not the same as "I believe Joe didn't do it until you show me evidence". If you look at the two statement, one is a rejection of a claim (cos your evidence is crap, we can't say that it was Joe), the other one has made a counter-claim (I believe it MUST have been someone other than Joe).

One more thing: belief is being convinced a claim is true. If youre not convinced, whether its cos youre undecided or because you think its false, either way you lack the belief in that claim. Believing the claim is false is a separate question (anti-theism)

Look at my post on page 1. I hope that helps.


----------



## Joe (May 18, 2010)

macky said:


> No it isn't. The default is not to believe a claim until it is proven to be true. Saying god doesn't exist is in itself a claim. And anyone saying so needs to provide evidence.
> 
> Me, you and 20 people are at a party. If my watch went missing and someone said you, Joe, stole it and expected me to just take their word for it, me saying "I'm not gonna believe you until you show some evidence" is not the same as "I believe Joe didn't do it until you show me evidence". If you look at the two statement, one is a rejection of a claim (cos your evidence is crap, we can't say that it was Joe), the other one has made a counter-claim (I believe it MUST have been someone other than Joe).
> 
> ...


I understand what you mean but in your analogy it's the same but just atypical wording saying you believe someone didn't do it compared to not believing someone done it. It sounds a stronger statement to believe in something, but the end meanings are literally the same. It's like a glass half full or a glass half empty, people perceive linguistics differently despite the meaning.

But the thing is with atheism, there's no reason for someone who doesn't care about god to argue what specific words he uses to describe his non-affiliation. A non-affiliation is the same no matter how you word it.


----------



## macky (Jan 25, 2015)

Joe said:


> I understand what you mean but in your analogy it's the same but just atypical wording saying you believe someone didn't do it compared to not believing someone done it. It sounds a stronger statement to believe in something, but the end meanings are literally the same. It's like a glass half full or a glass half empty, people perceive linguistics differently despite the meaning.
> 
> But the thing is with atheism, there's no reason for someone who doesn't care about god to argue what specific words he uses to describe his non-affiliation. A non-affiliation is the same no matter how you word it.


The importance in distinguishing them lies in the fact that religious apologists rather then justify their claims, try to claim that atheists are claiming god doesn't exist, and so try to shift the burden of proof. To not be convinced by a claim is not the same as claiming that the opposite is true. If I announced that Joe didn't steal my watch, the 19 other people would ask me to justify why I thought you was innocent. It's completely different from saying "you're testimony that Joe stole my watch hasn't convinced me that he did it."

To be blunt, the difference is pretty distinct. If you can't see a difference in that analogy, they're little more I can do. And there's no point in even discussing the importance of its distinction in the religious debate, namely the burden of proof. Because religious apologists love shifting the burden of proof, and fully rely on the type of misunderstanding you're displaying. That's why this topic is important.


----------



## Tfit84 (Feb 12, 2015)

macky said:


> The importance in distinguishing them lies in the fact that religious apologists rather then justify their claims, try to claim that atheists are claiming god doesn't exist, and so try to shift the burden of proof. To not be convinced by a claim is not the same as claiming that the opposite is true. If I announced that Joe didn't steal my watch, the 19 other people would ask me to justify why I thought you was innocent. It's completely different from saying "you're testimony that Joe stole my watch hasn't convinced me that he did it."
> 
> To be blunt, the difference is pretty distinct. If you can't see a difference in that analogy, they're little more I can do. And there's no point in even discussing the importance of its distinction in the religious debate, namely the burden of proof. Because religious apologists love shifting the burden of proof, and fully rely on the type of misunderstanding you're displaying. That's why this topic is important.


I agree and you detailed what the difference is very well but some people still cannot grasp it.

Does the person you are arguing with believe in unicorns or fairies? The default position every thinking person has towards this is "no, there has not been sufficient evidence to prove that either of these things exist." This is exactly how atheists view the god hypothesis.


----------



## lonerchick (Feb 7, 2015)

Joe said:


> After being used to these topics for years, I came to the conclusion that arguing the semantics of what is an atheist/agnostic is pointless. The worst is when people call themselves agnostic atheist.


The whole thing is silly.

lol What is the point in not having religion if you are going to get your panties in a bunch because of the name.


----------



## Tfit84 (Feb 12, 2015)

lonerchick said:


> The whole thing is silly.
> 
> lol What is the point in not having religion if you are going to get your panties in a bunch because of the name.


lol no one has their panties in a bunch until we start arguing and theists have no basic understanding of simple philosophical terms or an ability to distinguish knowledge from belief.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Tfit84 said:


> These 2 positions are answers to 2 completely different philosophical questions.
> 
> Agnostic = A position of KNOWLEDGE. "Is it POSSIBLE for human beings to KNOW if there is a god or not?" You can either be a Gnostic or Agnostic when answering this question. Gnostic meaning, its possible to know if there is or is not a god, and Agnostic meaning it is not possible.
> 
> ...


Indeed. 

We seem to have one of these threads every few months, but it's always worth repeating as many people struggle with the terms.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Choci Loni said:


> Good points.
> 
> People should start using the term ignosticism more as well. I think that's what fits me best. Everyone seems to be having a very strong opinion on something we can't even seem to define- and I believe that's a major source of needless conflict.


Indeed, that's a term that is often very appropriate in discussions here.

Many religious beliefs stated here are very much based on assumption and/or ambiguity.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Tarantula152 said:


> *With Atheism, the biggest problem we have with most religious people is defining what we "believe in" because the whole point of Atheism is that we don't believe in anything.
> *


*

Atheism only refers to a disbelief in a deity/deities.

The claim that it means an atheist doesn't believe in anything is simply wrong, and something I wouldn't expect any atheist to say. Surely you believe in many things?*


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Jerusalem96 said:


> You mean the dilemma whether one who is in this situation should call oneself an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist? Because if being an agnostic means that one admits one's inability to prove one's belief, or the lack of knowledge of the truth of one's belief, then how can one even claim to believe in the divine (theist) or disbelieve in the existence or presence of the divine (atheist)? This is the case of the rationalist who then claims that the default position is being an atheist, not even pretending a belief in the divine. Rarely do we come across people who claim to be agnostic theists - unless they have fallen prey to the Pascal's Wager.
> 
> This can be resolved easily. If you are a rationalist, giving preference of the use of reason over faith/trust, then you first have to make the decision of being a gnostic or agnostic. Thereafter you make the decision of being a theist or atheist. But if you are humble (understanding the weakness of the human mind and senses) , _God-fearing_ and sincere then you would realize the importance of adopting faith/trust (in your parents and teachers and men of learning/science) - thus you would first decide on being an atheist or a theist before deciding on your position of knowledge.


There is no issue with someone having the intellectual honesty to admit they don't know (agnosticism) but disbelieve/believe (atheism/theism) of/in the existence of a deity/deities. Why do you think there is? Absolute certainty of truth is in no way required to hold a belief in anything. There is very little we know with absolute certainty, so all we really have are approximations of truth to go on.

You're right in that it's rare to encounter agnostic theists, but it's very common to encounter agnostic atheists. What this tells me is that most theists are intellectually dishonest since they are therefore claiming to know there is a god, which is simply untenable and condemnable.



> The human mind needs God.


Absolute nonsense, as evidenced by the hundreds of millions of happy people who are good without god. It's very arrogant and ignorant of you to make such a claim.



> of course one should be prepared to change one's mind in the face of new knowledge, understanding or revelation


You should really pay attention to this one, as from our previous discussions you vehemently reject _anything _that contradicts Islam, with an unbelievable amount of intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Joe said:


> After being used to these topics for years, I came to the conclusion that arguing the semantics of what is an atheist/agnostic is pointless. The worst is when people call themselves agnostic atheist.


Why is it pointless?

It sounds like you could maybe do with a lesson on it since you don't appear to understand the importance of someone referring to themselves as agnostic atheists in these type of discussions. Don't you think they address two different questions or something?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Joe said:


> that's exactly what i mean, why does anyone need to call them selves an agnostic atheist, its just needless
> 
> atheist is someone who believes there isn't a god, agnostic is unsure, religious believes in a god or spiritual figure no further specifics are needed imo


OK I see now that yes, you don't know what the term agnostic means. Please read the OP and learn for next time rather than making such mistakes.

To sum it up:

Atheism/theism = a disbelief/belief in a deity/deities
Agnosticism = no claim to knowledge of the truth of that belief


----------



## macky (Jan 25, 2015)

lonerchick said:


> The whole thing is silly.
> 
> lol What is the point in not having religion if you are going to get your panties in a bunch because of the name.


Hi Lonerchick. Well it might be worth getting my panties in a bunch  as many theist's arguments rely on the premise that the atheist is claiming gods don't exists. They then demand atheists disprove god exists in order to justify their position. As another poster here stated, I don't need to show evidence that invisible unicorns don't exist in order to say "I don't believe in invisible unicorns."

Youre probably thinking that if an atheist just says "well actually that's not my position, I just haven't been convinced." the theist will just go "oh, ok. I'll stop asking you to disprove my god."

You're _very_ lucky if this happens. Like I said, their crutch is that misunderstanding. There's a thread on this forum somewhere where OP says "you atheists can't prove doesn't god exists!" And no matter how many people say that is not the atheist position, they refuse to budge. They just misinterpret "I'm not convinced" as "im claiming the opposite is true" Then they say "you're making a claim you haven't proven so we're equally unjustified :b ".


----------



## boas (Jun 9, 2013)

macky said:


> Someone who gets it. This "strong atheism" vs "weak atheism" also confuses everyone. I try thinking of it like this:
> 
> Anti theism = belief that no gods exist.
> Theism = belief that god(s) exist
> ...


I was under the impression that anti-theism means not only do you not believe in a god, but you also don't want there to be one either. This is what distinguishes it from atheism.

Under that definition I'd consider myself an anti-theist.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

boas said:


> I was under the impression that anti-theism means not only do you not believe in a god, but you also don't want there to be one either. This is what distinguishes it from atheism.
> 
> Under that definition I'd consider myself an anti-theist.


Anti-theism is being against theism/religion.


----------



## Jerusalem96 (Nov 22, 2014)

ugh1979 said:


> There is no issue with someone having the intellectual honesty to admit they don't know (agnosticism) but disbelieve/believe (atheism/theism) of/in the existence of a deity/deities.


As far as I know there are two aspects to the position of knowledge. I can claim to know that my belief is true, but I can deny being able to necessarily prove the truth of my belief. This is the gnosticism of the theists like me. We claim to know in certainty that God (our version of God) exists but we deny being able to objectively prove to the world the truth of our beliefs. Thus there is no intellectual dishonesty from our side.



> Why do you think there is?


I don't think you are being intellectual dishonest. I just mean that people who reject faith are being "foolish", but not necessarily rationally "stupid". Faith and trust are the two pillars for gaining knowledge. We have faith in our teachers, in the men of learning and knowledge, and in our senses and instruments. We know that some aspects of intelligence, knowledge and understanding are inaccessible to us (think of Albert Einstein), but we know how to test our knowledge. So if you are an agnostic atheist with knowledge of revelation, you are being "foolish" to reject faith in God, and to then antagonize theism. You know very well that the purpose of this life (being a test of faith) is lost when you try to apply the scientific method to spiritual truths, and then demand empirical evidence. You are failing the test. If you want evidence, expect personal revelation from God and not scientific evidence. Be humble and God shall fulfill the burden of proof himself.



> Absolute certainty of truth is in no way required to hold a belief in anything. There is very little we know with absolute certainty, so all we really have are approximations of truth to go on.


All it takes is to have faith in our senses, instruments, and in men of science. The jump from your kind of mentality/thinking to having complete faith in God is not impossible.



> You're right in that it's rare to encounter agnostic theists, but it's very common to encounter agnostic atheists. What this tells me is that most theists are intellectually dishonest since they are therefore claiming to know there is a god, which is simply untenable and condemnable.


Why? There is no other way we can view the world other than through God. If He does not exist, everything ceases to have meaning. If I sincerely for one second believe that there isn't a God, all what strikes me is darkness everywhere. There MUST be God, so God does exist. (At least for me in my world)



> Absolute nonsense, as evidenced by the hundreds of millions of happy people who are good without god. It's very arrogant and ignorant of you to make such a claim.


Your god is your sense of rational supremism. You just cannot accept a belief that will make you a child - someone who got no brains but just to trust in his parents and teachers. We are all children in the eyes of the prophets



> You should really pay attention to this one, as from our previous discussions you vehemently reject _anything _that contradicts Islam, with an unbelievable amount of intellectual dishonesty.


Yes and no


----------



## macky (Jan 25, 2015)

boas said:


> I was under the impression that anti-theism means not only do you not believe in a god, but you also don't want there to be one either. This is what distinguishes it from atheism.
> 
> Under that definition I'd consider myself an anti-theist.


Well definitions are never set in stone but yeah, anti-theism i think just defines the belief in the nonexistence of gods.

You make a very good point though. I'm thinking, say a god appeared to me and said "ill tell you a secret macky. After everyone dies I just torture everyone no matter what they believe. No reason, i just do it for the lols." I'm not gonna worship that God cos he's a prick (and as he said worshipping him doesn't make a difference). Now if i went around calling myself a theistic gnostic without saying anything more, many people would automatically assume I worshipped that god. Would you?

Sometimes terms can be broad and i think further clarification are definitely necessary at times.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Jerusalem96 said:


> As far as I know there are two aspects to the position of knowledge. I can claim to know that my belief is true, but I can deny being able to necessarily prove the truth of my belief. This is the gnosticism of the theists like me. We claim to know in certainty that God (our version of God) exists but we deny being able to objectively prove to the world the truth of our beliefs. Thus there is no intellectual dishonesty from our side.


It most definitely is intellectual dishonesty as you are just making up your own definition of what gnosticism is. It pertain to knowledge. All you have is belief.

Are there other things you believe but have no knowledge of but still claim to know there are true? There probably isn't, but when it comes to religion certain people have double standards and in fact to claim to know the unknowable.

Why can't you admit it's just faith and not knowledge? Will being open to the possibility that you are wrong really cause a problem? Maybe you are scared it will?



> I don't think you are being intellectual dishonest. I just mean that people who reject faith are being "foolish", but not necessarily rationally "stupid". Faith and trust are the two pillars for gaining knowledge. We have faith in our teachers, in the men of learning and knowledge, and in our senses and instruments. We know that some aspects of intelligence, knowledge and understanding are inaccessible to us (think of Albert Einstein), but we know how to test our knowledge. So if you are an agnostic atheist with knowledge of revelation, you are being "foolish" to reject faith in God, and to then antagonize theism. You know very well that the purpose of this life (being a test of faith) is lost when you try to apply the scientific method to spiritual truths, and then demand empirical evidence. You are failing the test. If you want evidence, expect personal revelation from God and not scientific evidence. Be humble and God shall fulfill the burden of proof himself.


No I don't know/accept/believe that the purpose of this life is a test of faith. That's your beliefs, so don't be so arrogant to think I conform to your worldview.

The "truths" you mention can't be tested as they don't exist in my worldview. They are as meaningless as trying to test for the existence of invisible sky unicorns.

To me it's foolish to think there is any substance in divine revelation. Claims of divine revelation are highly subjective, largely based on where you are born in the world, so can be easily discredited as false "knowledge".

Which god do you think would reveal and prove its existence to me if I opened my heart to it? Your one, the one most favoured locally in my area, one of the thousands of others as defined by man over the ages, or one nobody had thought of before?



> All it takes is to have faith in our senses, instruments, and in men of science. The jump from your kind of mentality/thinking to having complete faith in God is not impossible.


Indeed, and likewise, be aware that the non-existence or jump back to having no belief in god is not impossible.



> Why? There is no other way we can view the world other than through God. If He does not exist, everything ceases to have meaning. If I sincerely for one second believe that there isn't a God, all what strikes me is darkness everywhere. There MUST be God, so God does exist. (At least for me in my world)


All this says to me is that you are incapable of thinking in a way that contravenes your own. I can understand why you think the way you do, and can understand why you believe in objective morality and meaning etc, and can imagine a reality where that could be the case.

It seems you are incapable of even imagining a reality where there is no objective morality/meaning.

If you speak to anyone like me you should soon learn that life without a belief in god can be full of _subjective _meaning, which from the testimony of ex-theists who used to believe in objective meaning, is just as fulfilling. Therefore, there is no darkness, just a shift in responsibility from a supernatural entity (god) to a natural one (us).

You are of course entitled to your beliefs and if they make you happy so be it, but don't be so ignorant to deny the existence of people who are happy without god and have no need for one.



> Your god is your sense of rational supremism. You just cannot accept a belief that will make you a child - someone who got no brains but just to trust in his parents and teachers. We are all children in the eyes of the prophets


Again this just shows that you don't have the theory of mind to conceive of world where one takes personal responsibility, and there is no concept of a god that is an external body which guides and controls. It's true I won't accept I am subservient to another being. I find that idea abhorrent, and i'm mature enough not to need not want a parent entity I rely on.

While I am rational, I hold no idea of supremacism over others. I'll happily criticise arguments, but everyone is equal in the vast majority of aspects for me.



> Yes and no


How conveniently vague.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

macky said:


> Well definitions are never set in stone but yeah, anti-theism i think just defines the belief in the nonexistence of gods.


Anti-theism is actually opposition to _other _people's theistic beliefs.

It's not a position I personally hold being a secularist. I'll oppose their arguments which promote theism, but never oppose their right/freedom to the belief.


----------



## Tfit84 (Feb 12, 2015)

Jerusalem96 said:


> As far as I know there are two aspects to the position of knowledge. I can claim to know that my belief is true, but I can deny being able to necessarily prove the truth of my belief. This is the gnosticism of the theists like me. We claim to know in certainty that God (our version of God) exists but we deny being able to objectively prove to the world the truth of our beliefs. Thus there is no intellectual dishonesty from our side.
> 
> I don't think you are being intellectual dishonest. I just mean that people who reject faith are being "foolish", but not necessarily rationally "stupid". Faith and trust are the two pillars for gaining knowledge. We have faith in our teachers, in the men of learning and knowledge, and in our senses and instruments. We know that some aspects of intelligence, knowledge and understanding are inaccessible to us (think of Albert Einstein), but we know how to test our knowledge. So if you are an agnostic atheist with knowledge of revelation, you are being "foolish" to reject faith in God, and to then antagonize theism. You know very well that the purpose of this life (being a test of faith) is lost when you try to apply the scientific method to spiritual truths, and then demand empirical evidence. You are failing the test. If you want evidence, expect personal revelation from God and not scientific evidence. Be humble and God shall fulfill the burden of proof himself.
> 
> ...


So much complete and utter meaningless white noise splattered in this that I wont be able to get to it all right now, but ill start with the first paragraph which was particularly deluded and disconnected from reality in quite afrightening way.

You cant have "knowledge" without being able to demonstrate said knowledge to be true and accurate using the scientific method of dissection and rational investigation.

What you have claimed in this first paragraph is that you BELIEVE you have knowledge of a god that exists....until you can demonstrate such knowledge to be true, you are left at square one, holding an empty sack of belief...not knowledge.


----------



## Tfit84 (Feb 12, 2015)

The homeless street preacher who teaches that the end of days are coming and that we are all going to be picked up by a giant caterpillar to be dropped off onto the sun where we wont die, but roast for all eternity, claims he has knowledge that this is true as well. 

Do you know why NO ONE takes this guy seriously? Because he cannot demonstrate this knowledge claim to be true in any way, shape or form that would hold up to scrutiny from cosmologists, astro physicist etc etc. 

You idea that you can just tell someone you have knowledge that god exists, and therefore the knowledge is there, because you just ****ing say its there is either such an uneducated logical fallacy that a child could pick it apart, or you are being disingenuous. 

As you dont seem to be a stupid person, im assuming you are being disingenuous and that is just disrespectful to do in any type of argument and makes people go on rabbit trails combating things you dont actually even believe in yourself.


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

I hear this language used often by moderate Christians and atheists. I think these definitions are an effort to pry belief from knowledge, as if belief were unknown or unjustified by knowledge.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

fredbloggs02 said:


> I hear this language used by moderate Christians and atheists. I think these definitions are an effort to ply apart belief and knowledge, as if belief were itself unjustified by knowledge.


You sound confused about the difference between belief and knowledge.

Elements of knowledge can contribute to a belief, but once you have a certain amount of knowledge of something which can be credibly substantiated then it can be said to be known rather than just believed.

Therefore, there are many good reasons to differentiate belief and knowledge, especially when it comes to this topic as it makes a very important difference between what can be credibly considered right and wrong or probable and improbable.


----------



## Joe (May 18, 2010)

ugh1979 said:


> OK I see now that yes, you don't know what the term agnostic means. Please read the OP and learn for next time rather than making such mistakes.
> 
> To sum it up:
> 
> ...


A lot of people use Agnosticism for a position of no knowledge on whether they believe god is true or not.

The term Agnostic Atheist means they don't claim knowledge, though they don't believe, agnostic theist is the opposite but believe in a god if I'm not mistaken? I'll be very bad at the specifics since I've not looked them up that recently, and even worse at wording.


----------



## Joe (May 18, 2010)

macky said:


> The importance in distinguishing them lies in the fact that religious apologists rather then justify their claims, try to claim that atheists are claiming god doesn't exist, and so try to shift the burden of proof. To not be convinced by a claim is not the same as claiming that the opposite is true. If I announced that Joe didn't steal my watch, the 19 other people would ask me to justify why I thought you was innocent. It's completely different from saying "you're testimony that Joe stole my watch hasn't convinced me that he did it."
> 
> To be blunt, the difference is pretty distinct. If you can't see a difference in that analogy, they're little more I can do. And there's no point in even discussing the importance of its distinction in the religious debate, namely the burden of proof. Because religious apologists love shifting the burden of proof, and fully rely on the type of misunderstanding you're displaying. That's why this topic is important.


I get that the burden of proof puts pressure on whichever one is meant to provide it. If someone told me to prove god doesn't exist, it's a large difference than me asking a preacher to give proof on gods existence.

If I was in a debate the difference would be more useful to make sure a preacher or whoever doesn't twist my words, but if casually stating I don't believe in any god I don't think it's overly important. I very rarely see anyone religious in England (I imagine London is a lot different). I could imagine bad habits forming if I consistently casuallised the subject though, like you are much aware.


----------



## Joe (May 18, 2010)

ugh1979 said:


> Why is it pointless?
> 
> It sounds like you could maybe do with a lesson on it since you don't appear to understand the importance of someone referring to themselves as agnostic atheists in these type of discussions. Don't you think they address two different questions or something?


In the UK, or at least where I live religion is very rarely discussed to such an extent. If talking among atheists I wouldn't feel the need to establish it.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Joe said:


> A lot of people use Agnosticism for a position of no knowledge on whether they believe god is true or not.
> 
> The term Agnostic Atheist means they don't claim knowledge, though they don't believe, agnostic theist is the opposite but believe in a god if I'm not mistaken? I'll be very bad at the specifics since I've not looked them up that recently, and even worse at wording.


OK so you do have the definitions correct, but where then is the issue, since one addresses knowledge and the other belief? We can of course have belief without knowledge, so the term agnostic atheist is more descriptive than either term on its own.

(Although agnostic theist would also be no claim to knowledge of a god, so not opposite, but yes belief in a god. I'm not sure if that's what you actually meant)


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Joe said:


> In the UK, or at least where I live religion is very rarely discussed to such an extent. If talking among atheists I wouldn't feel the need to establish it.


I agree in light conversation the term atheist can be sufficient, but it really depends on who you are speaking to. Many theists I encounter, inevitably due to their own position of thinking they know a god exists, incorrectly assume atheists think they claim to know there is no god, when in fact agnosticism is the common position of knowledge on the matter of an atheist.

This is something that comes up time and again on internet discussions on this topic, so it can be useful to clarify.


----------



## Joe (May 18, 2010)

ugh1979 said:


> I agree in light conversation the term atheist can be sufficient, but it really depends on who you are speaking to. Many theists I encounter, inevitably due to their own position of thinking they know a god exists, incorrectly assume atheists think they claim to know there is no god, when in fact agnosticism is the common position of knowledge on the matter of an atheist.
> 
> This is something that comes up time and again on internet discussions on this topic, so it can be useful to clarify.


Where about do you live if it's alright to ask, I know the US is far more religious than over in the UK, especially the Southern states. Sounds like a completely different world where religion is concerned.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Joe said:


> Where about do you live if it's alright to ask, I know the US is far more religious than over in the UK, especially the Southern states. Sounds like a completely different world where religion is concerned.


Like you i'm from the UK, so only really encounter openly religious people online.


----------



## Joe (May 18, 2010)

ugh1979 said:


> Like you i'm from the UK, so only really encounter openly religious people online.


I always assumed you were from the US before now.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Joe said:


> I always assumed you were from the US before now.


Fair enough, but could you not tell by my spelling of certain words? A distinct lack of zeds (not zees!) is always a giveaway.


----------



## Joe (May 18, 2010)

ugh1979 said:


> Fair enough, but could you not tell by my spelling of certain words? A distinct lack of zeds (not zees!) is always a giveaway.


haha I've not been on this section for a while  I'm fairly inconsistent, or at least used to be with things like that. I was accused of plagarism since I americanised a lot of spellings in an English exam, not sure if I actually had a problem or not, I have an addon which checks spelling on firefox but it's americanised so it's annoying.


----------



## macky (Jan 25, 2015)

Joe said:


> I get that the burden of proof puts pressure on whichever one is meant to provide it. If someone told me to prove god doesn't exist, it's a large difference than me asking a preacher to give proof on gods existence.
> 
> If I was in a debate the difference would be more useful to make sure a preacher or whoever doesn't twist my words, but if casually stating I don't believe in any god I don't think it's overly important. I very rarely see anyone religious in England (I imagine London is a lot different). I could imagine bad habits forming if I consistently casuallised the subject though, like you are much aware.


Yeah, in an ideal world, the theist would go,"Look I don't care whether you didn't believe gods exist, or believe they don't exist. All I'm concerned with is justifying my claim." Sadly what happens mostly is theists try to put you in a position of making a claim, and put you on the defensive by justifying a claim you can't prove. And people fall for it all the time.

Also, when someone says "I'm agnostic" it tends to be misconstrued to imply "I think the arguments for and against believing in god are the same in value." And that's not my position. I've seen zero good arguments for god, but I still haven't ruled out its existence. So to show that I'm not claiming that, I prefer being identified as an agnostic atheist.

Off-topic but lifewise, if you're going through stresses or troubles people do tell me to pray. Saying "tbh I don't believe in God but thanks for the sentiment" is nearly always met with hostility. Pretending I'm a believer does avoid debate. But I've been thinking that's unfair on myself and fellow atheists. So if people ask, I'd say my true position. And realise I'm gonna get questioned, and so like to make clear my position.

And yes, it probably is more prevelant in London, though more good-natured debate than in the US.


----------



## a12345 (Jan 6, 2015)

Tfit84 said:


> These 2 positions are answers to 2 completely different philosophical questions.
> 
> Agnostic = A position of KNOWLEDGE. "Is it POSSIBLE for human beings to KNOW if there is a god or not?" You can either be a Gnostic or Agnostic when answering this question. Gnostic meaning, its possible to know if there is or is not a god, and Agnostic meaning it is not possible.
> 
> ...


Nope, I am more confused now


----------



## a12345 (Jan 6, 2015)

Aribeth said:


> Sounds like this agnostic thing is a safety position to make as less people as possible have a problem with your views (which are secretly atheistic). "I DUNNO NOTHIN BUT IM SURE AS HELL OPEN."
> 
> Yeah right. Whatever you say. But you don't get bonus points for not having an opinion. Actually, you don't get any points at all.


You get 2 @hole points!!


----------



## Choci Loni (May 12, 2011)

I doubt hol could foresee this when s/he created their account.


----------



## Tfit84 (Feb 12, 2015)

a12345 said:


> Nope, I am more confused now


What exactly is the confusion?


----------



## Tfit84 (Feb 12, 2015)

a12345 said:


> You get 2 @hole points!!


Agnosticism is a position that we cannot know if a god does or does not exist at this time. It is not throwing your hands up in the air and saying "I dont know." You are confusing knowledge and belief.....I wonder why this is so hard for people to understand? Public school system = failing humanity.


----------



## Ignopius (Mar 19, 2013)

Ah. It kind of frustrates me when the secular community rambles on about agnostic vs. atheist terminology. We are a part of the same group just say one or the other it really doesn't matter to me. You can both an atheist and an agnostic. Which one you call yourself doesn't matter.


----------



## macky (Jan 25, 2015)

Ignopius said:


> Ah. It kind of frustrates me when the secular community rambles on about agnostic vs. atheist terminology. We are a part of the same group just say one or the other it really doesn't matter to me. You can both an atheist and an agnostic. Which one you call yourself doesn't matter.


I think the deal is some people do think they are mutually exclusive (Agnosticism actually just means "lack of knowledge about X") and also the assumption that atheism= believing gods don't exist.


----------



## Ignopius (Mar 19, 2013)

macky said:


> I think the deal is some people do think they are mutually exclusive (Agnosticism actually just means "lack of knowledge about X") and also the assumption that atheism= believing gods don't exist.


Yeah they definitely are not mutually exclusive. But that aside just call yourself what you most closely identify. Atheist works fine for me.


----------



## Tfit84 (Feb 12, 2015)

Ignopius said:


> Ah. It kind of frustrates me when the secular community rambles on about agnostic vs. atheist terminology. We are a part of the same group just say one or the other it really doesn't matter to me. You can both an atheist and an agnostic. Which one you call yourself doesn't matter.


Honestly, the only reason why we have to "ramble on" about the differences between these two words is because the theists we debate keep misrepresenting our positions because they do not seem to grasp this basic difference in terms.

We dont just start rambling about this out of the blue as a non sequitur.


----------



## KrystinaDanielle (Feb 18, 2015)

If you look at the etymology of the two words

Atheist means A (without) + Theos (god) So, broken down into what the words themselves mean based on a greek/latin root scale... and atheist is someone that lives without the belief that there is a God. 


Likewise, Agnostic has begins with the same root A (without)... however the second part Gnosis (knowledge). Broken down it essentially means that an Agnostic is someone that does not believe or disbelieve in god necessarily because they feel that there is no proof that there is or is not a god. They fall somewhere in the middle because they would need some sort of definitive evidence to lead them in either direction.

That is the reason that Agnostics seemingly subscribe to a wide variety of different beliefs. What one man accepts as proof... another may not. Atheists a lot of the time are on the same page because they can so "No... This does not exist." 

Agnostics would be more inclined to say "It is possible that this exists... or that it doesn't... but I cannot say for sure one way or the other until it is proven to me"

As an Agnostic, I tend to say "I don't know... and for the most part I do not care... I just live to a moral code based upon how I would like to be treated (do unto others, and hope for the best."


----------



## roxybudgy (Jan 26, 2015)

If anything, I'm an apatheist 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism


----------

