# Why hate on agnostics?



## patrick1163 (Apr 2, 2015)

I mean why hate people who just aren't sure about some major life decisions. Isn't that part of the reason that most of us are on here, fear, self doubt, not being sure about what to do or what to believe.

Seems like there is a lot of negative attitude towards agnosticism. "They're cowards, it's just a cop out, etc."

Have you ever considered that there is a whole universe full of things that neither science nor religion can fully explain. There aren't any immediate consequences of keeping an open mind, so let people live and worry about your own existential beliefs.


----------



## LouiseLane (Mar 15, 2015)

patrick1163 said:


> I mean why hate people who just aren't sure about some major life decisions. Isn't that part of the reason that most of us are on here, fear, self doubt, not being sure about what to do or what to believe.
> 
> Seems like there is a lot of negative attitude towards agnosticism. "They're cowards, it's just a cop out, etc."
> 
> Have you ever considered that there is a whole universe full of things that neither science nor religion can fully explain. There aren't any immediate consequences of keeping an open mind, so let people live and worry about your own existential beliefs.


There is animosity towards agnostics, I agree. I don't feel it, particularly, but i do find myself slightly irritated by statements which imply agnosticism is somehow superior to other positions.

Asking people if they've 'ever considered' something is fairly patronising, as is saying 'let people live and worry about your own ...... beliefs.' The term 'open minded' seems rather self-congratulatory.

Any kind of arrogance is generally pretty tiresome to be at the other end of.


----------



## Cyclonic (Oct 25, 2012)

patrick1163 said:


> Have you ever considered that there is a whole universe full of things that neither science nor religion can fully explain. There aren't any immediate consequences of keeping an open mind, so let people live and worry about your own existential beliefs.


This is actually one of my problems with "agnostics", many atheists hold this very same opinion yet the two groups are somehow viewed as different. I'm an agnostic atheist and I'm probably no different than many people who consider themselves "agnostic". There's a lot I can't explain or don't know about the universe and I do have an open mind, I simply don't believe in any gods put forth by humanity because I haven't seen the evidence.

In the end it's all about labels, so it really doesn't bother me what people call themselves. However, I dislike the fact that a position on knowledge was somehow skewed into some weird middle ground for belief.

In the end, I think most of it revolves around the social stigma of being an atheist. If that didn't exist, I think more people would be comfortable calling themselves "atheist" (and I'm willing to bet that many "agnostics" are atheists by definition).


----------



## ScorchedEarth (Jul 12, 2014)

Came across this, which I found hilarious if obvious trolling:


----------



## Aribeth (Jan 14, 2012)

Agnostics think they get points for not having an opinion. That's the whole controversy. They think they're somehow better or more open than (a)theists just because they refuse to think. So basically they try to sound smart but fail hard.


----------



## Miranda The Panda (Apr 5, 2015)

Aribeth said:


> Agnostics think they get points for not having an opinion. That's the whole controversy. They think they're somehow better or more open than (a)theists just because they refuse to think. So basically they try to sound smart but fail hard.


We do not refuse to think - we just think about both sides. Some of us would like to think there is something greater out there but there are no facts to support such an idea at the moment. We are just open to all possibilities. I don't necessarily believe that makes agnostics "better" than anyone else. We're all human in the end.


----------



## bfs (Jan 9, 2015)

I used to be agnostic until I realized it was a cop out. 

Agnostic - You claim uncertainty. 

Theist - You believe in a god. 

If you are "agnostic" by default you are atheist. It's really that simple. 
You are an agnostic atheist.


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

The reason is found in posts like this:



Miranda The Panda said:


> We do not refuse to think - we just think about both sides.


 Theism only has one side. You're either that or not that. Agnosticism is NOT a middle ground, as you seem to imply. Beyond that, one's epistemological stance is irrelevant to anyone else.



Miranda The Panda said:


> Some of us would like to think there is something greater out there but there are no facts to support such an idea at the moment.


 This is not agnosticism.



Miranda The Panda said:


> We are just open to all possibilities.


 This is not agnosticism.



Miranda The Panda said:


> I don't necessarily believe that makes agnostics "better" than anyone else.


 That's good since it is often used improperly.



Miranda The Panda said:


> We're all human in the end.


 Which says nothing useful about the subject.


----------



## lmoh (Nov 19, 2013)




----------



## kageri (Oct 2, 2014)

I am atheist until you define it as absolute knowledge there is no higher power. All the examples of other things you can't prove often can be disproven simply by the fact that we can tell exactly where the story started, it's variations, and that no adult ever believed in it. We tell each other it's just a story when we get old enough. All religious books are probably the same but we convinced a bunch of adults to follow it this time. However, ignore all the details of what people say god is / gods are and look at the sheer number of belief in some higher power. It's not one religion with one group of people. It's practically the whole world until more recent trends. Do I have the proof to say all of it is wrong and there is no power out there we don't understand? Not really. Also I don't care either way. Given what's preached in most common religions I don't want to follow those instances of god and you can't prove who's word is right so whether a god exists or doesn't exist I am going to live my life the best way I can using my own common sense. No matter what you prove or disprove it will not change my actions. So who cares. Not worth arguing with either side. 

Sometimes I think the attacks on agnosticism are just because it's easy. You will never alter the opinion of someone who is strongly religious or strongly atheist. The 2 shouldn't even bother speaking because it just turns in to a mess with neither budging. But then we have these people who seem like they just don't have an opinion so let's make fun of them and try to argue our side in order to convince them to choose it. "fence sitting" is my opinion.


----------



## reaffected (Sep 3, 2011)

*Agnostic Atheist here*

Because:

"Rosencrantz: Did you ever think of yourself as actually dead, lying in a box with a lid on it? 
Guildenstern: No. 
Rosencrantz: Nor do I, really. It's silly to be depressed by it. I mean, one thinks of it like being alive in a box. One keeps forgetting to take into account the fact that one is dead, which should make all the difference, shouldn't it? I mean, you'd never *know* you were in a box, would you? It would be just like you were asleep in a box. Not that I'd like to sleep in a box, mind you. Not without any air. You'd wake up dead for a start, and then where would you be? In a box. That's the bit I don't like, frankly. *That's why I don't think of it. Because you'd be helpless, wouldn't you? Stuffed in a box like that. I mean, you'd be in there forever, even taking into account the fact that you're dead. It isn't a pleasant thought. *Especially if you're dead, really. Ask yourself, if I asked you straight off, "I'm going to stuff you in this box. Now, would you rather be alive or dead?" naturally, you'd prefer to be alive. *Life in a box is better than no life at all, I expect.* You'd have a chance, at least. You could lie there thinking, "Well, at least I'm not dead. *In a minute somebody is going to bang on the lid, and tell me to come out.*"

- _Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead_

However, I don't like caging myself to a mental 'box' of that which consists of theories rather than facts no matter how adamantly they are fought for. I cannot say that I have knowledge of any deities, gods or whatever as completely nonexistent. However, currently, I have no belief in one. The absurdity of what was aforementioned imo is they never truly realized that they weren't indeed dead in the box, their own story wasn't necessarily written, and they certainly could've thought for themselves pushed a bit further and opened the box thus creating their own purpose in the meantime however absurd everything else outside of it was and is. Make meaning and purpose where and when you don't know of any such god or deity.

The facts are: we are born and our ultimate source of the entirety of existence has yet to be 100% proven (it is an unknown of an unknown) and we die. As humans we intrinsically search for meaning and purpose. I find freedom in that. Other types of atheists may judge me all they want but neither my heart nor brain is confined nor netted in some cage or box. I choose to think and decide for myself. It is _my _life. I don't currently believe in a deity or god but I'm not going to claim I'm all knowing that it doesn't exist and never has (or taking it a step even further to beyond what we can even comprehend). We are all in this box of life with what is known (facts mentioned previously). It is everything we either claim a belief (disbelief) or a knowledge of (or lack of knowledge of).

The hate comes from people not knowing what kind of or understanding what kind of agnostic they are. It's a rather broad blanket term.


----------



## bfs (Jan 9, 2015)

Anxietype said:


> Most of the people who claim to be agnostic don't know what it means and that is where the hate comes from.
> 
> Gnosticism and Agnosticism are positions of knowledge which have absolutely nothing to do with a persons belief system. Literally every rational and sensible human being on the planet is an agnostic by default regardless of belief system because anyone that claims to have knowledge about anything supernatural is either insane or claiming access to knowledge that 7 billion other people simply do not have.
> 
> You either believe in god or you do not, it's that simple. Agnosticism on it's own is meaningless without a theist, deist or atheist position. *99% of all religious and non religious people are Agnostic*.


On the contrary. PLENTY of religious people claim to know EXACTLY what happens when we die. Strong atheists will also claim to know we die into nothingness. But most atheists are indeed agnostic.


----------



## dontwaitupforme (Feb 23, 2013)

lmoh said:


>


:lol

Even though I have my own opinion. I have only ever encountered hatred of agnostics from people on the Internet or from hardcore religious followers.

It's your choice really.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

Because militant atheists attack anyone who isn't 100% in agreement with them.


----------



## humidity (Nov 24, 2011)

I'm agnostic, can't know anything for certain. There might be a god, and there might not be one. Although I hope there is one, and who happens to be benevolent to me and all the other creatures.

Neither am I confident the easter bunny doesn't exit, just like that meme says lol. Science doesnt mean anything to me. Yes it helps us get some things done, but does it accurately describe reality, we will never know. Science changes with time anyway... stuff we believe now might be laughable in a few decades or centuries. Philosophy is the same. What doesn't change though is our lack of certainty lol.


----------



## Blag (Dec 12, 2014)

1st world countries = Thiests
2nd world countries = Athiests
3rd world countries = Agnostics
is how i see the standings are among these 3 categories.
Please do remember that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd worlds are cold war concepts, where 1st and 2nd were main competitors, while the 3rd world were just sitting and watching them "fight", not supporting either.


----------



## Hurrikan (Mar 22, 2015)

patrick1163 said:


> I mean why hate people who just aren't sure about some major life decisions. Isn't that part of the reason that most of us are on here, fear, self doubt, not being sure about what to do or what to believe.
> 
> Seems like there is a lot of negative attitude towards agnosticism. "They're cowards, it's just a cop out, etc."
> 
> Have you ever considered that there is a whole universe full of things that neither science nor religion can fully explain. There aren't any immediate consequences of keeping an open mind, so let people live and worry about your own existential beliefs.


Why hate anyone? I don't really care what anyone else is but I don't want to be harassed about my non belief. Don't hassle me about your religion or impose it rules on me and I won't tell you why I think it's silly. Be agnostic if that's what feels right and shake off all the atheist/religiously certain haters.


----------



## Hurrikan (Mar 22, 2015)

I'm an atheist if it wasn't clear but I've been thinking about attending the UUC because of their acceptance of atheist, agnostics, Buddhist...etc.


----------



## Hurrikan (Mar 22, 2015)

WillYouStopDave said:


> Because militant atheists attack anyone who isn't 100% in agreement with them.


Every groups has its *******s


----------



## bfs (Jan 9, 2015)

humidity said:


> *I'm agnostic, can't know anything for certain*. There might be a god, and there might not be one. Although I hope there is one, and who happens to be benevolent to me and all the other creatures.
> 
> Neither am I confident the easter bunny doesn't exit, just like that meme says lol. Science doesnt mean anything to me. Yes it helps us get some things done, but does it accurately describe reality, we will never know. Science changes with time anyway... stuff we believe now might be laughable in a few decades or centuries. Philosophy is the same. What doesn't change though is our lack of certainty lol.


Do you believe in god? Yes or no.


----------



## humidity (Nov 24, 2011)

bfs said:


> Do you believe in god? Yes or no.


My answer does not fit into those 2 options lol. My view is that we don't know if god exists or not, nor can we know if he exists or not.


----------



## bfs (Jan 9, 2015)

humidity said:


> My answer does not fit into those 2 options lol. My view is that we don't know if god exists or not, nor can we know if he exists or not.


Yes it does. If youbelieve in it you ARE a theist. A lack or disbelief IS ATHEISTIC. It doesn't matter if your view is "we don't know". God's ACTUAL existence is irrelevant to whether or not you believe it or not. So by definition you ARE an atheist. An agnostic atheist, but an atheist at that. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand...


----------



## humidity (Nov 24, 2011)

bfs said:


> Yes it does. If youbelieve in it you ARE a theist. A lack or disbelief IS ATHEISTIC. It doesn't matter if your view is "we don't know". God's ACTUAL existence is irrelevant to whether or not you believe it or not. So by definition you ARE an atheist. An agnostic atheist, but an atheist at that. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand...


That's not the way I see it lol. My understanding of what makes an agnostic or an atheist is different from yours.

To me, theism and atheism is blind faith. Agnosticism means I don't jump to a conclusion.


----------



## bfs (Jan 9, 2015)

humidity said:


> That's not the way I see it lol. My understanding of what makes an agnostic or an atheist is different from yours.
> 
> To me, theism and atheism is blind faith. Agnosticism means I don't jump to a conclusion.


The way you see it is incorrect then. Agnosticism ACTUALLY means you don't claim knowledge or knowing. Atheism does not necessarily do this either. Theism doesn't even NECESSARILY mean you're gnostic either.

But that is your misunderstanding of the definitions. As I used to say think the same thing until I learned the definitions. But a disbelief or lack of belief is still atheism. Some atheists believe god does not exist whatsoever. Some simply lack the belief in god.

Gnosticism is knowledge
Theism is Belief in god.

You can critically think what agnosticism and atheism are from that. But definitely you need to learn they theism or atheism are not mutually exclusive with gnosticism / agnosticism


----------



## Shredder (Apr 19, 2011)

humidity said:


> That's not the way I see it lol. My understanding of what makes an agnostic or an atheist is different from yours.
> 
> To me, theism and atheism is blind faith. Agnosticism means I don't jump to a conclusion.


I relate to where you're coming from... I stopped using the word agnostic a while back because there always seems to be an _expert_ that is willing to correct the usage of the word. 
Aside from saying "f**ked if I know", if I had to use a word to describe myself it would be existentialist. It's not that I don't give a sh*t, am lazy or through lack of trying. I guess I don't understand why people feel the need to compartmentalise in the first place. Beliefs are mutable, we constantly learn and change so why limit ourselves?


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

Every month or so we have someone that wants to redefine words that already have an established meaning. We really should have a sticky that has definitions so people don't go making up their own.


----------



## humidity (Nov 24, 2011)

bfs said:


> The way you see it is incorrect then. Agnosticism ACTUALLY means you don't claim knowledge or knowing. Atheism does not necessarily do this either. Theism doesn't even NECESSARILY mean you're gnostic either.
> 
> But that is your misunderstanding of the definitions. As I used to say think the same thing until I learned the definitions. But a disbelief or lack of belief is still atheism. Some atheists believe god does not exist whatsoever. Some simply lack the belief in god.
> 
> ...


I make my own definitions, just like all the other philosophers. They get to come up with stuff, and so do I lol.


----------



## humidity (Nov 24, 2011)

Foh_Teej said:


> Every month or so we have someone that wants to redefine words that already have an established meaning. We really should have a sticky that has definitions so people don't go making up their own.


If meaning had to be established, that means I could reestablish my own.


----------



## bfs (Jan 9, 2015)

humidity said:


> I make my own definitions, just like all the other philosophers. They get to come up with stuff, and so do I lol.


1) Apparently you don't because you're falsely calling yourself "agnostic" as a belief system.

2) You definition will still fall in with atheism unless you actually are theistic.


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

Foh_Teej said:


> We really should have a sticky that has definitions so people don't go making up their own.


Yes. Please. For the love of a highly unlikely god.

The reason why the definitions actually do matter here, is because it is misunderstanding the definitions that causes people to have 'hostility towards agnostics'. 

The criticism comes because agnostic is claimed to be 'someone who can't decide' or who is 'cowardly for taking the middle ground'.

*An atheist who doesn't claim certainty is also agnostic*, since agnosticism is simply not claiming certainty. 'I don't believe in god but can't be completely sure' = atheist agnostic.


----------



## dontwaitupforme (Feb 23, 2013)

Not to be a dick, but my point still stays valid. Lol.


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

humidity said:


> If meaning had to be established, that means I could reestablish my own.


Well you can do whatever the **** you want. However, language is only useful when we all agree on meaning. Otherwise, we're just making/listening to throat noises or viewing/typing weird shapes. It's this fundamental understanding that allows for meaningful communication. In this case, these words have perfectly workable and established meanings, all-the-while no good reason to change them.


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

WillYouStopDave said:


> Because militant atheists attack anyone who isn't 100% in agreement with them.


I find this type of hyperbole usually stems from someone that got his or her point refuted quite handily, previously.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

Foh_Teej said:


> I find this type of hyperbole usually stems from someone that got his or her point refuted quite handily, previously.


 :lol

Out of curiosity, I had a look at your posting history. I didn't look at every post (I'm not that bored) but it appears almost every post you've made had something to do with religion and/or atheism/etc.

I seriously hope someone is paying you for that kind of dedication.


----------



## patrick1163 (Apr 2, 2015)

I find the amount of posts and arguments on here hilarious because I started the thread and I'm actually an atheist not an agnostic. My best friend is a devout Christian and the person I was originally refering too is our other friend. 
His opinion is as follows "I don't think there isn't a God and I don't think there is one. I'm not convinced by the theology of any particular religion and I don't think science disproves a divine creator. If I died tomorrow, I wouldn't be surprised by an afreterlife and if there were none, I wouldn't exist to be surprised."
So what do you think? Is this a cop out? Is this some sort of superior stance? Is he just a coward? Or is it possible that someone maybe... Just maybe doesn't have a definitive answer to one of the most important questions people ask themselves, and therefore chooses not to worry too much about it and instead live life.


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

WillYouStopDave said:


> :lol
> 
> Out of curiosity, I had a look at your posting history. I didn't look at every post (I'm not that bored) but it appears almost every post you've made had something to do with religion and/or atheism/etc.
> 
> I seriously hope someone is paying you for that kind of dedication.


In that case, I really hope you're getting paid from yours. I mean for **** sake, I've been a member here over a decade, with 1600 posts, to your hardly two years and 10,000. Which is it? Boredom or dedication?


----------



## bfs (Jan 9, 2015)

patrick1163 said:


> I find the amount of posts and arguments on here hilarious because I started the thread and I'm actually an atheist not an agnostic. My best friend is a devout Christian and the person I was originally refering too is our other friend.
> His opinion is as follows "I don't think there isn't a God and I don't think there is one. I'm not convinced by the theology of any particular religion and I don't think science disproves a divine creator. If I died tomorrow, I wouldn't be surprised by an afreterlife and if there were none, I wouldn't exist to be surprised."
> So what do you think? Is this a cop out? Is this some sort of superior stance? Is he just a coward? Or is it possible that someone maybe... Just maybe doesn't have a definitive answer to one of the most important questions people ask themselves, and therefore chooses not to worry too much about it and instead live life.


In a way it is and in another way it isn't. When you say *think* you're talking knowledge. If you say *belief/faith* then we are talking religion/theism. He may also be a person who is avoiding the "atheism" word, or he just wasn't talking about belief.


----------



## anonymid (Oct 16, 2005)

patrick1163 said:


> I find the amount of posts and arguments on here hilarious because I started the thread and I'm actually an atheist not an agnostic. My best friend is a devout Christian and the person I was originally refering too is our other friend.
> His opinion is as follows "I don't think there isn't a God and I don't think there is one. I'm not convinced by the theology of any particular religion and I don't think science disproves a divine creator. If I died tomorrow, I wouldn't be surprised by an afreterlife and if there were none, I wouldn't exist to be surprised."
> So what do you think? Is this a cop out? Is this some sort of superior stance? Is he just a coward? Or is it possible that someone maybe... Just maybe doesn't have a definitive answer to one of the most important questions people ask themselves, and therefore chooses not to worry too much about it and instead live life.


Someone who "chooses not to worry too much about it and instead live life" is, in practical terms, an atheist. One doesn't need to know with absolute certainty that there isn't a god, or be close-minded about the possibility, in order to live one's life as though there isn't one. And that's why agnosticism and atheism are perfectly compatible positions. As a matter of knowledge, it's perfectly reasonable to be unsure and to be open to either possibility, but pragmatically, it's not possible to _live_ in that middle ground. Either you're living your life as though there's a god, or you're not. And if you're not, then you're an atheist by default, even if you're also agnostic.


----------



## catwizard (Oct 9, 2014)

i've never understood why people hate on agnostics. i also don't understand why people are telling others what their beliefs are "no, you're actually an atheist." like, why do you care what they believe?

i consider myself agnostic, leaning more toward atheism (usually). i don't think there is a god (or gods or higher powers or whatever), but i could be wrong. my perception of reality could be VERY wrong. maybe not everything is as it seems. and there are A LOT of things we don't know or understand yet. and maybe we're wrong about the things we think we know.

i guess im kind of hung up on the idea that reality might not be what it seems to be.


----------



## Cassoulet94 (Apr 3, 2014)

anonymid said:


> Someone who "chooses not to worry too much about it and instead live life" is, in practical terms, an atheist. One doesn't need to know with absolute certainty that there isn't a god, or be close-minded about the possibility, in order to live one's life as though there isn't one. And that's why agnosticism and atheism are perfectly compatible positions. As a matter of knowledge, it's perfectly reasonable to be unsure and to be open to either possibility, but pragmatically, it's not possible to _live_ in that middle ground. Either you're living your life as though there's a god, or you're not. And if you're not, then you're an atheist by default, even if you're also agnostic.


Nope. You're wrong. Atheism and agnosticism are terms that refers to opinions, not ways of life. Check a dictionnary. What makes you an agnostic is recognizing that it is not possible to know if there is such thing as a "god" with the amount of information that is currently available to humanity. An atheist is someone who claims that there is no superior entity, no "god", or whatever we might call it, in the universe.

So that's not the same. Yes, agnostic and atheists are alike in a way: their life is free of religious practise. But you know, a lot of believers don't practise a lot. And some don't practise at all. But they are not "atheist by default". Neither am I, I am agnostic.

I don't believe in any religions, because i think they're human inventions. But i recognize that science lets some questions unanswered and that the existence of an superior entity is not absolutely impossible. I just cannot know. So i admit my ignorance and I live my life as i want to without focusing too much on that. Yes, that's easier and conforting to believe that our lifes have meanings and that death is not just nothingness. But i don't like to fool myself.

It's funny, because a European would never ask such a question (why hate on agnostics). France and UK are among the countries with the highest proportion of non believers, and that's pretty cool.


----------



## anonymid (Oct 16, 2005)

Cassoulet94 said:


> An atheist is someone who claims that there is no superior entity, no "god", or whatever we might call it, in the universe.


No, it isn't--not necessarily, anyway. An atheist is simply someone who is not a theist. And if your answer to the question _do you believe in god?_ is anything other than _yes_, then you are not a theist. Which makes you an atheist by default.

I don't claim to know that there isn't a god, nor do I reject the possibility. Some people who identify as atheist might claim that level of certainty; I don't. But that doesn't mean I'm not an atheist. Because, unless and until my answer to the question _do you believe in a god?_ is _yes_, I am not a theist.


----------



## Cassoulet94 (Apr 3, 2014)

Well maybe in your imaginary language. But in english as in french, it doesn t work that way. Words have meanings. Please don't make up your own definitions, or communication will become pretty difficult. Have a good day.


----------



## humidity (Nov 24, 2011)

I don't get why the atheists here are so motivated to convince agnostics that they are actually atheists.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

humidity said:


> I don't get why the atheists here are so motivated to convince agnostics that they are actually atheists.


Some agnostics are also atheists without realising it. Not all though. It can be worth discussing. In the same respect, most atheists are also agnostic, but some don't realise.


----------



## bfs (Jan 9, 2015)

The hate on "agnostics" (I use quotes because unless you're an idiot we are all agnostics) is the fact that it doesn't answer the question of faith... 

It's a yes or no question. Do you believe in god? And "agnostics" refuse the to answer the question...

It's like asking someone "Are you hungry?" And the person keeps saying "I don't know" WTF? It's a yes or no question...


----------



## catwizard (Oct 9, 2014)

bfs said:


> The hate on "agnostics" (I use quotes because unless you're an idiot we are all agnostics) is the fact that it doesn't answer the question of faith...
> 
> It's a yes or no question. Do you believe in god? And "agnostics" refuse the to answer the question...
> 
> It's like asking someone "Are you hungry?" And the person keeps saying "I don't know" WTF? It's a yes or no question...


so you cant be unsure about your beliefs?

its not that they refuse
often times they really aren't sure. like maybe they're _pretty_ sure there is no god, at least not one whose presence is obvious. maybe they're in a state of religious exploration and trying to figure things out, not somewhere they can really say what they believe. maybe they find arguments both for and against the existence of a deity convincing and aren't sure which they agree with most. or maybe they don't see anyone's arguments or evidence as convincing. or maybe they just really dont care whether there is a god or not, so they're like "idk, there could be. i dont really care either way"

not everything is black or white. i view most things as a gradient, much like a color selector in photoshop

even hunger as you stated. hunger's not like an on/off switch. like you can be super hungry, havent eaten in a long time, can be somewhat hungry, or can be in a state where you're not really sure, but if you see food, you might want some. or you could be like me and get weird feelings where you're not sure if you're hungry or sick or your stomach is just doing something weird (hard to describe). or you just might not have thought about it and don't know.

of course, im kind of notorious for saying "i dont know" to nearly everything. im very indecisive. mostly cause i dont care either way how things go..


----------



## bfs (Jan 9, 2015)

catwizard said:


> so you cant be unsure about your beliefs?
> 
> its not that they refuse
> often times they really aren't sure. like maybe they're _pretty_ sure there is no god, at least not one whose presence is obvious. maybe they're in a state of religious exploration and trying to figure things out, not somewhere they can really say what they believe. maybe they find arguments both for and against the existence of a deity convincing and aren't sure which they agree with most. or maybe they don't see anyone's arguments or evidence as convincing. or maybe they just really dont care whether there is a god or not, so they're like "idk, there could be. i dont really care either way"
> ...


Then you HAVE NO BELIEF. Lacking a belief is not having one. Whether or not you are unsure is not the case. You can be unsure of your belief.

But if you're not an active believer in god, are you believing in a god at the moment? I'd argue you are NOT. Can it change? Absolutely. But to simply say I don't know to a question of BELIEF is quite disingenuous to the fact that you are indeed NOT believing at the moment.

And to be clear. I am quite adamant about the fact that we cannot know for certain whether or not god exists. But that doesn't mean you're a believer either.


----------



## catwizard (Oct 9, 2014)

bfs said:


> Then you HAVE NO BELIEF. Lacking a belief is not having one. Whether or not you are unsure is not the case. You can be unsure of your belief.
> 
> But if you're not an active believer in god, are you believing in a god at the moment? I'd argue you are NOT. Can it change? Absolutely. But to simply say I don't know to a question of BELIEF is quite disingenuous to the fact that you are indeed NOT believing at the moment.
> 
> And to be clear. I am quite adamant about the fact that we cannot know for certain whether or not god exists. But that doesn't mean you're a believer either.


ok. fair enough


----------



## Cassoulet94 (Apr 3, 2014)

bfs said:


> Then you HAVE NO BELIEF. Lacking a belief is not having one. Whether or not you are unsure is not the case. You can be unsure of your belief.
> 
> But if you're not an active believer in god, are you believing in a god at the moment? I'd argue you are NOT. Can it change? Absolutely. But to simply say I don't know to a question of BELIEF is quite disingenuous to the fact that you are indeed NOT believing at the moment.
> 
> And to be clear. I am quite adamant about the fact that we cannot know for certain whether or not god exists. But that doesn't mean you're a believer either.


Yeah I think I understand what you mean butyou are rather unclear.

An agnostic is someone who recognizes that he doesn't know if god exist or not. Does he believe there is no god ? No. Does he believe there is a god ? No.

It's not a yes or no question. When one asks you if you're hungry, you know for sure if you're hungry or not. You listen to your body and you know it.

When someone asks me if there is a god, my reason is helpless because there are no proof that he/she exists or doesn't exist. So i answer "i don't know". I have indeed no belief. Is it a problem ? Belief is the opposite of reason. My reason is my guide.

So your comparison is really not releavant.

Agnostism is the more rational stand.


----------



## bfs (Jan 9, 2015)

Cassoulet94 said:


> When someone asks me if there is a god, my reason is helpless because there are no proof that he/she exists or doesn't exist. So i answer "i don't know". *I have indeed no belief*. Is it a problem ? Belief is the opposite of reason. My reason is my guide.


Then you're an atheist...
Again theism isn't reason at all.

Saying you're not an atheist is foolish in this case. Because that's what you are, that's the definition. If you wish to "rid yourself of labels" and not call yourself an atheist fine. But then don't say you're agnostic either, that's also a label..


----------



## catwizard (Oct 9, 2014)

does it really matter so much what people classify themselves as?


----------



## Cassoulet94 (Apr 3, 2014)

bfs said:


> Then you're an atheist...
> Again theism isn't reason at all.
> 
> Saying you're not an atheist is foolish in this case. Because that's what you are, that's the definition. If you wish to "rid yourself of labels" and not call yourself an atheist fine. But then don't say you're agnostic either, that's also a label..


From the dictionnary:

agnostic: *a. * One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
*b. * One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

atheist:
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

So I am agnostic. Get over it.

Anyway, that is my last response to you, since you seem to have difficulties understanding what people say to you.

Good day.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Cassoulet94 said:


> From the dictionnary:
> 
> agnostic: *a. * One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
> *b. * One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
> ...


The problem with that dictionary definition is what does it mean by "true" atheism? What is "true" atheism?

Even that dictionaries own definition of atheism doesn't clarify what "true" atheism is. In fact there are various types of atheism, hence why the term agnostic atheism, also known as weak atheism is useful in discourse.

See here for a definitive clarification of weak atheism which is concurrent to agnosticism as I and others have defined here.

I personally avoid the term weak atheism even though it's literally correct, as it has an undesirable connotation due to the term 'weak' and even more scope for confusion in most discourse with people who struggle with the implications of the term atheism and agnosticism in general.


----------



## anonymid (Oct 16, 2005)

Cassoulet94 said:


> *Disbelief in or denial of* the existence of God or gods.


Note the distinction between _disbelief_ and _denial_. They are not the same thing! And that's exactly the point. An atheist _may_ be someone who outright denies the existence of a god or gods, but not necessarily. Mere disbelief is all that's necessary to be considered an atheist.


----------



## Cassoulet94 (Apr 3, 2014)

ugh1979 said:


> The problem with that dictionary definition is what does it mean by "true" atheism? What is "true" atheism?
> 
> Even that dictionaries own definition of atheism doesn't clarify what "true" atheism is. In fact there are various types of atheism, hence why the term agnostic atheism, also known as weak atheism is useful in discourse.
> 
> ...


Mmh ok i understand what you mean now. However, to be sure I have look into several dictionnaries (some old ones too) and all gave more or less the same definition than the one I gave above. As I tend to give more credit to books and academic texts than to websites, I hold my initial position (plus i think it makes more sense as it offers a more clear distinction). But anyway, that is just semantic, let's not make a fuss about it !


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Cassoulet94 said:


> Mmh ok i understand what you mean now. However, to be sure I have look into several dictionnaries (some old ones too) and all gave more or less the same definition than the one I gave above. As I tend to give more credit to books and academic texts than to websites, I hold my initial position (plus i think it makes more sense as it offers a more clear distinction). But anyway, that is just semantic, let's not make a fuss about it !


Can you cite them?

I don't believe any of them provide what the 'true' definition of atheism is. They are intentionally ambiguous as atheism doesn't have a definitive definition other than disbelief in a deity, so it can be gnostic or agnostic. (aka strong or weak atheism), plus some other types of atheism. Further explanation and references here.


----------



## Cassoulet94 (Apr 3, 2014)

ugh1979 said:


> Can you cite them?
> 
> I don't believe any of them provide what the 'true' definition of atheism is. They are intentionally ambiguous as atheism doesn't have a definitive definition other than disbelief in a deity, so it can be gnostic or agnostic. (aka strong or weak atheism), plus some other types of atheism. Further explanation and references here.


Yep I can cite them. I will do it tomorrow as i will have to translate the definitions because these are french dictionaries (I'm french) and I have no time for that right now. There is one definition in particular that is interesting.

Concerning the distinction between strong and weak atheism, i am still not convinced, i'll explain you why tomorrow as well.

Good evening.


----------



## bfs (Jan 9, 2015)

Cassoulet94 said:


> From the dictionnary:
> 
> agnostic: *a. * One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
> *b. * One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
> ...


One who is skeptical about the existence of God.

And

Disbelief of the existence of God or gods

IS THE SAME THING.

Mental gymnastics at its finest.

Another question is what is "true atheism". I am willing to bet this is the belief in no gods. As opposed to a lack of belief.

You're BOTH. LOL


----------



## Cassoulet94 (Apr 3, 2014)

bfs said:


> One who is skeptical about the existence of God.
> 
> And
> 
> ...


Come on. Don't pretend to be more stupid than you are. I am sure than you can understand, if you think about it.

Let me explain it to you with simple words:

- on one hand, there is this guy, who is atheist. He says *"there is no god" *and he is sure about it.

-on the other hand, there is this guy, who is agnostic. He says "ok, nobody can prove me that there is no god, but nobody can prove me there is one, so i cannot know for sure. So here is my position: *I don't know if there is a god"*.

To sum up, religious people think there is a god (or several), atheists thinks there is not, and agnostics recognize that we cannot know and say it: they don't know.

If you need simpler words to understand, tell me, i will draw you a picture.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Cassoulet94 said:


> Yep I can cite them. I will do it tomorrow as i will have to translate the definitions because these are french dictionaries (I'm french) and I have no time for that right now. There is one definition in particular that is interesting.
> 
> Concerning the distinction between strong and weak atheism, i am still not convinced, i'll explain you why tomorrow as well.
> 
> Good evening.


OK, well if you don't believe http://atheism.about.com/, which is a pretty definitive source on the subject and is consistent with all definitions i've ever seen, then I look forward to your citations from French resources.

The delaying of your evidence makes me suspect, but please proceed to explain your reasoning when you have a chance.


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

Well OP, your answer has been demonstrated vigorously.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Cassoulet94 said:


> Come on. Don't pretend to be more stupid than you are. I am sure than you can understand, if you think about it.
> 
> Let me explain it to you with simple words:
> 
> ...


The first person in your argument doesn't explicitly claim to be able to prove there is no god either. They are just sure there isn't. i.e. a position of belief, not knowledge. They can to all practical purposes say there is no god just as they can to all practical purposes say there are no unicorns. If evidence for either changes, then they can change their mind as they are typically led by evidence rather than desire. If they do claim to know there is no god, then they are as open to criticism as the theists who claim to know there is a god. It is not a position however that is typical of atheists, despite certain peoples misconceptions.

The second person legitimately claims they can't know there is no god, but in _addition _to that can state a position of belief on the subject based on a probability assessment, which is where the distinction between atheism and theism comes into play. We don't know most things for certain, but that doesn't mean we can't live with and accept at this moment with educated positions of approximations of the truth based in rational rather than fantasy.

Just because you can't prove a negative doesn't mean it has equal probability to the rational empirical based alternative. That's a failing of education if you think every opinion is equal. That's a crucial fact people should observe and adhere to, but many don't as they prioritise personal desire over rational probabilities. It's a common failing of the typical human mind, so I understand why it's so disappointing rampant. As I say, not all statements are of equal validity. In the same respect, nobody can prove with absolute certainty there is no bigfoot, just as nobody can prove there is, despite a significant number of people believing there is

Back on a more direct response, as I keep saying, agnosticism is entirely compatible with atheism/theism, but typically correlates with the former. There are not the three distinct positions on a scale you think they are. There are only shades of belief and supporting evidence, be that credible or not.


----------



## bfs (Jan 9, 2015)

Cassoulet94 said:


> Come on. Don't pretend to be more stupid than you are. I am sure than you can understand, if you think about it.
> 
> Let me explain it to you with simple words:
> 
> ...


How many times do I have to tell you that an atheist is not simply someone who believes in no gods? That would be false.

Now CAN A person who is atheist believe in no gods? Yes.

But an atheist is not someone who merely believes in a god:
"the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, *atheism* is specifically the position that there are no deities"

"disbelief or *lack of belief* in the existence of God or gods."

It's a basic concept really...

"all dogs are animals but not all animals are dogs"

Denial at it's finest lmao.

I think you're the person who actually needs a diagram. But by your definition you are an agnostic atheist. Sigh...


----------



## lmoh (Nov 19, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> See here for a definitive clarification of weak atheism which is concurrent to agnosticism as I and others have defined here.
> 
> I personally avoid the term weak atheism even though it's literally correct, as it has an undesirable connotation due to the term 'weak' and even more scope for confusion in most discourse with people who struggle with the implications of the term atheism and agnosticism in general.


Thing is, if you're looking for clarity, and trying to tell people what the words really mean, then it would be better to talk about this hidden label "weak atheism". This is especially true given the fact that alot of the people who follow the popular definition of "agnostic" are " agnostic weak atheists" who don't identify with the "agnostic strong atheist" label. Even if you have to explain an extra term, if you feel like it is important than you should explain as many as you need to. It would actually be more confusing if you don't.

As for the negative connotations, it really _shouldn't _be that bad, now should it? They don't mean much anyways, I think you should know that as, I would assume, a "strong atheist".


----------



## Cassoulet94 (Apr 3, 2014)

ugh1979 said:


> OK, well if you don't believe http://atheism.about.com/, which is a pretty definitive source on the subject and is constent with all definitions i've ever seen, then I look forward to your citations from French resources.
> 
> The delaying of your evidence makes me suspect, but please proceed to explain your reasoning when you have a chance.


It makes you suspect ? Don't be a child. A productiv dialogue is supposed to be a exchange of views, not a competition to prove you know better, in which you "suspect people". I'm no more interested in discussing with you. I think it will make you happy since you'll be able to tell that you were right, that i have no sources, etc...

Just know that a website from a random guy is not really a "definitve source" . The author of this website have his opinion, i have mine.

Bye.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

lmoh said:


> Thing is, if you're looking for clarity, and trying to tell people what the words really mean, then it would be better to talk about this hidden label "weak atheism". This is especially true given the fact that alot of the people who follow the popular definition of "agnostic" are " agnostic weak atheists" who don't identify with the "agnostic strong atheist" label. Even if you have to explain an extra term, if you feel like it is important than you should explain as many as you need to. It would actually be more confusing if you don't.
> 
> As for the negative connotations, it really _shouldn't _be that bad, now should it? They don't mean much anyways, I think you should know that as, I would assume, a "strong atheist".


There's no such thing as an agnostic strong atheist. Strong atheism means the person asserts there are no gods, which is a claim to a position of knowledge, so specifically not agnostic.

Sometimes these type of threads end up listing all the different types of atheism, so it's not like it's never mentioned, but as I say, the terms agnostic and atheist are still more well known than terms like weak/strong/positive/negative atheism, so I lead with and promote the former combination since they are the terms most typically being misunderstood.

What made you think i'm a "strong atheist"? I've spoken many times about the fallacy of holding that position.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Cassoulet94 said:


> It makes you suspect ? Don't be a child. A productiv dialogue is supposed to be a exchange of views, not a competition to prove you know better, in which you "suspect people". I'm no more interested in discussing with you. I think it will make you happy since you'll be able to tell that you were right, that i have no sources, etc...
> 
> Just know that a website from a random guy is not really a "definitve source" . The author of this website have his opinion, i have mine.
> 
> Bye.


There is nothing childish about doubting the validity of your argument. Rather than backing up your claims with your French definitions you are now choosing to make an exit, which I think is clearly due to the fact that you've been caught out.

The definition of the term is not an opinion. You are free to make up definitions for words all you want, but nobody should accept they are correct. Making up your own definitions is in fact the childish behaviour here.


----------



## Cassoulet94 (Apr 3, 2014)

Haha yeah i got caught up. Whatever dude, you are the cleverest ! i have nothing to prove to you. if one day you learn respect and become less imature, tell me, i will be willing to continue this conversation (and cite my sources) ! But as long as you consider that a debate is a fight, it's not gonna happen. Grow up !


----------



## lmoh (Nov 19, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> There's no such thing as an agnostic strong atheist. Strong atheism means the person asserts there are no gods, which is a claim to a position of knowledge, so specifically not agnostic.


You can claim/deny something without claiming to know something. That is how I interpret believing something to be true. If I believe in something, then I will claim it is likely true or even true. People can say "There is no god" but that shouldn't mean that they claim to "know that there is no god".

I was assuming that the distinction between a "strong" and "weak" atheist is the same as the difference between an "agnostic" and an "atheist" under the popular definition. 


> Sometimes these type of threads end up listing all the different types of atheism, so it's not like it's never mentioned...


Of course, its just not mentioned often.



> but as I say, the terms agnostic and atheist are still more well known than terms like weak/strong/positive/negative atheism, so I lead with and promote the former combination since they are the terms most typically being misunderstood.


Those terms are more well known in the sense that they are used more often, but that doesn't matter because as you take it they are not being used correctly.

The particular words don't really matter because to me what really matters are the positions they describe. If part of the problem people have with your definition is that they feel like there is a distinction that is explained by the popular definition of "agnostic" and "atheist" then I think it would help to tell them how those positions are still distinguished using the official definition.

Really, it shouldn't matter what extra terms you would have to bring in, or how underutilized they are if you would want to tell people how to correctly refer to their beliefs.



> What made you think i'm a "strong atheist"? I've spoken many times about the fallacy of holding that position.


Sorry if I was wrong, but I didn't outright accuse you of that. I thought that you were willing to subscribe to the idea that "God probably does not exist" because you seemed to take that position from our discussions, which would make you a "strong atheist" according to your source.

If "strong atheist" means "gnostic atheist" then I can probably understand why you find that position silly, but your source did not refer to it as such. It can be referred to as "positive atheism, explicit atheism, hard atheism", or "critical atheism", but not "gnostic atheism".

If "strong" is just another way of saying "gnostic", then you're right, it would probably be better not to bring those words up at all.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

lmoh said:


> You can claim/deny something without claiming to know something. That is how I interpret believing something to be true. If I believe in something, then I will claim it is likely true or even true. People can say "There is no god" but that shouldn't mean that they claim to "know that there is no god".


Indeed. The key difference is the assertion of knowledge.



> I was assuming that the distinction between a "strong" and "weak" atheist is the same as the difference between an "agnostic" and an "atheist" under the popular definition.


If it can be argued that the popular definition of atheist is strong atheism. I know that can be a misconception, especially among theists, but in places like my country when someone says they are atheist most people in my experience know that it's weak atheism, aka agnostic atheism they are referring to, so that's the popular definition here. Strong atheism is untenable in the most ambiguous respect (i.e. no specific definition of a deity, just the loosest concept of deity, which is arguably unknowable).



> Those terms are more well known in the sense that they are used more often, but that doesn't matter because as you take it they are not being used correctly.


Of course, as these threads show, some people are confused to their definitions and use.



> The particular words don't really matter because to me what really matters are the positions they describe. If part of the problem people have with your definition is that they feel like there is a distinction that is explained by the popular definition of "agnostic" and "atheist" then I think it would help to tell them how those positions are still distinguished using the official definition.
> 
> Really, it shouldn't matter what extra terms you would have to bring in, or how underutilized they are if you would want to tell people how to correctly refer to their beliefs.


In know, but as I say, I believe it's more efficient to clarify that agnosticism and atheism are not exclusive, so that's why I promote the term agnostic atheist.



> Sorry if I was wrong, but I didn't outright accuse you of that. I thought that you were willing to subscribe to the idea that "God probably does not exist" because you seemed to take that position from our discussions, which would make you a "strong atheist" according to your source.


I know you didn't accuse me of it, but you assumed it. I was just wondering why.

A strong atheist asserts knowledge there is no gods, _not _that there probably are no gods. The latter is in line with weak atheism, as it isn't claiming absolute knowledge on the matter, but does claim low probability.



> If "strong atheist" means "gnostic atheist" then I can probably understand why you find that position silly, but your source did not refer to it as such. It can be referred to as "positive atheism, explicit atheism, hard atheism", or "critical atheism", but not "gnostic atheism".
> 
> If "strong" is just another way of saying "gnostic", then you're right, it would probably be better not to bring those words up at all.


My source does refer to gnostic atheism being synonymous with strong atheism on a different page. See here. I'd say it's inferred to on the earlier source I posted where it says, "making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point.", i.e. a claim which has evidence for it, so therefore knowledge.


----------



## lmoh (Nov 19, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> Strong atheism is untenable in the most ambiguous respect (i.e. no specific definition of a deity, just the loosest concept of deity, which is arguably unknowable).


I wouldn't say that it is untenable for that reason. A broad definition just means that it rejects the core concept of what a deity stands for. "Theism" doesn't just refer to Christianity, which is the god commonly discussed in the west, but to a wide host of religions, each tied together by their worship of a divine powerful creator, sometimes multiple, which they call "God". This is what I take "god" to mean usually, because it allows other religions to contribute to the discussion.



> My source does refer to gnostic atheism being synonymous with strong atheism on a different page. See here. I'd say it's inferred to on the earlier source I posted where it says, "making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point.", i.e. a claim which has evidence for it, so therefore knowledge.


 I guess that strong atheism is just another way of saying gnostic atheism. So now we have a bunch of terms that refer to the same thing (dunno who in their mind came up with these terms). Fine, but that just means that we haven't made any progress.

So we go back to my original problem: Is there a word that describes the difference between the atheist who would assert that there are probably no gods versus the atheist who does not believe that the issue leans one way or the other?

Okay, let me try to make my question clearer. Suppose you are a betting man and someone were to bet you $1000 that god exists. If you bet for the claim and it turns out that one does exist, then you win the money, and if you bet against that claim and it turns out that there are none, then again, you win.

Now some people, believing that the evidence is in favor of god existing will bet for him existing and make an easy $1000. I think it shouldn't be problematic if we call them the "theists". Now some people, believing that the claim is false, or "probably false" will bet against him, and make an easy $1000. Now finally there are those who don't think either is more likely to be true than the other. These people, being risk averse, will probably not take either bet unless by arbitrary means.

Now, can we agree that the latter two cases are _different _, not exactly the same? If so, is there a term that distinguishes between these two positions? What kind of atheist do they describe? And why haven't we heard about it?


----------



## TobeyJuarez (May 16, 2012)

This thread is as "Internet" as it gets lol


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

lmoh said:


> I wouldn't say that it is untenable for that reason.


Of course it is, as it's an unknowable position due to the scope of what a deity _could _be defined as.



> A broad definition just means that it rejects the core concept of what a deity stands for. "Theism" doesn't just refer to Christianity, which is the god commonly discussed in the west, but to a wide host of religions, each tied together by their worship of a divine powerful creator, sometimes multiple, which they call "God". This is what I take "god" to mean usually, because it allows other religions to contribute to the discussion.


Likewise i'm talking about a deity in the most undefined and non-religious sense. I'm a strong atheist about certain definitions of god, but not the possibility of an undefined unknown deity per se.



> I guess that strong atheism is just another way of saying gnostic atheism. So now we have a bunch of terms that refer to the same thing (dunno who in their mind came up with these terms). Fine, but that just means that we haven't made any progress.


Indeed strong atheism is synonymous with gnostic atheism. It's interesting there are so many different ways of defining it, but I guess just different influential authors have used the different adjectives over time so they have entered the public lexicon.



> So we go back to my original problem: Is there a word that describes the difference between the atheist who would assert that there are probably no gods versus the atheist who does not believe that the issue leans one way or the other?


Yes, the former is an agnostic/weak atheist and the latter is an apatheist since they have no opinion on the debate. (which by consequence also technically makes them atheists).



> Okay, let me try to make my question clearer. Suppose you are a betting man and someone were to bet you $1000 that god exists. If you bet for the claim and it turns out that one does exist, then you win the money, and if you bet against that claim and it turns out that there are none, then again, you win.
> 
> Now some people, believing that the evidence is in favor of god existing will bet for him existing and make an easy $1000. I think it shouldn't be problematic if we call them the "theists". Now some people, believing that the claim is false, or "probably false" will bet against him, and make an easy $1000. Now finally there are those who don't think either is more likely to be true than the other. These people, being risk averse, will probably not take either bet unless by arbitrary means.
> 
> Now, can we agree that the latter two cases are _different _, not exactly the same? If so, is there a term that distinguishes between these two positions? What kind of atheist do they describe? And why haven't we heard about it?


The latter group are apatheistic atheists as I mentioned above.

They are often mentioned in these debates, but just not so far in this particular thread.

I hope this clears it up.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

TobeyJuarez said:


> This thread is as "Internet" as it gets lol


No now it is:










:lol


----------



## lmoh (Nov 19, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> Of course it is, as it's an unknowable position due to the scope of what a deity _could _be defined as.


But there are common characteristics shared by most people's definition of what a "deity" is, which is why the word "theism" has meaning.Of course some random person can define a potato as a "god" but that is just wordplay.



> Yes, the former is an agnostic/weak atheist and the latter is an apatheist since they have no opinion on the debate. (which by consequence also technically makes them atheists).


I don't know about that. Apatheism apparently means that you just don't care right? But what about those people who do care, spending their entire lives researching the subject, but just can't seem to find a definitive answer to their problem? They are also the type of people who won't bet for or against god, but they can write a 5000-word essay about why they think the way they do (certainty not what I would call "apathetic", "pathetic" maybe but yeah). It doesn't matter whether or not people care or not so it seems "apatheism" is not the word.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

lmoh said:


> But there are common characteristics shared by most people's definition of what a "deity" is, which is why the word "theism" has meaning.Of course some random person can define a potato as a "god" but that is just wordplay.


Common definitions of deities are irelevant to what I was saying. I'm not talking about someone arbitrary calling objects "god" either. I'm talking about intellectually valid unfalsifiable possibilities for something someone could on the face of it legitimately call a deity.



> I don't know about that. Apatheism apparently means that you just don't care right? But what about those people who do care, spending their entire lives researching the subject, but just can't seem to find a definitive answer to their problem? They are also the type of people who won't bet for or against god, but they can write a 5000-word essay about why they think the way they do (certainty not what I would call "apathetic", "pathetic" maybe but yeah). It doesn't matter whether or not people care or not so it seems "apatheism" is not the word.


In that case they are probably ignostic.


----------



## lmoh (Nov 19, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> Common definitions of deities are irelevant to what I was saying. I'm not talking about someone arbitrary calling objects "god" either. I'm talking about intellectually valid unfalsifiable possibilities for something someone could on the face of it legitimately call a deity.


In that case, what is a "theist" to you?



> In that case they are probably ignostic.


So ignosticism is defined as :



RationalWiki said:


> Ignosticism, or igtheism is a theological position. If followed to its logical end it concludes that the entire question about God's existence is a non-question and that taking a yes, no or even ambivalent position is absurd.


In other words, the question of god itself is meaningless. But the people that I was talking about don't find the question of God absurd or meaningless, or else they probably wouldn't devote their entire lives to finding an answer. Its just that they can't seem to find said answer.

Just so we don't get off track, I don't want you to find a specific term to describe those particular people. Really, you have to find a word that describes someone who would "neither bet for or against the notion of god". This apparently includes your "ignostic" and "apatheist". With regards to the terms you have given me already, the problem that I find with them is that they don't really address belief, but rather other factors, such as whether or not you care, or whether or not you think you can know.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

lmoh said:


> In that case, what is a "theist" to you?


Anyone who believes in a deity or deities.



> So ignosticism is defined as :
> 
> In other words, the question of god itself is meaningless. But the people that I was talking about don't find the question of God absurd or meaningless, or else they probably wouldn't devote their entire lives to finding an answer. Its just that they can't seem to find said answer.
> 
> Just so we don't get off track, I don't want you to find a specific term to describe those particular people. Really, you have to find a word that describes someone who would "neither bet for or against the notion of god". This apparently includes your "ignostic" and "apatheist". With regards to the terms you have given me already, the problem that I find with them is that they don't really address belief, but rather other factors, such as whether or not you care, or whether or not you think you can know.


OK, lets just call them atheists then since they don't explicitly believe in a deity. Not betting for or against the existence of one is still not believing in one. Any absence of belief in a deity, regardless of the reasoning is atheism.


----------



## lmoh (Nov 19, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> OK, lets just call them atheists then since they don't explicitly believe in a deity. Not betting for or against the existence of one is still not believing in one. Any absence of belief in a deity, regardless of the reasoning is atheism.


OK, so it turns out my worries are justified. Thank you. Funny that we have more than 10 different labels for all colours of atheists going around, but not one can describe the popular conception of an "agnostic".


----------



## Cassoulet94 (Apr 3, 2014)

lmoh said:


> OK, so it turns out my worries are justified. Thank you. Funny that we have more than 10 different labels for all colours of atheists going around, but not one can describe the popular conception of an "agnostic".


That's why the term "agnostic" exists. Agnostic= someone who says that we cannot know if there is god. Maybe but maybe not.

agnostic= someone who claims there is no god.

I'm afraid that ugh1979 fails to understand the difference. It is not binary enough for his mind. I would have happily gave him further explanations if he wasn't behaving like a eight years old.

It is a far more simple, but however way more clear and satisfaying distinction than the one between hard and weak atheisms, which is used by very few people (scholars included).


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

lmoh said:


> OK, so it turns out my worries are justified. Thank you. Funny that we have more than 10 different labels for all colours of atheists going around, but not one can describe the popular conception of an "agnostic".


One popular conception of the term agnostic is often a misconception, so the word to describe the person would be misinformed.

Many other agnostics though have no trouble realising that they are also atheist or theist and can give an appropriate answer to the question being asked.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Cassoulet94 said:


> That's why the term "agnostic" exists. Agnostic= someone who says that we cannot know if there is god. Maybe but maybe not.
> 
> agnostic= someone who claims there is no god.
> 
> ...


I've done nothing but describe the difference. You claimed you have some special French definitions that overrule the ones i've given, but you aren't willing to provide them, and are ironically resorting to calling me childish.

How are the definitions you just posted any different to mine though? What is it you think we are in disagreement about?


----------



## lmoh (Nov 19, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> One popular conception of the term agnostic is often a misconception, so the word to describe the person would be misinformed.


Eh, you can call them "misinformed", I won't argue because that is what it is, but at least they can describe one more position with nine less words .


----------



## lmoh (Nov 19, 2013)

Cassoulet94 said:


> That's why the term "agnostic" exists. Agnostic= someone who says that we cannot know if there is god. Maybe but maybe not.


Well, I do think that may be why people have started using the terms as such. They take one useless word that describes a useless distinction and make it useful. One reason why it flew over people's heads, I imagine, but people can disagree with me. I don't think that any one person really thought "Hey you know I don't really understand the distinction between atheists and agnostics (according to the popular definition). I mean they are essentially the same, right?".



> It is a far more simple, but however way more clear and satisfying distinction than the one between hard and weak atheisms, which is used by very few people (scholars included).


At this point, I think it is better to just explain my position without the use of any labels. Saves a bit of time (versus defining multiple terms), and alot of confusion and needless debate. If people would want to put me under a label, then whatever.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

lmoh said:


> ugh1979 said:
> 
> 
> > One popular conception of the term agnostic is often a misconception, so the word to describe the person would be misinformed.
> ...


But they aren't describing their position of belief by answering agnostic.


----------



## Cassoulet94 (Apr 3, 2014)

ugh1979 said:


> I've done nothing but describe the difference. You claimed you have some special French definitions that overrule the ones i've given, but you aren't willing to provide them, and are ironically resorting to calling me childish.
> 
> How are the definitions you just posted any different to mine though? What is it you think we are in disagreement about?


I am calling you a child because i said that i would give you my sources later, but you couldn't wait 24 hours without questioning my honnesty and say that you "suspected me", which is ridiculous. If I had said "ok, i have my sources but I won't cite them", you could have had doubts. But being so prompt to being disrespectful reveals that you're not in the state of mind that enables a enjoyable debate. As I already said, as long as you don't realize that, i see no point in exchanging with you, since i don't come here to be insulted. Not that I care, but that is a matter of prinicples.

Try for two seconds to question your actions and your sayings, it will make you some good.

I can discuss with you if you want, that's entirely up to you.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Cassoulet94 said:


> I am calling you a child because i said that i would give you my sources later, but you couldn't wait 24 hours without questioning my honnesty and say that you "suspected me", which is ridiculous. If I had said "ok, i have my sources but I won't cite them", you could have had doubts. But being so prompt to being disrespectful reveals that you're not in the state of mind that enables a enjoyable debate. As I already said, as long as you don't realize that, i see no point in exchanging with you, since i don't come here to be insulted. Not that I care, but that is a matter of prinicples.
> 
> Try for two seconds to question your actions and your sayings, it will make you some good.
> 
> I can discuss with you if you want, that's entirely up to you.


What's ridiculous is that you can't provide your source, despite being on the internet and having plenty time since you have had the time to post multiple further responses to me.

I did say, "The delaying of your evidence makes me suspect, but please proceed to explain your reasoning when you have a chance.", so it's hardly insulting, and in fact I was explicitly saying i'm happy to wait, so what you have just said about me not being able to wait is blatantly wrong. Saying I am suspect of someones claim but having the patience for them to back up the claim if they can is in no way childish. You shouldn't expect people not to suspect your dishonesty in cases like this.

Also, an enjoyable debate to me often is one in which I call people out, and how I treat you is entirely based on what you say. Also, you need to earn respect if you want to be respected. Your perceived delaying tactics don't make me respect you, and make me think you are being dishonest, but as I say, i'm happy to wait for you to provide the evidence for your case. I really hope you do now for your sake as otherwise your silence undermines your claim. 

It's laughable you talk about the virtues of a respectful debate when one reads the responses you have given to various people in this thread. :roll


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Cassoulet94 said:


> Haha yeah i got caught up. Whatever dude, you are the cleverest ! i have nothing to prove to you. if one day you learn respect and become less imature, tell me, i will be willing to continue this conversation (and cite my sources) ! But as long as you consider that a debate is a fight, it's not gonna happen. Grow up !


If you think it's disrespectful and not good debating tactics to call into question the legitimacy of the opponents claims then you need to learn how to debate more effectively. A debate is a fight. If you don't know that then maybe it's you who needs to "grow up"?

Feel free to try and cite a definition of debate which isn't synonymous to an argument/verbal fight. Maybe in one of your special French books?


----------



## Cassoulet94 (Apr 3, 2014)

ugh1979 said:


> What's ridiculous is that you can't provide your source, despite being on the internet and having plenty time since you have had the time to post multiple further responses to me.
> 
> I did say, "The delaying of your evidence makes me suspect, but please proceed to explain your reasoning when you have a chance.", so it's hardly insulting, and in fact I was explicitly saying i'm happy to wait, so what you have just said about me not being able to wait is blatantly wrong. Saying I am suspect of someones claim but having the patience for them to back up the claim if they can is in no way childish. You shouldn't expect people not to suspect your dishonesty in cases like this.
> 
> ...


Accusing someone of being dishonnest in order to prove that his definition of agnostic is better... That's pathetic. So no, of course i won't respond your argument. Undermining my claim ? Really ? You see, you just illustrate what i said: you're like a frustrated teenager who post comments on youtube. You want to be right so deseperatly, that is also laughable, trust me. You just don't understand the intelectual value of an exchange of views.

If you give so much importance to "winning" this argument, i imagine that your life must be very boring. So i'll let you that small but nonetheless very meaningful victory. It is obviously more important for you than for me.

I responded badly to people that were disrespectful, but I have never insulted them.

If you apologize for beeing so cocky and childish, i'll give you arguments to explain why the distinction between weak and strong atheism is flawed (and why citing a website from a random guy don't give more credit to yours arguments). But if you don't, which is very very likely, i'll give you silence and you will have the privilege to have the last word, as I won't respond your next post. And then, oh my god, my claim will be so undermined, my reputation will be ruined and my life will never be the same.

Good night, sir.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Cassoulet94 said:


> Accusing someone of being dishonnest in order to prove that his definition of agnostic is better... That's pathetic.


What's pathetic is that you don't even remember what we were debating in relation to that comment. It wasn't about the definition of agnostic. Further to that, it seems we have the same definition of agnostic as I clearly previously stated but you have chosen to ignore as it seems you would rather fight with me than agree on something.



> So no, of course i won't respond your argument. Undermining my claim ? Really ? You see, you just illustrate what i said: you're like a frustrated teenager that comment on youtube. You want to be right so deseperatly, that is also laughable, trust me. You just don't understand the intelectual value of an exchange of views.


You are the one who is failing to provide any intellectual input. I'm asking you for your source and you aren't providing it. I think it's clear you've been caught out and now you are resorting to insults as some kind of desperate defence since your stalling tactics were highlighted.



> If you give so much importance to "winning" this argument, i imagine that your life must be very boring. So i'll let you that small but nonetheless very meaningful victory. It is obviously more important for you than for me.


I find it important to pull people up who make false claims. If you don't care about vindicating yourself then so be it. I guess that's not important to you.



> I responded badly to people that were disrespectful, but I have never insulted them.


I'd say telling someone that they have have difficulties understanding what people say to them could be taken as insulting. Either way, it's clear you weren't interested in having a courteous debate with them either.



> If you apologize for beeing so cocky and childish, i'll give you arguments to explain why the distinction between weak and strong atheism is flawed (and why citing a website from a random guy don't give more credit to yours arguments). But if you don't, which is very very likely, i'll give you silence and you will have the privilege to have the last word, as I won't respond your next post. And then, oh my god, my claim will be so undermined, my reputation will be ruined and my life will never be the same.
> 
> Good night, sir.


I have nothing to apologise for. It's clear you've been caught out, so it's you who should be apologising for lying.

Feel free to show me you aren't when you have time. As I say, i'm happy to wait on you doing so, i'm here all week.


----------



## shyvr6 (Feb 18, 2008)

This thread is done.


----------

