Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by MrBiggMan on September 5, 2009 at 5:28pm

wikipedia has been taken over by idiots with nothing but time on their hands.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by René Hjortborg Bjørnskov on September 6, 2009 at 7:07am

I usually say that if atheism is a religion them being bald is a hairstyle. It would be fairly easy to split a list into subcategories, anyone who identifies with one stance should not be labelled another. If you prefer the term anti-theist, then anything else is plainly disrespectful.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by booklover on June 7, 2012 at 3:54pm

I love the atheism/religion, bald/hairstyle analogy Rene!  Sorry, don't know how to put an accent -mark over the e!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by fegary on September 6, 2009 at 1:12pm

If asked I generally prefer to state that I'm agnostic. Agnosticism deals with (limitations on) knowledge. As an agnostic I'm simply acknowledging that we don't have sufficient information to reach a provable conclusion. The term atheist deals with (lack of) theism and since I prefer to not have to deal with theism I wish I could avoid the term. If there weren't any theists (i.e. everyone viewed godtales as fairytales...), there'd be no need for the term atheists.

Of course, some theists really press and mistakenly view agnosticism as in between theism and atheism, then if I don't simply choose to ignore them I try to explain that I'm a hard agnostic (I don't think anyone will ever have enough information to absolutely prove that no god(s) exists) and a soft atheist. I am simply without theism. I do not believe that there isn't any god(s)--I just find it incredibly unlikely that a product of man's imagination (god(s) developed to provide an easy (non!)answer to difficult questions (e.g. why does anything exist) represents the actual case. I refer to those that insist and believe that god(s) doesn't exist as hard atheists. Their position is far more likely than that of theists who focus on a single incredibly remote possibility. Hard atheists can't prove their belief that there isn't a god(s). I'm comfortable saying I don't know, I think it highly unlikely, and suspect that we will never actually know.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by René Hjortborg Bjørnskov on September 6, 2009 at 1:47pm

I hope that you state that you are agnostic because this is what you are.You sound more to me like a negative(weak) atheist, but then you know who and what you are(this being my general point). The inability to positively prove a negative is an old hose in rhetorical logic, and ample material exist on-line.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by fegary on September 8, 2009 at 3:38pm

I state that I'm an agnostic because I am one. Agnosticism is not a position in between atheism and atheism, it is concerned with knowledge rather than deities. It is recognition that we lack sufficient information to make a provable conclusion. Actually I'm a hard agnostic, soft ones view the limitation strictly personally, I view it for all. One can be agnostic and also be either theistic or atheistic.

I am also a soft atheist. Hard atheists state that there is absolutely no god(s). That is a belief, as is theism. That said, I think that the odds are much better that I'll win the lottery for every drawing in the five decades than that a god exists....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by René Hjortborg Bjørnskov on September 8, 2009 at 5:21pm

Wonderfull. OK. There is one thing that I have never understood, and I am not writing this as an attack on you. It is simply that I don't get it.

As you say Agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism, it is the position that it is not possible or relevant to say anything about the existence of deities. As per your defitition a hard(strong) agnostic claims that it is not possible for anyone to know anything about the existence of a god.

An atheist weak(soft) atheist is a person who does not have a god but is open to the possiblity(Dawkins).As opposed to a Strong (hard) atheist who claims with certainty that no god can exist.

This means that you hold the possition that you are convinced that there is no god , but that you cannot have any knowledge to base that on and the question therefore is irellevant.

To me that sounds a bit like being a conservative liberal.

I therefore stand by my original claim the you are a weak atheist( one that is convinced there is no god, but open to be disproven).

Now this is obviously not your stance and I hope you will take the time to enlighten me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by René Hjortborg Bjørnskov on September 19, 2009 at 6:43am

Exactly agnosticism is not a middle ground, but unfortunately it is sometime translated as not being able to know if there is a god or not, thereby creating a conflict with weak atheism.
Agnosticism is not, not being able to know if there is a god or not, but the possitive claim that knowledge or insight on the subject is not possible or relevant.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MrBiggMan on September 18, 2009 at 5:29pm

I don't accept the god claim... That's a fact. I don't need to prove it. It's my opinion. I don't believe. That's atheism, lack of belief.

Of course we don't have knowledge of god, but we don't need knowledge to address belief. I reject the claim that bigfoot exists too - I have no knowledge of bigfoot, and certainly cannot disprove the bigfoot claim... but I don't need to disprove it to lack belief.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by René Hjortborg Bjørnskov on September 19, 2009 at 6:33am

Your"spagettimonster argument is what proves you atheist not agnostic.
As you do not accept the god claim, you have assumed insight in the claim.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Madhukar Kulkarni on June 7, 2012 at 11:14am

 

 It is recognition that we lack sufficient information to make a provable conclusion.

 

An agnostic may say that there is not sufficient information for a provable conclusion, but it is possible that there is sufficient information avaible and the agnostic is either unable to find it or is unwilling to go that far.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by René Hjortborg Bjørnskov on September 20, 2009 at 6:11am

Nope. you make the common mistake of defining a term by it's literal translation.
I have put a link to Britanica that explains this in depth.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page