Is agnosticism actually atheism without the attitude?

[quisquose]

So you don't find it amusing to learn that atheists do't mind partaking in the annual commemoration of the birth, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.. someone that by definition alone, cannot exist according to the beliefs of an atheist?

 

They do it because their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Why would someone who claims the creationists argument is pointless since there's no reason to invoke God/s, feel it necessary to marry in church? It's not as if you can just walk in and book it.. you have to attend numerous services leading up to it where you're required to acknowledge that the wedding is being blessed by God. :hihi:

 

I wouldn't say I'm a theist, as I don't believe in God/s as such.

I simply hold the position of there being something far greater than myself, something that has a cause and a purpose. I'd say my position is in conflict with the notion that creation needn't have had a cause or indeed have a purpose. I don't know how I could explain what that something is; other than saying it is (in the broadest sense) creation itself. So No, I don't agree with your claim that I'm a theist, however, should you satisfactorily establish how this something equates to "God", then I'd have no problem conceding that I must be theist.

 

No I don't worship a God, although I do participate in the annual celebrations associated the commemoration of the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

Just a few quotes of yours that I’ve copied from this thread, but over the last few weeks I have read you litter SF your criticisms of the non-religious with the word “hypocrisy” in respect of their choice to celebrate Christmas and Easter, or get married in a church.

 

But that last quote there is odd, even compared to the general level of oddness that you usually subject us to.

 

What exactly is the difference between me not believing in god and participating in celebrations associated with the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and you not believing in the Christian God and participating in celebrations associated with the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

[MrSmith]

Again, I disagree. It's fine to be open to the possibility of everything, as long as you aren't also gullible.

 

You would have to be insane to be open minded enough to consider the possibility that a 100m high pink elephant is living in your bathroom. There are infinite imaginary things that no one in their right mind would consider possible and they certainly wouldn’t open their mind up enough to consider them possible.

 

So open minded yes but not to anything.

[Cyclone]

Open your mind too far and something might fall out!

[Cyclone]

2.) Both of you tweak your beliefs (or lack of) to what ever suits. i.e, Theist position- 'If the big bang occurred it's because God created it'. The doubtful atheist's position- 'I'm an agnostic atheist because I don't know for sure whether god doesn't exist'.

There's no need for an atheist to tweak anything, what you consider tweaking are probably just attempts to explain to you since you generally keep missing the point.

I'm not convinced you can be an agnostic atheist, I think the two things are mutually incompatible.

You either believe that you don't and can't know, or you decide that on balance you don't believe.

 

The adamant atheist's position- 'I'm atheist because I've never considered whether God exist on any conscious level'.. yeah right.

Have you any evidence that any atheist has ever claimed that? Quoting the post earlier where someone said it was possible does not mean that it's actually happened.

 

3.) The logical and scientifically minded agnostic atheists position- 'There cannot be a God/creator because the rules of elementary logic which I am applying finds a contradiction within the creationism argument which makes the creationism argument a negative argument, therefore I must concur that the universe can exist without cause.. even though I don't know why or how, even though the unknown phenomena that theists refer to as God isn't governed by the universal laws of physics and contemporary science, even though I have no way of knowing whether the rules of my logic apply to the unknown phenomena.. I still concur that God/s do not exist and that the universe can exist without cause.

 

A bit long winded and confused at the end, but what do you see as a problem with this statement?

[flamingjimmy]

Alright I'd have to agree with you there. But with regard to all of this nonsense that's believed, do you consider the notion that the universe may have always existed without cause 'nonsense'?

It is the only logical conclusion. Something must have always existed without being caused, so it might as well be the universe itself. There's no reason to think anything else even exists at all.

 

I don't imagine them, they're apparent.

Yet you haven't actually specified what they are. You've just attacked what you perceive to be the character of atheists, not their arguments. Like a generalised ad hominem.

[flamingjimmy]

I'm not convinced you can be an agnostic atheist, I think the two things are mutually incompatible.

You either believe that you don't and can't know, or you decide that on balance you don't believe.

 

I believe that I don't and can't know whether god/s exists, and that is one of the reasons why I don't believe that any do.

 

Do you think that all agnostics are theists?

 

Because if they are not all theists, then some of them must be atheists, by definition.

[Tony]

By definition I must fall into that camp.

 

 

 

 

 

Why should there be limits? The only limit is my own knowledge and I'm always happy to learn.

 

The world (well, anyone that's interested) is currently sitting thinking "did the Italians screw up or do we start again? Please God let them have screwed up".

 

What setting would you suggest I adjust my proof parameter to?

Because it would be pointless being open minded enough to consider the possibility of that which isn’t possible, why would you open your mind to the possibility that something exists that is all powerful and can do anything but which as limits, and is all knowing but doesn’t know everything.

Something that can do anything can’t have limits and there can be nothing that wouldn’t be known by something that knows everything.

 

I appreciate your position here but you're in reality you're suffering from the logic failure that you think I'm guilty of.

 

It's actually my requirement for substantive evidence that creates my ostensibly untenable position. Our lack of knowledge or science before the start of what we know determines the dilemma itself - let's talk singularities rather than pink elephants in my bathroom.

 

When I can see to my satisfaction what's before the start of the known universe I'll go with it. Until then, I have to rather unwillingly accept that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - there might be a God.

 

This logic takes us all sorts of places but it is still a perfect logic. But since I prefer science, evidence, and facts so far as we understand them, I also logically conclude that there is no evidence for God, therefore it's not a belief that I retain or require.

 

I'm not sure what's so tough about understanding this pretty straight forward and perfectly clear position.

[RootsBooster]

So what is the opposite of not believing in God? To me, it's believing in God.

 

The opposite of not having a belief that God exists is having a belief that God exists.

The opposite of believing God does NOT exist is believing that God DOES exist.

 

The crucial difference here is that the wording in red amounts to the same thing, whereas the wording in blue does NOT.

What is the opposite to not considering whether God exists? To me, it's considering whether God exists.

I would say so too. You don't have to consider or NOT consider God's existence, just to qualify as an atheist though.

 

 

Now you could argue that it wouldn't apply to someone who never thinks about God, someone who has never had any conscious thoughts about God, but how many people could say that they've never had any conscious thoughts about God?.. I'd say None. I'd say that thinking about God is a constant factor within the human psyche, so is believing, so is not believing.

 

... this is relevant to atheism how?

[quisquose]

When I can see to my satisfaction what's before the start of the known universe I'll go with it. Until then, I have to rather unwillingly accept that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - there might be a God.

 

I prefer to put it slightly differently:

 

I think absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which is why I lack belief in god and am an a'theist.*

 

I accept that absence of evidence is not proof of absence, therefore there might be a god, and am agnostic.

 

 

 

* This is the way we live our lives with everything on a daily basis. If I'm in the supermarket then I will put those bottles of Peroni in my trolley based on the absence of evidence of there being any in my fridge, I don't expect proof otherwise I would run out of beer. It's only theists with respect to their fantasy views that act contrary to this it seems.

[MrSmith]

By definition I must fall into that camp.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I appreciate your position here but you're in reality you're suffering from the logic failure that you think I'm guilty of.

 

It's actually my requirement for substantive evidence that creates my ostensibly untenable position. Our lack of knowledge or science before the start of what we know determines the dilemma itself - let's talk singularities rather than pink elephants in my bathroom.

 

When I can see to my satisfaction what's before the start of the known universe I'll go with it. Until then, I have to rather unwillingly accept that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - there might be a God.

 

This logic takes us all sorts of places but it is still a perfect logic. But since I prefer science, evidence, and facts so far as we understand them, I also logically conclude that there is no evidence for God, therefore it's not a belief that I retain or require.

 

I'm not sure what's so tough about understanding this pretty straight forward and perfectly clear position.

 

I understand full that position and accept that potion, what I don't accept is that someone should to try to be open minded enough to be able to be convinced of anything at all, if it isn’t possible then it would be pointless being open mind about it.