mjw47 Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 In my opinion ignosticism (in theism) is a redundant position, the position of "there's no unified definition for me to make a decision on" falls pretty flat because there's no need for a unified definition of something for you to be able to come to a conclusion about it. ---------- Post added 19-12-2013 at 17:25 ---------- Are you being serious! Are you saying that you hold an opinion on everything under the Sun, without having any actual knowledge of the subject? In my view how anyone can hold any other view than agnostic is beyond me. There is no proof of ANYTHING regarding the existence, or non existence, of God(s) out there. Personally I prefer a few more facts about a subject before giving out an opinion on something. No one needs to be an expert before expressing an opinion, but some facts are useful wouldn't you think? ---------- Post added 19-12-2013 at 18:20 ---------- ---------- Post added 19-12-2013 at 18:04 ---------- In my opinion one can't decide whether something exists before knowing what the something is. So it leaves ignostic, for those people that have given it some thought, and atheist for those that aren't interested. For people that aren't interested they spend a fair amount of time giving their (non-existent) views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted December 19, 2013 Author Share Posted December 19, 2013 Are you being serious! Are you saying that you hold an opinion on everything under the Sun, without having any actual knowledge of the subject? In my view how anyone can hold any other view than agnostic is beyond me. There is no proof of ANYTHING regarding the existence, or non existence, of God(s) out there. Personally I prefer a few more facts about a subject before giving out an opinion on something. No one needs to be an expert before expressing an opinion, but some facts are useful wouldn't you think? ---------- Post added 19-12-2013 at 18:20 ---------- For people that aren't interested they spend a fair amount of time giving their (non-existent) views. Can you explain how to prove a negative in respect of the supernatural? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Are you being serious! Are you saying that you hold an opinion on everything under the Sun, without having any actual knowledge of the subject? In my view how anyone can hold any other view than agnostic is beyond me. There is no proof of ANYTHING regarding the existence, or non existence, of God(s) out there. Personally I prefer a few more facts about a subject before giving out an opinion on something. No one needs to be an expert before expressing an opinion, but some facts are useful wouldn't you think? Agnostic, a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. How can you believe that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God, without first knowing what God is. Its like saying nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of dogs before even knowing what a dog is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Agnostic, a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. How can you believe that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God, without first knowing what God is. Its like saying nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of dogs before even knowing what a dog is. Well here's the thing, from early childhood I was taught about God by adherents of the original Christian Church. This continued up until my late teens. Therefore, I am well versed in the beliefs of Christian teachings. This means I understand the concept. Unfortunately,(or not) it is my admittedly slightly sceptical nature to require some proof, before accepting what is being proposed especially when a certain amount of suspension of logic seems necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Well here's the thing, from early childhood I was taught about God by adherents of the original Christian Church. This continued up until my late teens. Therefore, I am well versed in the beliefs of Christian teachings. This means I understand the concept. Unfortunately,(or not) it is my admittedly slightly sceptical nature to require some proof, before accepting what is being proposed especially when a certain amount of suspension of logic seems necessary. In that case you should be able to determine whether or not such an entity is possible, if its not possible then it can't exist. That's my position. If you think its possible but you aren't convinced it exists then you are atheist. If you believe that Christians can know the nature of God and accept some of the teaching on the nature of god then you can't be agnostic. Being agnostic is a logical contradiction. To believe that nothing can be known of the nature of God would require some knowledge of the nature of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 No, an agnostic is someone who admits they simply don't know. That used to be my opinion until I got off my metaphorical backside and found out the correct meaning of the words. Fortunately I was open-minded enough to do it before making myself look silly on an internet forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Atheism The Belief that there is no God. Simply ignoring others and repeating that "atheism is a belief" without presenting any argument for it does not make it true. Can you offer anything to counter my last post, which in turn countered yours? Once again we come up against the little matter of Proof. There is none. In exactly the same way that religions cannot prove their beliefs neither can Atheism. Neither does atheism have to. Why do you keep using a capital "A" ? Atheism makes a statement as to the existence of God - admittedly only a brief one - it is therefore in the realms of theology as opposed to Truth. Atheists are believers, just negative ones . Where is it, exactly, that you get this from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 OK lets make it as simple as possible. Christianity Judaism Buddhism Hinduism Islam Sikhism All of the above are described as Beliefs. They are correctly defined in that way because whilst each of them holds a view as to God, none of them can actually prove the existence of such a being. Therefore ,what they have is a Belief, as opposed to a Truth. Atheism The Belief that there is no God. Once again we come up against the little matter of Proof. There is none. In exactly the same way that religions cannot prove their beliefs neither can Atheism. Admittedly, it's a far more basic premise requiring a minimum of thought process, but that is still all it is, a Belief. Atheism makes a statement as to the existence of God - admittedly only a brief one - it is therefore in the realms of theology as opposed to Truth. Atheists are believers, just negative ones . No. It is a lack of belief in a God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Are you being serious! Are you saying that you hold an opinion on everything under the Sun, without having any actual knowledge of the subject? No In my view how anyone can hold any other view than agnostic is beyond me. There is no proof of ANYTHING regarding the existence, or non existence, of God(s) out there.That's because you're still misunderstanding the meaning of the words you're using For people that aren't interested they spend a fair amount of time giving their (non-existent) views. Of course, you haven't posted at all, have you? ---------- Post added 19-12-2013 at 19:16 ---------- The first part of the sentence made it clear. No it didn't but if you'd made grammatical use of a colon instead of a comma (or "they" instead of "I", maybe even speech marks around it) then it might have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Quote: Originally Posted by angus View Post The first part of the sentence made it clear. No it didn't but if you'd made grammatical use of a colon instead of a comma (or "they" instead of "I", maybe even speech marks around it) then it might have Sorry for my poor use of English, but it still looked obvious to me. P.S. Your quote as an error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.