Fed up of non believers

[RootsBooster]

No its still a position of belief, you believe that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God, but you don't actually know that that is the case.

 

Belief that God exists. Theist

Belief that nothing can be known of the existence or nature of God. Agnostic

Lack of belief in God. Atheist.

The atheists position doesn't require belief, the agnostic position does.

 

Agnosticism is a belief but a belief about knowledge, not a belief directly about a god.

[ivanava]

Agnosticism is a belief but a belief about knowledge, not a belief directly about a god.

 

Yep, but in the context of the topic it is about God, it a belief that nothing can be known about God.

Where as Atheism is the absence of belief.

[mjw47]

Yeah, I know. I haven't said anything contrary to this.

Not quite the same as the dictionary definition you gave but not believing either way still doesn't conflict with simply being without belief. If you don't believe either way, you are automatically without belief in any gods. An atheist by the definition you cited (Oxford Dictionary), as you have admitted that you don't believe in any gods

 

Nobody has disagreed with the definition of agnostic. Nobody has an issue with your agnosticism.

 

Misinformed by who? You? You've told us that you have no belief in any gods, that's all the information anyone needs to know that you're an atheist (an agnostic atheist).

 

It is virtually identical to the dictionary definition I gave.

 

OED 'A person who believes that one cannot know whether or not God exists.'

 

Professor Rowe ' Someone who holds neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist.'

 

I have also stated that I do not believe in the absence of Gods either. Like virtually all agnostics I take what I believe to be the most logical position and accept that I do not know either way, and in all probability never will.

 

Your last two paragraphs are contradictory. No one has an issue with my agnosticism. You are an atheist.

 

As I have explained that I give just as much probability to there being God(s) as not ( don't know either way) how is it that that does not make me an agnostic theist?

 

If someone says to you 'that is my opinion' and on an other instance says 'that is my belief', you do understand the difference don't you?

 

One is simply an opinion and they accept it may be wrong. The other carries their conviction, they belief it to be true.

 

I do not have a belief in gods nor the absence thereof.

[redwhine]

As I have explained that I give just as much probability to there being God(s) as not ( don't know either way) how is it that that does not make me an agnostic theist?

Because theists believe in god and you don't,:-

 

I do not have a belief in gods nor the absence thereof.

That means you are an atheist. (And I'm not telling you what you believe; you are telling us what you believe. You're simply choosing not to grasp what that is called.)

[Waldo]

Maybe he is Ignostic?

 

Its really a form of reductionism; sticking such labels on people to indicate theological position.

[RootsBooster]

Yep, but in the context of the topic it is about God, it a belief that nothing can be known about God.

Where as Atheism is the absence of belief.

Agreed.

 

It is virtually identical to the dictionary definition I gave.

 

OED 'A person who believes that one cannot know whether or not God exists.'

 

Professor Rowe ' Someone who holds neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist.'

Nobody has any issue with you being agnostic or the definition of it, I really don't see why you keep bringing it up

 

I have also stated that I do not believe in the absence of Gods either.

That's cool. Has no effect on your agnostic atheism though.

Like virtually all agnostics I take what I believe to be the most logical position and accept that I do not know either way, and in all probability never will.

Cool, doesn't affect your atheism though, while ever you have no belief in gods, you're still an atheist.

 

Your last two paragraphs are contradictory. No one has an issue with my agnosticism. You are an atheist.

There is no contradiction, the two are perfectly compatible. I didn't quite say it like that though.

 

As I have explained that I give just as much probability to there being God(s) as not ( don't know either way) how is it that that does not make me an agnostic theist?

Because you have to have a belief in a god to be a theist. A belief you don't have. This means you are not a theist. Hence atheist.

 

If someone says to you 'that is my opinion' and on an other instance says 'that is my belief', you do understand the difference don't you?

Not sure why you've brought "opinion" into the mix but there's actually very little difference between the two

One is simply an opinion and they accept it may be wrong. The other carries their conviction, they belief it to be true.

People can hold a belief and still accept it may be wrong, what's your point?

 

I do not have a belief in gods

...which makes you an atheist

nor the absence thereof.

...which has no effect on the above.

[salsafan]

Because theists believe in god and you don't,:-

 

 

That means you are an atheist. (And I'm not telling you what you believe; you are telling us what you believe. You're simply choosing not to grasp what that is called.)

 

He is not locking himself down to anything, but it will come to him as he lives his life. That is the whole point. Most of you deductive individuals are asking for the building blocks first and then build on top of this what that big picture is like. Whereas he is actually from a top down approach, which is inductive, and he starts with belief until he is proven that he cannot be true in believing in such things. He seems to be bit further in this, and in getting to be persuaded by you guys when you spoke of certain things. In reality, neither of you are right or wrong, but it is obvious that you chose to approach the same thing differently. Of which it is both valid and plausible. But one must take care not to knock the other person way off and out into oblivion such that they themselves lose their own belief, which is the crux of the original post. That the OP is pushed to her extreme by what had been said on something that she herself believes in.

 

I know this sounds dramatic, but if a person does not have belief, then you may as well stab them and just kill them off. Everybody believes in something, and that motivation and so forth, but not everybody uses the exact same word, or idea to describe the same thing. That is all. Nothing more to it really.

Edited March 2, 2014 by salsafan

[RootsBooster]

He is not locking himself down to anything, but it will come to him as he lives his life.

Nothing wrong with that, but until then, he's an agnostic atheist, according to the information and definitions he has given

That is the whole point. Most of you deductive individuals are asking for the building blocks first and then build on top of this what that big picture is like. Whereas he is actually from a top down approach, which is inductive, and he starts with belief until he is proven that he cannot be true in believing in such things.

You may have missed it, but he doesn't have belief, he's mentioned that a few times now. How on Earth would anyone start with belief anyway? Do you think that people can be born with a belief about one of the many gods?

He seems to be bit further in this, and in getting to be persuaded by you guys when you spoke of certain things. In reality, neither of you are right or wrong, but it is obvious that you chose to approach the same thing differently. Of which it is both valid and plausible.

I take it you've not actually been following anything of what's been said then

But one must take care not to knock the other person way off and out into oblivion such that they themselves lose their own belief, which is the crux of the original post. That the OP is pushed to her extreme by what had been said on something that she herself believes in.

Can you be clear about who you're actually referring to here? You quoted a response to mjw47 but then mentioned the OP

I know this sounds dramatic, but if a person do not have belief. Then you may as well stab them and just kill them off

I'd say more psychopathic than dogmatic

Everybody believes in something, and that motivation and so forth, but not everybody uses the exact same word, or idea to describe the same thing. That is all. Nothing more to it really.

Everybody believes in all sorts of stuff, but not all believe in irrational or supernatural stuff. When a theist says that an atheist still has beliefs it's a total cop-out, of course an atheist has beliefs, just not an irrational belief in a supernatural god. If an atheist didn't have any beliefs he/she would probably be insane (I believe that my monitor exists, I believe that I have to pay my electricity bills, I believe in being altruistic, etc. All rational stuff).

[mjw47]

Agreed.

 

Nobody has any issue with you being agnostic or the definition of it, I really don't see why you keep bringing it up

 

That's cool. Has no effect on your agnostic atheism though.

Cool, doesn't affect your atheism though, while ever you have no belief in gods, you're still an atheist.

 

There is no contradiction, the two are perfectly compatible. I didn't quite say it like that though.

 

Because you have to have a belief in a god to be a theist. A belief you don't have. This means you are not a theist. Hence atheist.

 

Not sure why you've brought "opinion" into the mix but there's actually very little difference between the two

People can hold a belief and still accept it may be wrong, what's your point?

 

...which makes you an atheist

...which has no effect on the above.

 

I keep bringing it up because you and a few others keep insisting, completely without credence that I am an agnostic atheist. I am not, atheism plays no part in my beliefs.

 

Atheists in my view are no more credible or non credible than believers. Both of them have 'beliefs' and they believe in theories that they cannot prove. This makes them both gullible in my view.

 

Unless you can prove something then it is merely your opinion, and may well be consigned to the same level as believing in the tooth fairy.

 

If you think an opinion and a belief have very little difference then it helps explain why you are apparently incapable of grasping what's being said to you.

 

An opinion is something which you hold without any real conviction, you think on the basis of what little you know of a subject that it may well be true, but you are perfectly willing to alter your view if presented with a strong enough alternative.

 

A belief on the other hand is a view which you are convinced is correct, you have given it thought and arrived at a conclusion. You would not give up that position lightly and will argue vehemently if challenged on the point.

 

Very few people get too upset about an opinion, people get killed over beliefs.

 

This debate is going around in circles and beginning to get boring.

 

Should you wish to continue please answer the following questions

 

I believe that the description agnostic stands alone as a description. It is equal to Theist or Atheist, it does not require any additional tag as insisted upon by you and other posters.

 

Explain why that does not appear to be the case in your view?

 

Professor William L Rowe's definition in full was that an Agnostic ' Is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a Theist and an Atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.

 

I have already explained to you that Professor Lowe's definition of agnostic applies to me. Therefore, that is what I am, an Agnostic.

 

The Professor clearly defines the three alternative descriptions as differing fundamentally, and separate in their usage.

 

So why are you unable to accept that?

 

And why are you of the opinion that you know more than a Professor Emeritus of Philosophy with regard to a subject he has specialized in?

[milquetoast1]

Atheism doesn't play a part in my beliefs either. I'm just an atheist. Simples.