Hmmm…is rejecting the the existence the same as not accepting the existence, to you?
Yet 'Belief" is a subset of knowledge. Beliefs are those things which we hold to be true to the extent that having them demonstrated to be false would be life altering. A belief is not necessarily true. Knowledge can be false. ‘God exists,’ is a binary proposition that addresses atheism and theism. It can only be responded to with agree or disagree. A person is either an atheist or a theist. The antitheist is a subset of atheists. It is Atheist + (a, b, c, etc.)
Agnostic, on the other hand, addresses knowledge. One can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. Pascal’s wager explains how to be an agnostic theist. Believe because you’re going to get a reward, true or not. Agnostic atheists usually have the position, “I have no good reason to believe.”
As Sheldon points out.
2 Likes
This seems to be the primary straw man that always seems to come up whenever theists discuss the Big Bang, and may be one of the most debunked claims made by religious apologists.
First, cosmologists don’t claim that the Big Bang came from nothing. The Big Bang is the beginning of the current presentation of the Universe, which is vastly different from saying that the Big Bang came from nothing.
So, if God created the Universe, then where does God come from? If God has always existed, then why not assume that the Universe has always existed? Or, if we decide that God’s origin is an unanswerable question . . . then why not decide that the reason why the Big Bang occurred is an unanswerable question?
And even if everything did come from nothing, then so what? This isn’t a reason to automatically assume that God did it. Such a statement may go against common sense . . . but again, so what?
There are many times and occasions when common sense is wrong. The idea that the Earth is flat is common sense. So is the idea that the Earth is at the center of the Universe, or the belief that men are superior to women.
Common sense can cause lots of bloodshed. After all, it’s common sense that homosexuals are moral degenerates and deserve to be beaten, executed, imprisoned, and so on. And it’s common sense that LGBTQ people shouldn’t be around children.
And so on.
Just because we don’t understand everything about the beginning of the Universe doesn’t mean that we should automatically assume God . . . especially when religion kills so many people.
If this is true, then which God? Osiris? Thor? Amen-Ra? Zeus?
Even if one chooses to believe in the Abrahamic God of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism . . . then which sect should I join? Almost every sect says the others are not “saved,” so even if I become very pious, I will still be doomed to hell if I pick the wrong one.
Atheism can be very comforting under these circumstances.
1 Like
[Shrug] All of it 
A theist believes in a deity. An atheist does not. It isn’t possible to know whether either position is correct unless evidence is acquired (proof of either position) therefore agnosticism is irrelevant and, to my mind, simply a word designed to avoid the harsh associations of atheism.
Perhaps I should have been more specific, my bad
“still rejects claims to the existence of god”
UK Atheist
2 Likes
I think there is likely a substantial percentage of folks who identify as agnostic precisely because of that association. In some cases doing so is quite reasonable, borne of a fear that is justified.
That being said, I consider a/theist and a/gnostic to be two different, yet associated identifications. The former concerns belief (acceptance as truth sans evidence). The latter is about knowledge (acceptance based on evidence).
The crux of the biscuit, imo, is not the apostrophe, it’s being diligent about explaining one’s usage during conversation.
And now for the $64,000 question: Who got the music reference?
3 Likes
I said specifically for a reason?
Correct,
Again correct…
How so, since what you just described ( emboldened and underlined) in both cases is agnosticism?
So a biased subjective belief you hold, but that you cannot objectively evidence, sound familiar?
Now, since I originally said:
So there are 4 assertions in my originally posts that you now claim to disagree with? Unless I have missed something, does this not present a problem?
Ultimately this it’s just opinion that agnosticism is different from atheism and, while I readily admit one could call an atheist an agnostic and vice versa, I do not accept there is any difference.
UK Atheist
The Crux of the Biscuit is a compilation album by American musician Frank Zappa, released in July 2016, originally intended to celebrate the 40th
I didn’t get it. I know nothing about music. I know how to use Google.
1 Like
Based on what exactly, since the definitions clearly are different? You’re rendering words meaningless if you arbitrarily redefine them as you choose.
1 Like
Originally, it was a line from the song Stinkfoot off the album Apostrophe by Zappa which was released in 1974. The compilation album you mentioned was not released until well after Frank’s death.
I had a huge crush on him back in the day…
2 Likes
No.
Agnosticism is a position of having no knowledge of God or gods. A position of “I DON’T KNOW.”
Atheism adds something to agnosticism because atheism asks; “What do you believe?” (I get it, you don’t know, but do you believe the proposition, “God is real?”
The atheist may assert (I don’t know.) + (I don’t believe.) = Atheist.
The theist on the other hand (I don’t know) + (I believe) = Theist.
The best example of an agnostic theist (IMO) is Pascal’s wager.
If God exists, and you believe, you gain infinite rewards (+1).
If God does not exist, and you believe, you live a good life and get nothing (0)
If God exists, and you do not believe, you burn in hell infinitely (-1).
Nothing happens if God does not exist, and you do not believe (0).
The only winning solution in Pascal’s wager is to Believe in God and reap the reward. Never mind that god is all-knowing and knows exactly why you are believing. (How many friends do you have who are your friends simply because they give you shit?) (How many friends do you have who are your friends because if you said they were not your friends, they would torture you?) Pascal’s wager is a complete fail. Yet, it is the position of the Agnostic Christian. The bible both encourages and discourages the position.
Encouragement: “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe .” Jn 20:29
Discouragement: ****I Never Knew You - “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord , Lord ,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, ****
So you follow Pascal and you take your chance. (But then, when you get down to it, isn’t everyone agnostic? I have never met a God belief that could not be challenged with logic, and demonstrated to be anything more than an opinion or a feeling.
2 Likes
Explained above (and expanded later):
I don’t think there is a difference because “atheist” is simply a grammatical construct with the “a” reversing the sense of the word “theist” so “with god” becomes “not with god”. I think the “ism” is a bit of a misnomer because atheism, by and of itself, carries no philosophical components and I don’t think there are “flavours” of atheism and I don’t really accept the concept of agnosticism. You either believe in a god (theist) or you don’t (atheist); it’s a binary concept.
Being an atheist doesn’t mean I claim there is no god, it means I reject the claims that people believe or have “knowledge” of a god (including believing gods are unknown/unknowable). In other words, atheism is already about claim or knowledge and agnosticism is simply a redundant term.
I even addressed this briefly in my first UK Atheist article (UK Atheist: What Is Atheism?):
Agnosticism: The doctrine “that the existence of deity can neither be proved nor disproved” and in broad terms, an agnostic is considered to be “one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the non-existence of God or a god”. A logical consequence of “not knowing” whether there is or is not a god is that the agnostic has rejected all current claims of deity on the basis, presumably, of insufficient evidence or inconsistency & illogic in the claims being made by theists. It is also true to say that whilst it is possible to not know whether there is a god or not it is not possible to know whether you do or do not believe in current claims to deity.
Nothing anyone else has said in this thread measurably shifts my view and it’s not my problem that people don’t agree or don’t like what I think. I simply don’t accept there is a particular difference
UK Atheist
I used to listen to Zappa quite a lot, and he definitely influenced and expanded my taste in music. Other than that, Frank Zappa’s very vocal critique/mocking of religion through song lyrics was one way of challenging the views on religion I had back then. One of my favourite Zappa albums is Hot Rats. I like the blending and the fusion of the music styles, and it taught me that music styles are not “sacred” and that blending styles can lead to awesome results.
2 Likes
I’m not sure why you;re repeating this claim when it was demonstrated to be wrong, atheism is the lack or absence or belief in any deity or deities, agnosticism is itself a belief that nothing is or can be known about god.
Agnosticism is not "shades of atheism or theism, it is not some sort of half way between the two, this is an error theists generally make. It does not on it’s own tell us whether someone holds a belief that any deity exists.
Atheism makes no claims for knowledge of a deity, and if you are claiming you as an atheist do that is different, but that doesn’t change the defintion of atheism.
Well that is not is not always the case, some atheists make precisely that claim. However atheist and atheism are not the same thing. Since any atheist who claimed to know no deity exists, would by necessity also lack belief in any deity this does not contradict the definition of atheism. However such a claim would mean (at least in that instance) they are not an agnostic. I lack belief in any deity or deities, ispo fact I am an atheist. where the concepts presented are unfalsifiable I would also have to be an agnostic, but also withhold belief, since I cannot base belief on not knowing whether something is true or not.
Except that is not the definition of agnosticism, it is simply the belief that nothing is known or can be known about the nature or existence of god. I accept this claim as true only where the concept of a deity is unfalsifiable, and since I would still withhold belief I remain an atheist.
I see nothing wrong in that position, and agree basing belief on not knowing seems nonsensical, to me, however there are people who are both agnostic and theists.
I agree, that why one either does or does hold belief in a deity, but whether one is an atheist or a theist is different from whether one is an agnostic or not. If someone presents an unfalsifiable concept of a deity, I would not believe it, since by definition we cannot know whether such a deity exists, thus I would remain an atheist, but I would also (in that instance) be an agnostic.
It doesn’t matter what anyone subjectively believes, the definitions reflect common usage, if we set that aside then words lose their meaning. Agnosticism and atheism are not the same thing, though they are of course not mutually exclusive.
Agnosticism
noun
- a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
Atheism
noun
- disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
No one is arguing that they are mutually exclusive positions, quite the contrary, but they describe different things.
Jesus H Khrist on a bike, Sheldon.
I give up! Everything you’ve ever thought ort said is right.
Happy now?
UK Atheist
Then you just don’t know how to pay attention.
1 Like
This is simply an ad hominem fallacy, since it doesn’t address the argument presented at all. Maybe debate is another word you need to look up and understand? FYI you are the one who seems to be angry that someone dared disagree with you in a public debate forum. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me.
FWIW you’re arguing against the dictionary, based on your subjective opinion, and in a public debate forum, so your anger / frustration is likely misplaced.
Since you have failed to address any of the facts presented, then this merely indicates a closed mind. When presented with facts you simply repeated your previous claims, and didn’t directly address them at all.
Lets try this, I have decided that when you say you disagree, it actually means you agree, and I don’t care what anyone says about that. Now if your position is a well reasoned one, does it work when I use it here?
1 Like
No, it’s fucking not. I’m just pissed off with you!
I admire a lot of your arguments, but on this one I consider you dead wrong. I’m absolutely sure you think the same of me so why don’t we just agree to disagree?
UK Atheist
No what, is not what?
For disagreeing with your claim in a public debate forum, I invite you to think about that, and see why your anger might be misplaced.
It’s in the dictionary, I have linked both words to a dictionary and quoted the definitions more than once, you haven’t actually addressed the fact that your claim is at odds with the dictionary definitions of those words. How you or I, or anyone else “feels” about that seems moot.
Nope I am not usually angered by people disagreeing with me, I see no point, and again this is a “public debate forum”??? And again it’s the dictionary you’re disagreeing with, all I did was quote it. Atheism is demonstrably not the same as agnosticism, since the former is the lack of theistic belief, and latter a belief that nothing is known or can be known about the nature or existence of god. I can not be an agnostic about god claims that can be falsified, even by logical inference, but I would of course remain disbelieving and thus an atheist. Parenthetically I can be agnostic about god claims that are unfalsifiable, and still remain disbelieving and thus an atheist, so whether I am an agnostic or not is relative to the claim, but my atheism is not contingent on whether I am an agnostic or not.