Atheism VS. Agnosticism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-05-2012, 07:09 AM (This post was last modified: 13-05-2012 07:50 AM by DeepThought.)
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
Let me be blunt about something... Your cute 'too cool for school' attitude does nothing for me.
(13-05-2012 07:00 AM)Ghost Wrote:  My desire isn't to not commit fully to Atheism, I don't commit to it at all Cool

This has nothing to do with your commitment to atheism. Way to miss the point man...
You can call yourself Klingon and I'll still be here saying you are human. If that offends you so be it.

(13-05-2012 07:00 AM)Ghost Wrote:  
Quote:I don't care what you call yourself. If you don't believe in god then I'm going to call you an atheist. You can be whatever you want in your own head.

Let me be blunt about something. The attempt to absorb Agnostics into the fold of Atheism is only different from the Christianisation of Europe in two ways.
1 - The Catholic church was more organised than Atheists are.
2 - The Catholic church had more resources than Atheists have.
Beyond those two differences, they are IDENTICAL.

Atheists need to ask themselves. Is this what they want to be? Or is this what they themselves are trying to escape?

We are not yours to have. The conflict between Atheists and Agnostics will continue until Atheists recognise that fact.

Your association of atheism and the catholic church is laughable also. Don't you see the conceptual flaws here? If you can't find the holes in that line of reasoning then there is no need to continue this. Sounds like you don't know what atheism is. You have allot of baggage attached to atheism. Like someone who has been through several abusive relationships...

Also this has nothing to do with wanting or co-opting you.... get over yourself! It's about language and use of language. I'm not going to alter the meaning of words just to make you happy. Amuse yourself all you like within your own head. It's not going to change the Oxford dictionary unless you are also schizophrenic.

Personally I don't give a rats ass if you are atheist or not. No investment or interest at all. At least speak English for fucks sake. That is me being blunt.

Like those house wives who say "oh sugar" when they meant to say "oh shit."
We all "frakin" (fucking) know what they mean to say so at least have the decency/integrity to say it as it is. Circumlocution much?

This sort of thing gets me angry and your peace love and empathy line isn't helping. It's like the opposite of what I feel right now and I'm a say it like it is kind of person. If you reply to me can you please leave it out? for my sake? please? I'll even beg on my knees if I have to.

Is that truly how you feel when you write that at the end of your post or is it just and ideal that you strive for? If it's the latter I suppose I could get behind that.

If it's the former... Evil_monster Someone who claims to feel/wish 'peace love and empathy' at the end of every post isn't in touch with reality and the present IMO.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2012, 07:10 AM (This post was last modified: 13-05-2012 09:56 AM by DeepThought.)
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
(13-05-2012 07:00 AM)Ghost Wrote:  You are trying to co-opt an entire group of people that do not want to be co-opted by you.

[Image: resistance-goethe-logrus-surgol-hypercub...587003.jpg]

Edit: Fixed image link to make it work - DT

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
13-05-2012, 07:35 AM
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
Hey, Deep.

I laugh only because the first thing you did in the face of a comprehensive response to your comments was to come after me on a personal level.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2012, 07:39 AM (This post was last modified: 13-05-2012 08:03 AM by DeepThought.)
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
(13-05-2012 07:35 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Deep.

I laugh only because the first thing you did in the face of a comprehensive response to your comments was to come after me on a personal level.
But did you miss the other stuff? I usually edit/refine my posts for a while shortly after posting. And I don't think I attack anyone personally without there being some other actual content.

Think I can't handle the truth? Sez who?

I'm usually not angry about stuff ghost so don't take it personally, though given the way I think you think I doubt your would take it personally or would for very long...

Something about this topic just rubs me the wrong way. I get the same kind of anger when creationists lie about earth being 6000 years old and discredit science. It's the anger I get when people lie and I think they should know better.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2012, 08:02 AM
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
Yeah, no, you didn't actually add anything to the conversation and if ya wanna talk about glossing over the important bits, I think you're talking to you.

All you said was either ad hom, repetition or dismissal. The only coherent argument you did make was that replacing shit with sugar was somehow analogous to one group of people defining themselves as a different thing and another group refusing to recognise that difference. If you really want my opinion, that was a terrible analogy but I thought that it was so awful that it was self-evident to most people and didn't need my two cents added to the pile.

Don't shit on my head and expect me to call it a hat. Equally, don't pretend you're involved in a conversation when you're not.

I move on with my life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2012, 08:11 AM (This post was last modified: 13-05-2012 10:09 AM by DeepThought.)
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
(13-05-2012 08:02 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Yeah, no, you didn't actually add anything to the conversation and if ya wanna talk about glossing over the important bits, I think you're talking to you.

One of the things which you claim I haven't answered I answered in an earlier post.

(13-05-2012 07:00 AM)Ghost Wrote:  I am AN Agnostic. I believe in demonstration. If something has been demonstrated, I believe it or I don't depending on the conclusion. If it hasn't, or if it's indemonstrable, then I reserve my judgement. No one (to my knowledge) has ever demonstrated that invisible pink unicorns exist, or that they do not exist; therefore, I don't know whether they do or not.

This is how I approach everything. Absolutely everything. 

Flying Spaghetti Monster - Demonstrated. Created by Bobby Henderson in 2005. Doesn't exist.
Gravity - Demonstrated. Exists.
Life on Europa - Not demonstrated. Don't know.
God - Indemonstrable. Don't know.
(13-05-2012 05:31 AM)DeepThought Wrote:  They really have nothing to do with each other anyway. One is about knowledge and the other is about belief. Belief is binary - you believe or don't believe. Your knowledge on said subject has nothing to do with belief.

Faith is belief without knowledge.
Things you don't know that you don't know are impossible to believe.
Things you know you know are things you believe.
Things you don't know you know are things you believe.
Things you know you don't know are things you don't believe. (unless you want to go by faith)

As soon as something happens that changes your knowledge on something then you can go from believing <---> not believing.

So it's got nothing to do with your reserving of judgement. Many people reserve judgement on things that are unknown. Judgement being the difference between knowing and not knowing in your model of reality. Nothing unusual/special about that.
The moment you find out about a topic you either believe or don't believe. You can use faith or any combination of things but simply by knowing about it in some way you have already made your decision. With some topics people can flop flop between belief and disbelief regularly. Beliefs change all the time based on the available evidence and the knowledge that person was exposed to.

(13-05-2012 08:02 AM)Ghost Wrote:  All you said was either ad hom, repetition or dismissal. The only coherent argument you did make was that replacing shit with sugar was somehow analogous to one group of people defining themselves as a different thing and another group refusing to recognise that difference. If you really want my opinion, that was a terrible analogy but I thought that it was so awful that it was self-evident to most people and didn't need my two cents added to the pile.

Don't shit on my head and expect me to call it a hat. Equally, don't pretend you're involved in a conversation when you're not.

I move on with my life.

That's what I don't get about you. In my model of reality this topic (atheist/agnostic) is petty and shallow.

(13-05-2012 07:00 AM)Ghost Wrote:  
Deep Thought Wrote:Oh crap... Not this again. What till you hear about the Schrödinger's cat rubbish...

Hey, Deep Thought. How's it going? I see you're dismissing my deeply held beliefs. Calling them rubbish too. Great to hear from you.

In your world 'Agnosticism' holds a deep almost religious significance. Like it has transcendent properties. I suppose we aren't talking about the same thing at all.

That you take what I said as 'Shitting on your head'. I certainly never intended that.

Don't know how or why you hold so much reverence for agnosticism. They are just words in the English language and don't hold any special significance to me. Somehow you have taken this word and made it mean something about you on a personal level. If it's what makes you happy who am I to question it? Carry on...






































Still.... you are an atheist!!!!!!!!!! Laughat Tongue Evil_monster (If that doesn't make you laugh I don't know what will! )

Though, if it really means that much to you I'm fine with you calling yourself agnostic.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2012, 11:04 AM
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
A transsexual, born a man but living as a woman, may want to be referred to as she. There are many who accept her wish and many who tell her that she doesn't have the right to call herself that. The reason they say this is because they have an ideological viewpoint of gender and cannot allow her to challenge it. They are trying to exert power over her as if they were the High Council of Definition and had the authority to govern who self-defines as what. That's what ideology does. It reasserts itself aggressively when it is deconstructed.

Fortunately, the last 100 years have demonstrated, without exception, that eventually, every self-definition that clashes with the dominant cultural view is eventually accepted.

I am an Agnostic. I don't care that it clashes with the dominant cultural view. I don't care that it clashes with ideology. I say it because it is the truest thing that I can say about myself and I don't require anyone's permission to do so. There are those that think it's stupid, who downplay the significance of it to myself and overall, and those who try to stop me. Ideology tries to reassert itself aggressively. Fortuanatley, I rest easy knowing that all of those that oppose it are on the wrong side of history.

Agnosticism is significant to me because it is what I identify with. It is how I define myself. It is what I believe. It is a part of who I am. There are those that wish to deny that that part of me even exists. I'm sorry, but I cannot take that lightly.

So no, I don't find it funny when you call me an Atheist. I don't find it funny when anyone tries to dominate me for any reason. I understand your viewpoint and where it comes from and I can respect it, but only if you respect me. And what you're doing is about as far from respecting me as it gets so you'll excuse me if I don't laugh along.

I don't care if you think what is important to me is petty and shallow. If that's truly what you think, then I think less of you as a person and find you irrelevant to my life. If you think that it's funny to think that way or if you don't understand how destructive a position it is, then I urge you to take some time to contemplate it more deeply.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2012, 02:42 PM (This post was last modified: 13-05-2012 03:20 PM by DeepThought.)
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
(13-05-2012 11:04 AM)Ghost Wrote:  A transsexual, born a man but living as a woman, may want to be referred to as she. There are many who accept her wish and many who tell her that she doesn't have the right to call herself that. The reason they say this is because they have an ideological viewpoint of gender and cannot allow her to challenge it. They are trying to exert power over her as if they were the High Council of Definition and had the authority to govern who self-defines as what. That's what ideology does. It reasserts itself aggressively when it is deconstructed.
There is a distinction missing here. The difference between gender and gender identity. Science has something to say on gender. A scientist could look at the genome and say that is a male with brown hair, brown eyes, Caucasian, etc...
Science has nothing to say on gender identity. Important not to confuse them.

If the transsexual turns around and says to the scientists "How dare you classify me as male, you are stepping on my rights." I would say the transsexual male would be in the wrong. It is what it is. Science is objective. Blue is blue, black is black, and 1+1=2 (I hope).

If society says "How dare you use the women's toilets you are clearly male." I would say society is in the wrong.


There is a difference between attempting to redefine language and self-identity. As I said earlier I have no problem with you calling yourself agnostic.

Your self-identity shouldn't be dependent on anything that is external to yourself and outside your control. It will only lead to heartache and pain. So you can't expect others to simply accept your new definition of a word just because you decided to commandeer it.

Now how am I stepping on your human rights if say I called you a dirty word like... atheist?

After all the stuff theists say I honestly don't know how anyone could be offended by that. I do think THAT is petty.

Shakespeare made up a gazillion new words. Maybe you should take a page from his playbook... Agnostheist, theistagnos, faithnostic, agnostheagnosticon, veridican - no that one is taken, ummmm... I don't know I'm out of ideas...

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2012, 03:10 PM
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
(11-05-2012 02:46 PM)Scott D Wrote:  I have seen more people outwardly saying they are agnostic rather than atheist. I know several agnostics where I live, I know only one other atheist. It seems that more people are saying they are agnostic rather than atheist. I'm not going to talk about agnostics or anything. If you want my opinion on agnostics and agnosticism, please see this video "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTWlQaZ0DWo".

My question is, do you think more people say they are agnostic rather than atheist?. And if so, why?
What does it matter? As long as they are non-religious its a win isn't it? Arguing over the two words is pointless semantics. Most people I know who would classify themselves as agnostic merely don't want the negative stereotype associated with the word 'atheism'. That's it, that's as far as they have thought it through.

I don't know why people insist on arguing over this all the time. It is really rather stupid, as it does nothing but divide us. We already have no voice, yet we bicker between ourselves over something as insignificant as a label. Personally, I don't want to label myself, but it's within human nature to do so, and we will never have a voice unless we unite ourselves under one group.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Diablo's post
13-05-2012, 04:52 PM
RE: Atheism VS. Agnosticism
Atheism vs Agnosticism: This really isn't a debate as far as I'm concerned.

I'll just make a few points.

Regarding Agnosticism:

Agnosticism is a philosophical term regarding the knowledge of the existence of a deity. If you ask yourself the philosophical question, 'Does god(s) exist', and you don't have the logical skills of an infant, you would be an agnostic at the end of your philosophy.

I wouldn't personally consider anyone who thinks they know that a deity exists or doesn't exist agnostic. Technically speaking, yes that person is an agnostic, but in not recognizing that fact, I wouldn't label you as such; I reserve the label for more intellectual beings, who know their ass from a hole in the ground.

Regarding Atheism:

Atheism is as simple of a definition as damn near any word you can think of: the lack of a belief in a deity.

If you don't believe in a god or gods, that makes you an atheist.

If you think that you know god doesn't exist, or that it can be proven that god doesn't exist, that makes you a dumbass.

Can there be different levels of atheism? Yes. If you'd like too, you can divided it into strong and weak. Weak would just mean that you don't believe in a deity. Strong would indicate that you believe a deity doesn't exist.

How is that different????

A belief is defined as: accepting something to be true.

Two Statements.

God(s) exists.

God(s) doesn't exist.

If you do NOT accept just the first statement as being true (i.e. don't believe) you're just a weak atheist.

If you accept the second statement as being true (i.e. believe), which by default (deductive logic) would lead you NOT to accept the first statement, you would be a strong atheist.

Regarding the connection between agnosticism and atheism:

Agnosticism, if you accept that you are one, indicates that you do not know whether or not a god(s) exist.

At that point, if you do not then make a conscious decision to believe (i.e. accept to be true) that a god exists, thus making you a agnostic theist or deist, you are by default (again deductive logic) an atheist.

Why?

Because if you don't know if something exist or not, your default position is not to believe it. If you then don't make a change from that state, by claiming to believe that in which you do not know, you have to remain with that default position (i.e. not believing).

In closing:

Agnostics are at least, if they are not theist or deist, atheist, specifically at least weak atheists if you want to get more into detail with definitions.

Agnosticism is really a philosophical term. If you are not taking part in philosophy, or attempting to be an asshole, pseudo-intellectual, or elitist, you really should not be using the term.

Quote:Faith is belief without knowledge.

Things you don't know that you don't know are impossible to believe.

Things you know you know are things you believe.

Things you don't know you know are things you believe.

Things you know you don't know are things you don't believe.
Faith is actually better defined as belief without reason to believe (i.e. without evidence or proof). I wouldn't say I have faith that the world outside of my own mind exists, or to be more practical, I wouldn't find it fair to say scientist, by claiming that dark matter/energy exist for example, are invoking faith.

If there is good reason to believe that something is true, accepting it as a truth isn't, in my opinion, faith; it is just belief.

Then belief is different from knowledge, because knowledge has to actually be justifiable to the point where it has to be, and is, true, and then on top of that, you have to believe it.

That definition of knowledge is the reason why agnostics are atheists by default. If you don't know then that, by definition of knowledge, which belief is a part of, indicates that you don't believe. If you don't then make a decision to believe, despite not having knowledge, you have to remain at the default position of not believing. There is no fence in the middle for people to sit on, unless they want to alter definitions to their liking; kind of like people who want to debate whether or not Pluto is a planet.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TrulyX's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: