Go back
agnostic vs. atheist

agnostic vs. atheist

Spirituality

Vote Up
Vote Down

Which is better?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by whodey
Which is better?
Neither.

Both names are convenient to theists because both describe a viewpoint negatively in relation to Theism. A-the-ism even has the word "The" in it ๐Ÿ™„

http://www.the-brights.net/vision/faq.html#13

Is Richard Dawkins more positive outlook/restructuring....

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by whodey
Which is better?
It depends on your definition of the various words: "atheist", "agnostic" and "better".
I am currently reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins (due to frequent references to it on this site), and he makes a fairly good argument that some forms of agnosticism are irrational positions to hold.
For example the claim "we cannot know if God exists" is irrational, whereas the claim "I currently do not know" is not so bad. Also the claim "there is a 50/50 chance that God exists" is total nonsense.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by twhitehead
It depends on your definition of the various words: "atheist", "agnostic" and "better"
And herein lies the problem for atheists.

A form of language has to be found, free of all overt and subtle references to God and the supernatural, for example "Creation", "OMG" and other blasphemous terms, and yes, Atheist, as it must be the contention that God exists only in language.

With a groundswell and a redefined language of reality the "g-word" can truly come to have no meaning.

Whether, with such language, it will be possible to debate on this forum prior to that is moot. After it would be unnecessary...

3 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Sepia Tint
[b]And herein lies the problem for atheists.

A form of language has to be found, free of all overt and subtle references to God and the supernatural, for example "Creation", "OMG" and other blasphemous terms, and yes, Atheist, as it must be the contention that God exists only in language.
This I would agree with. It seems those who reject his existence have no problem in blaspheming his name by saying "OMG". This should stop but I know it never will. There is a reason people say it whether they know what that reason is or not.

Instead I began saying "OMD", or "Oh my Dawkins", but it just didn't seem to have the same desired effect. ๐Ÿ˜›

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by whodey
Instead I began saying "OMD", or "Oh my Dawkins", but it just didn't seem to have the same desired effect. ๐Ÿ˜›
Oh my ๐Ÿ˜‰

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by twhitehead
It depends on your definition of the various words: "atheist", "agnostic" and "better".
I am currently reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins (due to frequent references to it on this site), and he makes a fairly good argument that some forms of agnosticism are irrational positions to hold.
For example the claim "we cannot know if God exists" is o bad. Also the claim "there is a 50/50 chance that God exists" is total nonsense.
My definition of an atheist is someone who thinks they are 100% sure that God does not exist. Conversly, an agnostic is not 100% sure.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by whodey
This I would agree with. It seems those who reject his existence have no problem in blaspheming his name by saying "OMG". This should stop but I know it never will. There is a reason people say it whether they know what that reason is or not.

Instead I began saying "OMD", or "Oh my Dawkins", but it just didn't seem to have the same desired effect. ๐Ÿ˜›
The people I know who use phrases like OMG regularly are not intentionally blaspheming. In fact most of them are Christian.
I remember someone on 'the amazing race' (a Christian) who couldn't seem to stop saying it.
I think that many people who use it have simply got so used to it that they have forgotten the meaning of the words or at least do not think about it when saying them (as with most swearwords and other exclamations).

Who am I blaspheming when I say 'oopsie-daisy'?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by whodey
Which is better?
Divide and conquer, eh? ๐Ÿ™‚

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by whodey
My definition of an atheist is someone who thinks they are 100% sure that God does not exist. Conversly, an agnostic is not 100% sure.
I am 99.999999% +/- 0.000001% sure as would be a lot of people who call themselves atheist as I do, including Richard Dawkins. Essentially I am sure enough that I ignore the minute chance that God exist just as I ignore the equally minute chance that pink unicorns exist.
To me an agnostic is someone who is more than a bit open to the possibility that God exists and essentially is still considering the matter or has decided that they can never know the answer.

[edit]
Actually I am quite a lot surer than I implied. Try a few hundred decimal places. I would bet my life that pink unicorns and God do not exist.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by twhitehead
The people I know who use phrases like OMG regularly are not intentionally blaspheming. In fact most of them are Christian.
I remember someone on 'the amazing race' (a Christian) who couldn't seem to stop saying it.
I think that many people who use it have simply got so used to it that they have forgotten the meaning of the words or at least do not thin ...[text shortened]... most swearwords and other exclamations).

Who am I blaspheming when I say 'oopsie-daisy'?
Saying the Lords name in vain is just that, it is saying it just to say it without reverence. Therefore, if you say it without cause just to hear yourself say it you are using his name in vain. Conversly, the term oopsie-daisy has no reference to God.

As for 'Christians" who do it, does it make it right if they do?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Palynka
Divide and conquer, eh? ๐Ÿ™‚
๐Ÿ˜‰

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am 99.999999% +/- 0.000001% sure as would be a lot of people who call themselves atheist as I do, including Richard Dawkins. Essentially I am sure enough that I ignore the minute chance that God exist just as I ignore the equally minute chance that pink unicorns exist.
To me an agnostic is someone who is more than a bit open to the possibility that God ...[text shortened]... . Try a few hundred decimal places. I would bet my life that pink unicorns and God do not exist.
Then by my definition there are no true atheists?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by whodey
Saying the Lords name in vain is just that, it is saying it just to say it without reverence.
I agree, but I still maintain that that is not the intention of most people who use the phrase.

As for 'Christians" who do it, does it make it right if they do?
No it doesn't, but it does highlight what I am saying - if they thought they were blaspheming they would surely stop.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am 99.999999% +/- 0.000001% sure as would be a lot of people who call themselves atheist as I do, including Richard Dawkins. Essentially I am sure enough that I ignore the minute chance that God exist just as I ignore the equally minute chance that pink unicorns exist.
To me an agnostic is someone who is more than a bit open to the possibility that God ...[text shortened]... . Try a few hundred decimal places. I would bet my life that pink unicorns and God do not exist.
I think most atheist understand that that the non-existance of god (or any other magical creature) can never be absolutely and rigorously proven and therefore there must be an infinitesimal possibility that pink unicorns and God do exist. However, we attribute equal probability to the existance of both beings and effectively dismiss the possibility as being not worth our attention.

--- Penguin.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.