- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 May 15
2 edits
Originally posted by lemon limeRead my bio.
evidently 😕
It would help if someone could give a clear and coherent definition of both, as well as a clear and coherent explanation of how both differ. There must be some way to clearly differentiate between the two, without having to include examples of subtle differences within each of those meanings.
The fact that each is represented by a diffe ...[text shortened]... and agnostic) is a big clue to the average reader that they do [b]not mean the same thing...[/b]
http://www.redhotpawn.com/chess-player/googlefudge
EDIT:
Theist = a person who positively believes in the existence of a god or gods.
Atheist = a person who is not a theist. And thus lacks a positive belief in the existence of gods.
Gnostic [with respect to god/s] = a person who claims to know if a god or gods do or do not exist.
Agnostic [with respect to gods] = a person who either claims that they simply don't know if a god or gods exist OR
they claim that it's not possible [now or ever] to know if a god or gods exist.
Claimed knowledge [as some form of JTB] is a subset of strongly held and justified belief.
Thus a person who claims to know that a god or gods do exist, is also a person who positively believes in
the existence of a god or gods. They are a gnostic theist.
A person who claims not to know [or that it cannot be known] whether a god or gods exist, but nevertheless
still believes that a god or gods do exist is an agnostic theist.
A person who claims not to know [or that it cannot be known] whether a god or gods exist, and who lacks
a belief in the existence of any gods, is an agnostic [weak] atheist. These are generally the only
people who label themselves as agnostics.
A person who claims not to know [or that it cannot be known] whether a god or gods exist, but positively believes
that no gods do exist, is an agnostic [strong] atheist.
A person who claims to know that gods do not exist, is also a person who positively believes that no gods exist,
and is a gnostic atheist.
It can thus be seen that theist/atheist are answers to the question "do you believe that a god or gods exist?"
And gnostic/agnostic are answers to the question "do you claim to know that a god or gods do or do not exist,
or claim to know whether it's possible to know if a god or gods exist?".
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 May 15
Originally posted by divegeesterNo. It's possible to accept the "possibility" that the 'supernatural' manifests in reality
Isn't accepting the possibility of something supernatural, irrational?
without being irrational.
However, given the current evidence, it would be highly irrational to accept any serious
probability that the supernatural manifests in reality.
The possibility exists that the supernatural could be 'real'.... It's just a really really really
tiny probability that it is so.
You can also accept the possibility that the supernatural exists... without at any point actually
believing that it does.
It's possible that it might be possible to build a practical FTL drive system.
I don't actually believe that it is actually possible [although I would love to be proven wrong].
However, there is no requirement for you to be rational to be an atheist.
So whether it's irrational or not to believe in [or accept the possibility of] the supernatural or not,
that doesn't have any bearing on whether you qualify as an atheist.
There are plenty of 'new age hippies' who swallow every kind of superstitious woo and
[stuff that comes out of the south end of a north facing bull] that is on offer....
astrology, tarot, spirit reading, auras, karma {sutra 😉 }, crystal healing, the lockness monster...
basically everything you needed to believe to be a ghostbuster... but if they don't actually
believe in any gods then they are an atheist... Just not a very rational one.
28 May 15
Originally posted by lemon lime"By definition an atheist does not believe in an afterlife... if a self described atheist claims to believe in an afterlife, or keeps open the possibility there may be one, then by definition he is not an atheist." -lemon lime Then in which category would you place a Muslim who believes in being given seventy virgins in the after life if he murders enough Christians?
I'm annoyed by people who consistently add and subtract from what I'm saying. So I make it a point to carefully read what they say, and take them at their word as to what they believe or don't believe. I don't know any of them, so if their words are all I see then their words are all I have to work with.
By definition an atheist does not believe in an ...[text shortened]... ut if I don't state the obvious I can expect to see someone claiming I've said otherwise.
28 May 15
Originally posted by divegeesterGod Himself is your judge and mine not lemon lime.
This is why I get a lot of stick here; because I am prepared to "break ranks". Lemon Lime for example will accuse me of attacking and undermining the faith of other Christians simply because I disagree with them directly.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 May 15
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyA Muslim who believes in a god is a theist, by definition.
"By definition an atheist does not believe in an afterlife... if a self described atheist claims to believe in an afterlife, or keeps open the possibility there may be one, then [b]by definition he is not an atheist." -lemon lime Then in which category would you place a Muslim who believes in being given seventy virgins in the after life if he murders enough Christians?[/b]
An atheist is not a person who lacks a positive belief in the existence of the Christian god.
An atheist is a person who lacks a positive belief in the existence of any and all gods.
Originally posted by Proper KnobOriginally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 5)
Do the words you write in public not reflect the entire scope and spectrum of what you think? If so, do you suffer from peer pressure, fear of disapproval, timidity, and censure? Is your deliberative process still in progress?
"Atheists do not believe in an afterlife." lemon lime, in my experience the words people speak or write in public don't necessarily reflect the entire scope and spectrum of what they think. Why? Peer pressure. Fear of disapproval. Timidity. Censure. Besides, when the deliberative process is still in progress, the decision is still tentative; not final. Your thoughts?"
_________________________
PK, the point of reference is "Atheists"; if I had chosen to be an atheist the description may have applied. Spiritual growth from being taught the Word of God by a pastor/teacher from the original languages in which it was written is still in progress.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWhen I was an atheist most people I knew (pro and con) kept the argument in sharper focus by dividing people into only three categories... theist, atheist and agnostic. Either you believed in God or you didn't, or you chose to call yourself an agnostic. Later I switched to agnosticism in order to avoid a particular problem when arguing with theists. There was no point in my asking "How do you know God exists?" when they could easily counter with "How do you know he doesn't?"
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 5)
"Atheists do not believe in an afterlife." lemon lime, in my experience the words people speak or write in public don't necessarily reflect the entire scope and spectrum of what they think. Why? Peer pressure. Fear of disapproval. Timidity. Censure. Besides, when the deliberative process is still in pr ...[text shortened]... od by a pastor/teacher from the original languages in which it was written is still in progress.
In the link I provided on the previous page the atheist who changed his mind said he was now a deist (not a theist). I don't see deist in googlefudges list, so how would someone who calls himself a deist be categorized?
...when the deliberative process is still in progress, the decision is still tentative; not final.
It's not final in the sense that while we are alive we have room for changing our minds. But I believe most atheists will argue that their decision is not tentative, because this sounds as though they are not sure of the decision they have made.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 1)
"twhitehead, when you first became aware of the game of chess with a thimble full of information you could have decided it wasn't of any interest to you. Similarly, when someone becomes aware of the possibility that some god or gods may exist [God consciousness] he or she may decide to summarily dismiss that possibility and by definition become an atheist.
*Human volition has only three polarities: Yes [theist]. Maybe [agnostic: still curious and objective]. No [atheist] in this regard; each represents a conscious choice."
____________________________
googlefudge and lemon lime, would either or both of you agree in part or whole with this *summation? Thanks for your replies.
28 May 15
Originally posted by divegeesterIt depends on what you mean by 'supernatural'. Many people use a definition that is incoherent and thus yes, it would be irrational. Why would that be relevant to the post you responded to?
Isn't accepting the possibility of something supernatural, irrational?
28 May 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeI am curious as to how you define 'supernatural'.
No. It's possible to accept the "possibility" that the 'supernatural' manifests in reality
without being irrational.
However, given the current evidence, it would be highly irrational to accept any serious
probability that the supernatural manifests in reality.
The possibility exists that the supernatural could be 'real'.... It's just a really really really
tiny probability that it is so.
28 May 15
Originally posted by lemon limeActually, most atheists on this forum argue that no decision has been made - because there are no options to make a decision about.
But I believe most atheists will argue that their decision is not tentative, because this sounds as though they are not sure of the decision they have made.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
28 May 15
Originally posted by lemon limeSix posts above yours. Agnosticism isn't some kind of middle ground between atheism and theism. How hard can this be?
When I was an atheist most people I knew (pro and con) kept the argument in sharper focus by dividing people into only three categories... theist, atheist and agnostic. Either you believed in God or you didn't, or you chose to call yourself an agnostic. Later I switched to agnosticism in order to avoid a particular problem when arguing with theists. There ...[text shortened]... s not tentative, because this sounds as though they are not sure of the decision they have made.
Now, deism is a form of theism. A deist don't believe in a personal god, or revelation as a source of knowledge, but do believe that there is a creator god who initiated everything, and then left the universe running according to the natural laws. In other words, a deist doesn't believe that god intervenes with the natural world.
Originally posted by lemon limeThis is an interesting revelation. We have seen here how you adopt the same tactic in order to "avoid a problem" you may have found yourself in. Quite disingenuous of you and why you get called on it frequently.
...Later I switched to agnosticism in order to avoid a particular problem when arguing with theists. There was no point in my asking "How do you know God exists?" when they could easily counter with "How do you know he doesn't.
28 May 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadOkay, if you say so... so we can now classify most atheists on this forum as being "undecided" - because there's nothing for them to decide.
Actually, most atheists on this forum argue that no decision has been made - because there are no options to make a decision about.
Thanks for the clarification.
28 May 15
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI can agree for the most part, but I'm not sure if the concept of a neutral polarity is realistic.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 1)
"twhitehead, when you first became aware of the game of chess with a thimble full of information you could have decided it wasn't of any interest to you. Similarly, when someone becomes aware of the possibility that some god or gods may exist [God consciousness] he or she may decide to summarily dismiss ...[text shortened]... ould either or both of you agree in part or whole with this *summation? Thanks for your replies.
When I was agnostic I wasn't particularly curious or objective, it was simply a safe place for me to maintain my atheism while appearing to be objective. I didn't doubt what I believed, but being an agnostic seemed to be the most reasonable way of maintaining (or perhaps justifying) what I believed.