Are you going to have an actual discussion and try to back up your claims? Because I'd love to see what you have ready to paste, o great wiki warrior.
[SIZE=13.63636302948px]I think the whole foundation of any religion is to [/SIZE]surrender your mind[SIZE=13.63636302948px]. To take the words of an ancient book and the preachers who claim to know the mind of God through that book, at face value. [/SIZE][SIZE=13.63636302948px]I think faith in a particular god is gullibility. [/SIZE] This is not to be seperated from having a sense of wonder and mystery about the universe. We atheists, and agnostics, we have the same sensations. The same rush of the heart when we kiss our lover, the same depth of warmth when we hug a loved parent, or see a rainbow, or a beautiful sunset. God has no claim on those things, in my mind, but they are breathtaking nonetheless. [SIZE=13.63636302948px]I think you as a Christian are an atheist too. You don't believe in Thor, or Zeus, or Ra, or Allah. You choose to believe in Jesus and the Christian God, but could you imagine that you do so simply because you are born to/raised of/in a community of Christians? Would that explain why the Gods have divided their world largely geographically; with Allah largely owning the middle east, Buddha largely the far east, and Jesus the west?[/SIZE] [SIZE=13.63636302948px]I think you should engage critical thinking, rather than surrender to wonder. [/SIZE] [SIZE=13.63636302948px]Edit: I see by earlier posts in this thread I'm not the only one who has read some Hitchens[/SIZE]
Lmao. If you can't piece it together with your own brain, no point in me trying - it's a really simple concept.
A(gnosticism) deals with the certainty of a belief. A(theism) deals with what you believe. They aren't mutually exclusive. You can be certain/uncertain about your beliefs. It's really that simple.
This, of course, kind of falters when you realize that atheism is a belief system as well. You can't be an agnostic-atheist or vice versa. Because when it comes to atheism, saying you believe something is the exact same as saying you know something.
I don't know why you think that, because that's not correct. There are strong atheists out there (Dawkins) who think there is for certain no god (that's mostly to sell books, though)... and the rest of us say, "We don't believe in god, but I have no idea of knowing for sure." That is most certainly agnostic atheism. There's also agnostic theists, I think you have your definitions a bit messed up. Atheism is definitely the lack of belief in god, but saying you're atheist has absolutely no implication for the degree of how convinced you are of your beliefs, that's where gnosticism comes in. Gnostic atheists means they're certain there's no god. Agnostic atheist means they don't know, but don't believe in god. I'm not sure why you have such an issue with this. btw: atheism isn't a belief system it's the default. you aren't born believing in god.
Of course atheism is a belief system. Don't be silly. To realize this you have to understand the inherent qualities of metaphysics. Metaphysics, at it's very core, is something that is beyond explanation. That is why atheism is a belief system. Metaphysics is not something you can subject to normal scientific processes. Speaking strictly from a scientific viewpoint, when someone makes the claim that they 'know' something to be true or untrue, the normal process is for them to bring evidence that supports their claim. But seeing as how no such evidence for theism exists, and by definition cannot exist, the claim that one 'knows' something holds absolutely no merit. You are getting to hung up on the difference of 'knowing' and 'believing.' Because when it comes to metaphysics, they are one in the same. It's very simple. Atheists do not know that god(s) does not exist, they believe god(s) do not exist. Agnosticism makes no claim either way. Saying 'We don't believe in god, but I have no idea of knowing for sure.' doesn't mean you aren't an atheist. It just means you are being intellectually honest with yourself. Bravo on that. EDIT: It also means you are a negative atheist. It still has nothing to do with being an agnostic. In summation, agnostic atheism is a relatively new term that, to me, is silly. This is because it fails to take into account that the notion of 'knowing' something when it comes to metaphysics is, by it's very definition, impossible.
Okay I suppose I can see why you think atheism is a belief system, but I still struggle seeing how you think agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. Agnosticism has nothing to do with the content of your beliefs, only the certainty to which you believe them. If you're a strict agnostic, of course it's going to be, "I don't know anything." which is practically nihilism (and I'm all for that, personally). The point is gnosticism can still be applied as an adjective to theism or atheism and has no logical backfire. It's not like saying I'm a theistic atheist which is obviously a contradiction.
Agnostic (negative) atheist, means you don't believe in God (don't believe he is real, don't believe he is not real) and don't claim to know. Gnostic (positive) atheist, means you believe God isn't real and claim to know he isn't real. Agnostic theist, means you believe in God but don't claim to know he is real, its a belief. Gnostic theist, means you believe in God and claim to know he is real. Atheism is a destination with different paths, some get there by lacking belief altogether.. and some get there by believing gods aren't real, and atheism deals with belief.. while agnosticism deals with knowledge. Therefore, you can be an agnostic atheist..
Because I believe 'strict agnosticism' to be the only true definition of agnosticism. As I said earlier, anytime you bring in the notion of belief, you are making a non-neutral claim on the subject. It doesn't matter if that claim is one of 'belief' or one of 'knowing,' it's a non neutral claim, and therefore invalidates the possibility of being an agnostic. Saying you are an atheist agnostic is impossible per the definition. You know, we aren't the first ones to have this conversation. I guess it all boils down to that dang tricky thing, language. Over the years there has been a veritable boatload of new terms, all attempting to flesh out what, to me, is a very simple concept. In reality all it's doing is making a very simple concept complicated. Yes, I am familiar with the vernacular. Re-stating them to me doesn't do anything to further your point, fwiw.
Well if you're familiar with it.. what seems to be the confusion? Stuck in the dogma that atheists are assholes and don't want to be associated with them? Sorry kid, but agnosticism and atheism can walk hand in hand.. no matter how much you don't want them to.
I am an atheist because the belief of thinking people will go to hell for being gay or bi is absolutely ridiculous and evolution is another obvious reason and I choose not to put so much effort as to go to church every Sunday for something that has no proof of existing.
Not all atheists are assholes. The ones that claim they 'know' god does not exist are being intellectually dishonest, but that's beside the point. But I do like how you post these silly 'definitions' as if they somehow back you up. As if by merely stating them you assert that they are uncontested within the philosophical sphere. I hate to break it to you, but they aren't. Maybe you should start by taking a Philosophy 101 course. Seems like a good start to me. But kudos on that kid jab.
Yeah, language is a massive barrier more times than not. But, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're basically saying this... if you're agnostic, you don't make a claim. If you're atheist, you for sure believe god doesn't exist. And if you're theist you for sure believe god exists. For me that doesn't work because a distinction between weak (agnostic) and strong (gnostic) atheism/theism has to be made and blanketing the differences as one creates more issues than it solves.
So.. you're gnostic with your belief that agnosticism and atheism can't be mutual? You're claiming to know that is the case.. so much for being an agnostic I guess.. lol
I have no problem with splitting up the realm of atheism and theism into different terms, in an attempt to further clarify exactly where you stand. My problem is when it starts to...break down the barrier, so to speak, of agnosticism. A barrier that serves a very important purpose. Of course there are different levels of belief. I realize that. But 'sort of' believing in something puts you on the same side of the fence as truly believing in something. As long as it doesn't touch the fence, it's fine. Ah, word games. How refreshing.
I think this is something we'll probably have to agree to disagree about. I think the more you argue this topic the more you're gonna run into people getting upset that you think agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. I'm sure you know the definition but just from google; If anything I think the definition makes it clear it encompasses atheism and theism.
Agreed. Also: It's obvious where the problem lies. Some people take Rowes definition to be true, and some do not. I am one of the former. But as I said, this isn't the first time this discussion has been hashed out. In fact it's a main talking point for classes in universities all over the world. EDIT: Thought I'd point out that in fact, most people take Rowes definition of agnosticism to be true.