Understanding Agnosticism

Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »
- arX
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #30 - January 23, 2011, 04:48 AM

Quote from: zoomi on January 23, 2011, 02:20 AM
Atheists (in what I believe is the true sense of the definition) have a positive belief that there is no supreme being or afterlife, etc.

No, atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief in such claims.

Against the ruin of the world, there
is only one defense: the creative act.

-- Kenneth Rexroth
- arX
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #31 - January 23, 2011, 05:16 AM

Quote from: z10 on January 23, 2011, 04:05 AM
I don't know if that analogy holds. A celestial teapot whether it exists or not isn't the source of all existence, the ground of all being, the creator and sustainer of reality - there really is no comparison between the issue of whether there is a god as I described or whether there is a teapot orbiting the earth.

Russell invoked the celestial teapot to show the absurdity in believing or having faith in that which has no substantial, objective evidence, if any at all.

Its intention is to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to somehow disprove theistic claims.

Positing a god (creator deity) to be "the source of all existence, the ground of all being, the creator and sustainer of reality" is of such claims lacking in evidence, one that warrants the same scepticism as most would have for an orbiting teapot until said evidence is presented.

Against the ruin of the world, there
is only one defense: the creative act.

-- Kenneth Rexroth
- Kenan
- Cultist
- Pub Regular
- Hwee cap-toored eet fohr kay-ohss !!!
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #32 - January 23, 2011, 07:42 AM

Quote from: zoomi on January 23, 2011, 02:20 AM
I disagree with the definitions here of atheist ...

If you are referring to 'my' definition then you are more than welcome to disagree with it. I am not imposing it on anybody - I do understand that strictly speaking it is a category of truth for me alone.

Quote from: z10 on January 23, 2011, 02:51 AM
You make a valid point Kenan but I'm curious: why do you think that god's relevance is only in the moral sphere? What about other measures of reality like ontology or aesthetics or logic?

You misunderstood. I did imply that this relates to the moral sphere only (The answer to the question of god's existence is not "I don't know";that is a given - nobody really knows hence we are all agnostics in a way etc.)
Would I like to know if there is a god or not? Sure - but as far as morals go for me that is unimportant.

Quote from: zoomi on January 23, 2011, 02:58 AM
So Kenan, if there was somehow a way in which you could tell that there was a god with absolute certainty (this seems impossible for several reasons, but lets ignore that for now), as well as knew with certainty what his moral laws were and what the consequences were, you would still disobey its moral laws, even if it meant spending eternity in hell (that is, if hell existed)? That seems doubtful. One, for the reason that god would presumably know more than you, as you only have the mere appearance of knowing what was right and wrong ...

It doesn't matter.
If god gave me a brain and thus (limited) intellectual capacity than this is what I can use to make moral judgements. What's the point of having morals if they are reliant of an external factor.
The proper moral stance lies in doing good for the sake of it not because of The Big Other - that is the most basic experience of morality imo.

1. Doing good because of Jannah. Motivation: reward; this is immoral
2. Doing good because of Jahannam. Motivation: fear; this is immoral too

3. Doing good for the sake of it. Motivation: because it is the right thing to do; this is the only true moral stance

Quote from: zoomi on January 23, 2011, 02:58 AM
and secondly, eternity is a hell of a long time versus 80 years, and it would only make sense to follow what god wanted for a little while, even if it had the appearance of appearing "wrong".

It would make sense, but it would also be profoundly immoral. Besides you are painting a picture of an extremely petty god. The question is do I have the moral stamina to tell such a psychopathic wanker to go fuck himself when clearly presented with a fact that such a choice will result in insufferable pain. Problem is that to me such 'salvation' is anything but salvation. It is the exact opposite actually.

Quote from: serrated_colon on January 23, 2011, 03:01 AM
i still do not see how 'nobody really knows' implies 'it doesn't matter'. i hold vehemently that it is impossible to discern whether a god exists or not, and therefore the question to me is irrelevant(given of course, said god is defined as transcendental), but that doesn't mean that there is no possible way that i would change my position. to then imply that because i WOULD change my position given enough evidence i 'need god but cannot find it' is just something i don't get. how does that follow at all? this whole tirade of 'true atheism' sounds more like some hardcore theological noncognitivism mixed in with a bit of close-mindedness.

Because you don't understand it and because it's telling you something you really don't want to hear. 'nobody really knows' doesn't imply that 'it doesn't matter' What gave you that idea? What I am saying is that asking "is there a god?" is a wrong question to ask when it comes to morals. Btw I am not trying to be confrontative here; just a bit provocative.
- z10
- Pub Regular
- Imago Dei
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #33 - January 23, 2011, 09:21 AM

Quote from: arX on January 23, 2011, 05:16 AM
Russell invoked the celestial teapot to show the absurdity in believing or having faith in that which has no substantial, objective evidence, if any at all.

Its intention is to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to somehow disprove theistic claims.

Positing a god (creator deity) to be "the source of all existence, the ground of all being, the creator and sustainer of reality" is of such claims lacking in evidence, one that warrants the same scepticism as most would have for an orbiting teapot until said evidence is presented.

My question to ateapotist was whether god deserves more scrutiny than an orbiting teapot - the point is the teapot whether it exists or not doesn't fundamentally change your worldview but if god exists then everything changes. I am not making a positive claim for god but asking whether the teapot really can be as big a concern as getting to the bottom of the god question.

At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
- zoomi
- Dusty-footed philosopher.
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #34 - January 23, 2011, 09:22 AM

Quote from: arX on January 23, 2011, 04:48 AM
No, atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief in such claims.

Atheists try to say that, but can't get away with it
- zoomi
- Dusty-footed philosopher.
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #35 - January 23, 2011, 09:27 AM

I think you missed the point Kenan -- whatever god says morality is, is what morality is(if god is said to be perfect, all-knowing, etc.).
So by disobeying, you would be making a mistake, not being 'righteous.'
Morality is subjective anyway, to a large extent. And largely dependent on views about death. If there actually was an afterlife, killing wouldn't be wrong, for example. It's such a confusing issue, hence agnosticism.
- sojournerlumus
- Pub Regular
- Belief beggars reason.
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #36 - January 23, 2011, 09:29 AM

Good grief! A=the antithesis of. Theist=believer.
If you'd had a modern Scientific education and that was your world view and you'd never been told about anything supernatural, let alone a god, would you personally feel the need to invent it?
If the default position is 'nothing supernatural', why complicate it?
Obviously, if you've had supernatural crap pumped into you from a young age you're going to have that mindset, so if you decide there are more cons than pros in your inculcated religion, you're possibly more likely to want to convert to another rather than go to the next and more objective level because this involves tearing out more hardened cerebral nerve centres and rewiring them.
That's why giving up religion is so bloody difficult: you have to invent what to replace it with, yourself. That's why CEMB and like sites are so valuable; all the necessary invention has already been done. It's a much smaller jump if you have someone to hold your hand.

Religion is ignorance giftwrapped in lyricism.
- sojournerlumus
- Pub Regular
- Belief beggars reason.
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #37 - January 23, 2011, 09:32 AM

Quote from: zoomi on January 23, 2011, 09:22 AM
Atheists try to say that, but can't get away with it

Find another word for Atheism then, Zoomi, because you're obviously missing something here.

Religion is ignorance giftwrapped in lyricism.
- arX
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #38 - January 23, 2011, 09:41 AM

Quote from: z10 on January 23, 2011, 09:21 AM
the point is the teapot whether it exists or not doesn't fundamentally change your worldview but if god exists then everything changes.

How so? (And which god would we be talking about in that instance?)

Quote from: zoomi on January 23, 2011, 09:22 AM
Atheists try to say that, but can't get away with it

But... I just did... XD

Lack of belief in god ≠ positively asserting the non-existence of god.

Atheism is the former - rejecting theists' claims due to lack of sufficient evidence. The latter would require proving a negative and thus illogical.

Against the ruin of the world, there
is only one defense: the creative act.

-- Kenneth Rexroth
- Kenan
- Cultist
- Pub Regular
- Hwee cap-toored eet fohr kay-ohss !!!
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #39 - January 23, 2011, 10:06 AM

Quote from: zoomi on January 23, 2011, 09:27 AM
I think you missed the point Kenan -- whatever god says morality is, is what morality is(if god is said to be perfect, all-knowing, etc.).

I understand that perfectly. What I am saying is that I don't care what god has to say. Consider this: god that is truly worthy of worship wouldn't want us to worship him (in a standard sense or obey him if you prefer) in the first place thus making the whole idea irrelevant. Imo judgement is internal, it's not contingent on an external factor. A moral deed is it's own reward. You might have noticed that I claimed once that I 'worship' god through atheism - I wasn't joking.

David Hume (who was a believer) put this point across nicely - the only way to show true respect for god is to act morally while ignoring god's existence. My position is similar, the difference being that I also remove god from the equation as well - doing good for the sake of it.

I completely agree with The tailor's position here:
"At the level of morality, I DEFINITELY agree that to be truly "moral", we must ignore any form of God-as-superego -- any form of God as a judge that stands outside of reality, ticking boxes. The moment we imagine such a "father-figure" creator, we land ourselves in all kinds of trouble. To be truly moral is to understand that, ultimately, judgement is whatever your have chosen your life to be -- judgement IS your life as your free will has determined it, and morality is absolutely internal and constructed by you and you alone. To understand this is to be self-aware and entirely responsible for the choices we make: we never make them because we will get a "naughty tick" or a "nice tick" from an external observer."
- zoomi
- Dusty-footed philosopher.
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #40 - January 23, 2011, 10:08 AM

Quote from: sojournerlumus on January 23, 2011, 09:32 AM
Find another word for Atheism then, Zoomi, because you're obviously missing something here.

See: my definition of atheism. someone who believes that there is not a god of any sort, and someone who does not believe in an afterlife. "Negative" beliefs are positive beliefs. Only no belief is no belief.
- zoomi
- Dusty-footed philosopher.
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #41 - January 23, 2011, 10:15 AM

Quote from: Kenan on January 23, 2011, 10:06 AM

David Hume (who was a believer) put this point across nicely - the only way to show true respect for god is to act morally while ignoring god's existence. My position is similar, the difference being that I also remove god from the equation as well - doing good for the sake of it.

I think you missed my point again, but if you feel you got it there's not much I can say otherwise.

To this above suggestion all I have to say is that I doubt Hume or anyone else has much idea what morality is. Especially if morality is subjective as the Tailor suggests (and you agree with).

Interesting thought though, sort of like Einstein's special relativity, morality only exists once we define a frame of reference

(I'd like to agree, but I'm an agnostic. Plus it doesn't go over well if you want to make universal claims about human rights etc..)
- TheRationalizer
- Pub Regular
- Gone - due to unfair moderation
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #42 - January 23, 2011, 10:22 AM

Deism = belief in a god that does not intervene in our lives
Theism = belief in a god that does
Gnosticism = belief you know what such a god wants

Agnostic = I am without knowledge
Atheist = I am without a theist belief
Adeist = I am without a deist belief

You can combine agnostic/gnostic with deist/theist, but you obviously cannot be a gnostic atheist.

People tend to think atheism is an assertion that there is no god when it is more accurate to say that it is a lack of assertion that there is one. Atheists sit on a scale of "I haven't a clue of my position/it is irrelevant" through to "I absolutely know there is no god". Obviously the latter are in error because they cannot know without positive proof, and seeing as we have not found a rotting corpse or suicide note we have no such evidence.

I am a 99.9(recurring) atheist, meaning I find the notion ridiculous. In addition to this I am opposed to the idea of a deist or theist god, I am anti theist and anti deist. I hope for an after life which consists of a harmonious collective where everyone is equal, no mind reading dictatorship.

In summary theism,atheism,deism,Adeism is about your position. Gnosticism, agnosticism is about your claim to knowledge.

I am technically an atheist+adeist+agnostic because I lack both belief and knowledge, but I avoid the word "agnostic" because people misunderstand and infer I am 50/50. In saying I am an atheist people also misunderstand and think I am asserting a positive position of no god, but I tend to find they are far less likely to assume and far more likely to ask. Then when I tell them my position they mistake me for an agnostic :-)

I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
- Kenan
- Cultist
- Pub Regular
- Hwee cap-toored eet fohr kay-ohss !!!
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #43 - January 23, 2011, 10:36 AM

Quote from: zoomi on January 23, 2011, 10:15 AM
I think you missed my point again, but if you feel you got it there's not much I can say otherwise.

Let me try and clarify this.

Standard theist position is that everything comes from god - including morality. But there is a huge problem here.

1.What it means is that if there is a god then everything is allowed.
God is morality in other words morality and ethics are defined through God; most certainly not by men. Hence those who claim to act directly on behalf of God can get away with anything, including blowing up thousands of innocent bystanders, since clearly, a direct link to God justifies the violation of any merely human constraints and considerations. Therefore somebody sanctioned by God cannot commit evil even when performing the most gruesome act imaginable. As long as one truly believes and "knows" that one has a direct link to god in fact cannot commit a sin - because morals are derived from god. Killing civilians / shagging a 9 year old is ok because big Al says so. In the absence of any ethical standards external to your belief in god and love for god there is always a danger that this love of god will be used as a legitimisation of the most horrible deeds
Nice, eh?

2.Pursuant to the above - the message is "Do what you want, everything is forgiven." After all Allah forgives everything apart from disbelief. But disbelieving places one outside the system anyway hence "Do what you want, everything is forgiven" still stands.

To put it bluntly - I am completely rejecting such a framework.

Do you still feel that I am missing the point?
- ateapotist
- Supermassive Black Hole
- Ex-Muslim
- Spaghettifier Extraordinaire
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #44 - January 23, 2011, 03:04 PM

Quote from: z10 on January 23, 2011, 04:34 AM
So you're refusing to consider any kind of god because the abrahamic god turned out to be boring?

I lost my belief in the Abrahamic God, and now I don't care much about the question of God's existence, particularly an impersonal god, because often that is just an invention by man -- never-ending mental masturbation. If I see any claim about God's existence I will look at the evidence with scepticism.

"Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so." -- Bertrand Russell

Baloney Detection Kit
- serrated_colon
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #45 - January 23, 2011, 03:06 PM

no shit theistic morality isn't really moral. that's not my problem with what you're saying, my problem is that you seem to be saying that in the situation an abrahamic god was proven to exist beyond all doubt you'd still refuse to accept it. that's the same close-mindedness as theists who proclaim god's existence and refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary.

also, if you're talking in the context of morality then why the hell do you call it 'true atheism'. i had the impression we were only talking in the context of the possibility of the existence of such a concept :/

maybe i'm confused like a motherfucker but meh. also if you're not trying to be confronting then don't say things like 'well you don't want to hear this' as that's patronising and arrogant.
- Kenan
- Cultist
- Pub Regular
- Hwee cap-toored eet fohr kay-ohss !!!
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #46 - January 23, 2011, 03:41 PM

Quote from: serrated_colon on January 23, 2011, 03:06 PM
no shit theistic morality isn't really moral. that's not my problem with what you're saying, my problem is that you seem to be saying that in the situation an abrahamic god was proven to exist beyond all doubt you'd still refuse to accept it.

Oh, I would accept the existence of god just fine. That's not the problem here.

But I would tell him/her/whatever that he/she/whatever is irrelevant.

Let me give you an example:

Quote from: serrated_colon on January 23, 2011, 03:03 AM
hell, if it was proven beyond all doubt that an abrahamic god exists then logic goes out the fucking window, and so does our conceptions of morality. i'd give the candy of eternal praises to the deity and not give a thought to any conception of how tyrannical this deity is. sing hail marys and hope the motherfucker isn't as irrational as his existence too.

Lets say that you and a person you love immensely (you girlfriend, wife, ...) are standing before god (I have no idea how one would prove that the said entity is really god but lets disregard that) and that god is commanding you to kill your beloved one to earn salvation and that she is going to hell as a result (remember this is perfectly morally acceptable because morals are derived from god; whatever god says and wants is automatically moral; like you said - throw the logic and mere human concepts of morality out of the window).

Would you do it to earn 'salvation'?

Quote from: serrated_colon on January 23, 2011, 03:06 PM

also, if you're talking in the context of morality then why the hell do you call it 'true atheism'. i had the impression we were only talking in the context of the possibility of the existence of such a concept :/

I called it 'true atheism' because it goes way beyond claiming that there is no god. It's not even a defiance against god. It's an insight into the irrelevance of the divine.

Quote from: serrated_colon on January 23, 2011, 03:06 PM
also if you're not trying to be confronting then don't say things like 'well you don't want to hear this' as that's patronising and arrogant.

Duly noted. On the other hand I hope that you understand that philosophy does not end with Kant or Sartre and that there is a lot for you to discover.
- allat
- Euphoria
- Administrator
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #47 - January 23, 2011, 03:49 PM

Quote from: serrated_colon on January 23, 2011, 03:03 AM
hell, if it was proven beyond all doubt that an abrahamic god exists then logic goes out the fucking window, and so does our conceptions of morality. i'd give the candy of eternal praises to the deity and not give a thought to any conception of how tyrannical this deity is. sing hail marys and hope the motherfucker isn't as irrational as his existence too.

Isn't that what Muslims believe: "Sure Allah may be a tyrannical, unfair, sadistic bastard, but He is the Creator of us and we must kiss his ass if we want to get our candy in heaven."

There are multiple planes upon which Allah/Yahweh/God/gods of religions can be disproven using the faculties our own understanding: ontologically, and morally. AFAIC, a "supreme being" can not exist that isn't both ontologically and morally "supreme".

Just my $0.02

"Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused."
- serrated_colon
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #48 - January 23, 2011, 06:36 PM

Quote from: Kenan on January 23, 2011, 03:41 PM
Oh, I would accept the existence of god just fine. That's not the problem here.

fair enough.

Quote from: Kenan on January 23, 2011, 03:41 PM
But I would tell him/her/whatever that he/she/whatever is irrelevant.

Let me give you an example:
Lets say that you and a person you love immensely (you girlfriend, wife, ...) are standing before god (I have no idea how one would prove that the said entity is really god but lets disregard that) and that god is commanding you to kill your beloved one to earn salvation and that she is going to hell as a result (remember this is perfectly morally acceptable because morals are derived from god; whatever god says and wants is automatically moral; like you said - throw the logic and mere human concepts of morality out of the window).

Would you do it to earn 'salvation'?

well as far as i see it, such a being existing already forces me to throw logic and reason out of the window and i'd have no problem obeying. on the other hand, since human logic, reason and conceptions are already out of the window, what is salvation and how does that shit help me? i'd probably be frozen for all eternity until god gets bored.

Quote from: Kenan on January 23, 2011, 03:41 PM
I called it 'true atheism' because it goes way beyond claiming that there is no god. It's not even a defiance against god. It's an insight into the irrelevance of the divine.

i agree that the divine is irrelevant, but i don't think it's for any moral reason whatsoever.

Quote from: Kenan on January 23, 2011, 03:41 PM
Duly noted. On the other hand I hope that you understand that philosophy does not end with Kant or Sartre and that there is a lot for you to discover.

if philosophy ended with kant and sartre then i'd be a very unhappy man. noted.
- Kenan
- Cultist
- Pub Regular
- Hwee cap-toored eet fohr kay-ohss !!!
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #49 - January 23, 2011, 08:13 PM

Frankly serrated, if anything I am impressed by your intellectual discourse especially considering how young you are.
- Prince Spinoza
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #50 - January 23, 2011, 09:11 PM

Quote from: zoomi on January 23, 2011, 10:08 AM
See: my definition of atheism. someone who believes that there is not a god of any sort, and someone who does not believe in an afterlife. "Negative" beliefs are positive beliefs. Only no belief is no belief.
- zoomi
- Dusty-footed philosopher.
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #51 - January 23, 2011, 09:11 PM

If philosophy ended with Kant, I would be a happy man.

Waisay, just my two cents, it seems SC has a substantial knowledge about philosophy of mathematics, Godel's incompleteness theorem, Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, etc. so I'm inclined to believe he's read more than Kant and (ugh) Sartre.

But lets keep it nice here, we don't want this to happen...(this was supposed to be a link to the south park episode in which Cartman travels to the future and all the different atheist groups are in a massive war over what to name their atheist group, lol).
- serrated_colon
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #52 - January 23, 2011, 09:16 PM

Quote from: TheRationalizer on January 23, 2011, 10:22 AM
Deism = belief in a god that does not intervene in our lives
Theism = belief in a god that does
Gnosticism = belief you know what such a god wants

Agnostic = I am without knowledge
Atheist = I am without a theist belief
Adeist = I am without a deist belief

You can combine agnostic/gnostic with deist/theist, but you obviously cannot be a gnostic atheist.

People tend to think atheism is an assertion that there is no god when it is more accurate to say that it is a lack of assertion that there is one. Atheists sit on a scale of "I haven't a clue of my position/it is irrelevant" through to "I absolutely know there is no god". Obviously the latter are in error because they cannot know without positive proof, and seeing as we have not found a rotting corpse or suicide note we have no such evidence.

I am a 99.9(recurring) atheist, meaning I find the notion ridiculous. In addition to this I am opposed to the idea of a deist or theist god, I am anti theist and anti deist. I hope for an after life which consists of a harmonious collective where everyone is equal, no mind reading dictatorship.

In summary theism,atheism,deism,Adeism is about your position. Gnosticism, agnosticism is about your claim to knowledge.

I am technically an atheist+adeist+agnostic because I lack both belief and knowledge, but I avoid the word "agnostic" because people misunderstand and infer I am 50/50. In saying I am an atheist people also misunderstand and think I am asserting a positive position of no god, but I tend to find they are far less likely to assume and far more likely to ask. Then when I tell them my position they mistake me for an agnostic :-)

99.9(recurring) = 100 as 0.9(recurring) = 1.
- zoomi
- Dusty-footed philosopher.
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #53 - January 23, 2011, 09:22 PM

Agnostic isn't 50/50 Kenan, though I see how theists would probably try to portray it that way. If anything the best way to define atheism is in terms of agnosticism. agnostics can be anywhere on the sliding scale, and atheism would be 0/100.
- arX
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #54 - January 23, 2011, 09:26 PM

Quote
though I see how theists would probably try to portray it that way.

Do you not see the irony in arguing against other people's misconceptions of your position....

Quote from: zoomi on January 23, 2011, 10:08 AM
See: my definition of atheism.

Against the ruin of the world, there
is only one defense: the creative act.

-- Kenneth Rexroth
- Kenan
- Cultist
- Pub Regular
- Hwee cap-toored eet fohr kay-ohss !!!
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #55 - January 23, 2011, 09:34 PM

Quote from: zoomi on January 23, 2011, 09:11 PM
But lets keep it nice here, we don't want this to happen...(this was supposed to be a link to the south park episode in which Cartman travels to the future and all the different atheist groups are in a massive war over what to name their atheist group, lol).

lol
Yeah, lets try and avoid such a scenario.

Quote from: zoomi on January 23, 2011, 09:22 PM
Agnostic isn't 50/50 Kenan, though I see how theists would probably try to portray it that way. If anything the best way to define atheism is in terms of agnosticism. agnostics can be anywhere on the sliding scale, and atheism would be 0/100.

Sure, but I never claimed that it is 50/50.
- Ishina
- Militant Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- No Fate But What We Make
- offline
Re: Understanding Agnosticism
Reply #56 - January 24, 2011, 09:59 AM

I’d define atheist as ‘non-theist’

I’d define agnostic as ‘I can't prove or know with absolute certainty that any extraordinary claim is false, and while I don't feel compelled to qualify my unbelief in fairies or unicorns with respectful uncertainty, when it comes to religion and gods I am obliged by social pressure and stigma to play semantic games.’

Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »