Agnostics are Atheists

This isn't always the case. Atheism simply implies a lack of belief about god(s) or religion. Not all atheists dismiss the possibility completely. Infact, I'd say the majority don't dismiss it completely, because they realise you can never dismiss what we don't yet know for sure entirely. However, there seems to be an almost universal understanding that the likelihood of a diety in the form described in religious texts is miniscule.

People are getting tangled up in labels when really it seems to me it's a case of
Theist= belief
Atheist= lack of belief.

Agnostic is a problematic term because people see it as being "on the fence" or 50/50, when really they're usually atheists who want to discourage people from thinking they have the kind of certain belief that you described. I think the term "agnostic" is very often used only because of this misunderstanding about atheism.

I understand their concerns. I don't want people to see my views as a faith, a position of certainty and belief. That would be nonsensical.

 

exactly.

Does anyone remember the video that was posted on this site a month or two ago? It covered this same issue and was a great video but I don't remember the name of it or what thread it was in.

I think I disagree.

I agree that people do see agnostics as on the fence.. and its also pretty commonly thought that agnostics are just ¨Atheists without balls¨ (as you seem to be implying)

I've always understood ¨agnosticism¨ to mean that you believe that it is impossible to know one way or the other if god exists. This completely different from being on the fence. Its not that they're afraid to make up their mind, its that they don't believe that there is enough evidence to make up their mind.

Its not, ¨I don't know¨

Its, ¨I cant know¨

Atheism is not only belief that there are no gods, its also the lack of belief in god.

The video that I'm thinking of explained it this way,

In a trial, some members of the jury may decide that the defendant is guilty, some may decide he is not guilty, and some may decide that they don't have enough evidence to make a decision.

Just like in a trial, some people decide there is a god, some decide there isn't one, and some decide that they don't have enough information to decide. The people who refuse to make a decision are atheists as well as the people who come to the decision that there is no god. Neither of those options involve having any belief in god, so they both fall into the atheist category.

(seriously, its a great video. If anyone knows what I'm talking about and remembers where it was posted, please repost it here)

 

According to Dan Barker (Godless, p. 96),it's possible to be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time, just as it's possible to be a Republican and an American at the same time. Agnostic, a term originally coined by Thomas Huxley, literally means "without knowledge". Agnostics say "I have no knowledge that there is a God. Atheism has to do with belief. Atheists say "I have no belief in God". Agnosticism is a claim that there is insufficient evidence for (or against) god. Belief is acceptance that a certain proposition is true, so an atheist is saying "I don't accept that there is a God." The former is a claim about knowledge. The latter is a claim about belief. I think it's possible to distinguish further between "hard" and "soft" agnosticism, and "hard" and "soft" atheism. "Hard agnosticism" says it's impossible to know; soft agnosticism says "I don't happen to have sufficient evidence to decide at this time"; "hard" atheism" says "I believe there is no god'; "soft" atheism says "I don't believe there is a god." Does that help?

 

There are two types of people in the world: theists and atheists, and EVERYBODY is one or the other. If you are not a theist, then, by default, you are an atheist (without theism). Agnosticism does not exist as category unto itself. It is a modifier to either atheism or theism, as in agnostic atheist, or agnostic theist.

 

Can an agnostic theist have a satisfactory proof for the existence of God?

I.E. he's made up his mind that the universe had a beginning with a prior God; he's undecided to the quest that God must have the beginning for all time.

 

It seems logical that we have 3 choices: yes, no, maybe. And it seems that the agnostic position is the most logical.
But when it comes to actually living my life there are only two choices.
When it comes to whether God exists or not I have to live my life one way(Godist) or the other(Atheist). Either I live my life in relation to God, or I don't.
An agnostic is really an atheist(without a relation to God)
I believe William James had this same critique of agnosticism.

 

The probability of my consciousness existing outside the matter of my mind is exactly equivalent to the probability of god. My atheist opinion of the probability of god is less than 0.0000001%, this would legally be beyond any doubt. Even to believe the probability was 50%, or even 1% demonstrates how a persons fantasy bleeds into their rationality brain cells. I experience the illusion of a soul, only difference is I know that it's an illusion because there is ZERO evidence of it being anything external from my brain matter.... ZERO!!

 

relaxx,

So if you don't rest on the foundation of God, what do you rest on? how do you get through life?
I guess I'm asking all Atheists this question:

When I was younger, I didn't need God, but as the disapointments,etc. added up, I naturally reached for God. Assuming you are near that age where this change can happen, how do you get through the day without the Foundation/the Rock?

 

I thought of people like you and your "better than though" attitude because you believe in Santa Claus.

 

That Sam Harris quote is a misquote, typo, or some failure in editing. There's not a chance in... hell... he really believes that.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

I'd say the unbeliever goes thru life believing and acting on the idea that mankind can be rational in their thoughts and actions. A 'Do unto others' foundation. Be good for goodness sake rather then a reward from a God or a promised afterlife.
Thru religion we are all 'scripted' from an early age to believe we are 'sinners' and bad and need redeemed. We are scripted to believe the 'Godless' and other religions are bad and wrong and need changed. This ancient paradigm or 'foundation' leads to internal guilt, intolerance and division among humans.
Maybe the worlds religious texts need to be updated or rewritten to be inclusive and tolerant of each other? Instead we have I'm right, your wrong. My God is better then your God,etc...

 

Why is this (i.e. the question I posted in post #28) "better than thou"?

It's just the opposite [of a "better than thou(gh)" querry]: I want to know how atheists can survive on this harsh planet without the [prop] of a Foundation/Rock on which to stand? Can you let me in on your feeling/thought processes of how you accomplish this? Can you give me pointers?

 

Relaxxx, would be able to answer my question about 'Iran'.

 

I get through life like anyone else, with hope and drugs....

Mostly drugs.

 

We sleep with one eye open.

 

^i confess i've barely read more of this thread than this post

your human brainpart is processing machine that picks up all the stuff that you experience

you can choose have beliefs with regard to right/wrong, good/evil, theism/atheism

it really does not change your chances of survival on the planet, unless of course god disappears all his favorite people in a fit of rapture and leaves the sodomites to suffer

but seriously.... what are the odds :rofl:

 

Well.. this is totally off topic. But assuming you're being serious, Ill let it slide.

I don't actually know. I'm assuming that this is why people feel the need to have a ¨relationship¨ with god in the first place. You cant depend on objects, you cant depend on the government, and you sure as hell cant depend on people. So you find an invisible friend. He watches over you, protects you, created you, and loves you. He gives you assurance that the people you loved are in heaven, and you will see them again. He lets you know that death is nothing to be afraid of. He gives you a purpose.

Its not hard to see why this idea has caught on. Its reassuring and comforting to know that everything is under control, no matter what. Hell, I wish I could believe it, I really do.

But if the above really is true, where has god been?

I'm sure that having a cosmic crutch helps people through the day. Makes them think life matters, and that everything will turn out ok. But when I look at the world, that´s not what I see. If god does exist, my only explanation is that he created us for failure, and now he´s just sitting back and watching the world burn.

Earth and its history are filled with violence, corruption, and pain. God is either nonexistent, incompetent, or he just doesn't give a shit.

As much as it helps some people, I cant find comfort in having a one way conversation with someone who willingly let the world get to the place it is in now, and wont even bother to let us know for sure that he even exists. I'm not trying to sound like another ¨I'm so much smarter than you¨ atheist.. though I probably come off that way. (I really hate how everyone, including me, has the uncontrollable urge to be ¨right¨ all of the time.) I'm honestly not trying to talk down to anyone, that´s just how I view the world.


This post has turned into more of an angry rant than I intended it to be, so I´ll just end it by answering your original question.

I get through the day by living in the moment. I'm trying to make the world a little bit better, and that´s enough purpose for me.

 

Which quote is that? The one I posted earlier. It's not a misquote. It's verbatim, and if it's a typo, it certainly is a long one. He seems at least to have believed it at the time he wrote it, and the reason I remembered it is that my eyes popped out when I read it because it seems so out of character. But besides being an atheist, Harris is into meditation, and I think that's where his position on consciousness is coming from. And I admire him for it, because science is a long way from understanding the phenomenon of consciousness--which was my point.

 

True, but if I were to tell my mom I am athiest, she may very well disown me. Telling her I am agnostic, though quite a stretch, doesn't sound as bad. It's saying there may be, but I'm just not sure, whereas athiest is saying, "Yeah, there's no such thing as god."

Although...I think I'm more leaning toward athiesm :v

 

No need to apologize. It is a sincere, thoughtful post. Thanks.

The atheists I know seem to get through life like the rest of us--finding meaning in friends, family, nature, significant others, philosophy, science, art, literature, history, farming, doctoring, lawyering, teahing, etc., and/or the amazing experience of existence. The main difference I see is that they're content to leave it that way, or to attribute it all to the fortuitous operation of blind natural forces, while people like me think there must be "something more". In Varieties of Religious Experience, William James considers the hallmark of the religious orientation to be this conviction of "something more" that we infer by the mindboggling "too good to be trueness" of what there is. Religious folks like me think that the experience of being alive, conscious, and aware of the laws of the universe is so awesome that it seems miraculous. If I thought it happened as a fortuitous result of blind natural forces, I'd consider it even more miraculous. In either case, it's pretty exciting, and helps to explain how we all get ourselves through life.