Atheist Faith

*yawn*

Oh, I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

 

You might want to save that witty line for somewhere, where repeating yourself requires more than a few mouse clicks.


Peace

 

3d--as your list says and as I had said earlier--both theists and atheists are believers.One believes there is and the other believes there is not.We agnostics believe(are we believers then?) it is not knowable at this time.

 

With regards to the existence of God. "I don't know" (Agnostic), is as much a statement of certainty, as "I know" (Gnostic). It's the "I think I know" (-ist) positions that are the believers.

The -ism, of Agnosticism, is belief in a principle. Making Agnosticism the doctrine/belief...

"that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty" ~ Huxley

And, he described that the opposing doctrine is that of forming belief, or (positive) disbelief, without satisfactory evidence...

"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions." ~ Huxley

Agnostics know they haven't seen sufficient evidence, they don't merely believe they haven't seen sufficient evidence. So, while Agnostics have a belief in a doctrine, that doctrine doesn't really produce -ists (believers), because individuals know they don't know. Agnosticism is specifically directed at the formation of belief process, which Agnostics withhold doing. The only real way out of Agnosticism, while still maintaining the principle, is to jump to Gnosticism. You either have enough evidence to claim certainty, or you don't, and you shouldn't form a belief without it.

So, Agnosticism opposes Theism and Atheism, moreso than it does Gnosticism, and is not compatible with them, IMO. Are Agnostics believers? Not if they don't project beyond what they personally know...

"The extent of the region of the uncertain, the number of the problems the investigation of which ends in a verdict of not proven, will vary according to the knowledge and the intellectual habits of the individual Agnostic. I do not very much care to speak of anything as "unknowable." What I am sure about is that there are many topics about which I know nothing; and which, so far as I can see, are out of reach of my faculties. But whether these things are knowable by any one else is exactly one of those matters which is beyond my knowledge, though I may have a tolerably strong opinion as to the probabilities of the case. Relatively to myself, I am quite sure that the region of uncertainty–the nebulous country in which words play the part of realities–is far more extensive than I could wish." ~ Huxley

As long as you're talking about what you don't know, then you're not a believer. A statement about what mankind knows, doesn't know, or has the ability to know, would carry a burden of proof with it.


Peace

 

I personally don't need too much proof to know that I don't know.I just don't know.Agnostics believe?Rhetorical.Back to semantics.

 

Back to? Have we ever left semantics? Agnostics are funny. They are waiting for godot.

 

*yawn*

Oh, I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

 

Sure thing...

You might want to save that witty line for somewhere, where repeating yourself requires more than a few mouse clicks.


Peace

 

How is having no belief, waiting for anything?

The Agnostic is sitting at home, not believing that Godot is going to knock, or not knock, on the door. His roomate, the Theist, believes Godot is going to knock on the door. His other roomate, the Atheist, believes Godot isn't going to knock on the door. The Agnostic snickers, and asks them both to prove their beliefs.


Peace

 

Do atheists have faith? No.

Why is this?

Because faith = blind trust.

And atheists don't believe god exists because there is no evidence for a god. Atheists also don't believe flying pink unicorns exist, because there is no evidence. In order to truly believe either gods or flying pink unicorns exist would involve faith because there is no evidence of it.

Of course there is no evidence necessarily against a flying pink unicorn, flying speghetti monster, god, zeus, an alien that lives under your house that you could never find, ect. But there is no evidence for such things either. I'm sure theists don't believe in the nearly infinite possible things that can exist that has no evidence for it. Yet they make an exception for god, yahweh, or whatever you like to call it.

Atheists don't have faith. That is like saying believing that an alien not existing under your house is faith, which most of us would say isn't faith. Therefore only theists have faith, because they truly believe that something with no evidence exists. Believing something with no evidence not existing isn't faith. It's called fact (until evidence comes around).

And the definition of agnosticism is not "not confirming or denying the existance of a god." Agnosticism basically means that the metaphysical can never be proven. so agnosticism is completely compatible with atheism, and there are many atheists that are agnostic.

 

And so everybody waits upon the proofs
Which end up like this:


The theist believes in Godot.

The agnostic believes in nothing.

The atheist, embarrassed that his friends
believe in the same thing, gets up and walks
out the door...believing in himself alone

 

Well, there is no reason to attribute any unexplained phenomena to "God" until there is evidence that there even IS a "god."

This, of course, is what I have yet to see.

 

I agree.........

Nor is there a reason to attribute any unexplained phenomna to flying pink unicorns until there is evidence that there are flying pink unicorns.

 

Dude, keep an eye out for PsyGrunge. He must be fucking bi-polar.

I was nice to him and was joking and he fucking flew off.

What's the fucking matter with people if you can't simply disagree without going apeshit with personal attacks?

 

:tongue:

Hehe. Doesn't it go more like this?

The Atheist, embarassed about carrying burden of proof, tries to have the Agnostic evicted, so he can take over the Agnostic's absence of belief room, for himself?


Peace

 

Well, there is no reason to attribute any unexplained phenomena to "God" until there is evidence that there even IS a "god."

Would you term that atheist or agnostic?

Certainly, not anti-theist which is a clear challenge.

Here's the way I see it.

NUTCASE: "THERE IS A GOD!"
THEIST : "I believe in God."
AGNOSTIC: "I don't know either way, so I refuse to make a belief decision."
ATHEIST: "I see no evidence to believe in such."
ANTI-THEIST: "THERE IS NO GOD!"

 

Agnostic.

Personally, I consider anti-Theism to be actively trying to get rid of Theism. I'd call your anti-Theist an Atheist, and your Atheist an Agnostic.

d'Hollbach was one of the first, to put forth that many who are labelled "Atheists" simply don't believe in God, as opposed to believing that God doesn't exist. He does describe that the later is the common definition of Atheist, though. He stated that those who simply don't believe are falsely called Atheists, and that he didn't think that label should be attributed to them. But, he didn't provide a new label for what he thought they should be called.

Like, d'Hollbach, Huxley stated that he didn't belong to the common definition of Atheist, noted that there were real Atheists, of whom he had no part, and noted that there was no label for him. So, he provided a new label, for himself, and others who withhold belief, due to lack of evidence (your definition of Atheist, above).

More modern Atheist "philosophers" came along and have been trying to redefine the word Atheism. As far as I can tell, they want Agnosticism's no burden of proof position, to be adopted by the term "Atheism".


Peace

 

Ah, he could have had that room if he had wanted it. His belief (which is not in godot and so carries no burden of proof) stems from pleasure...He has decided that Godot does not exist.

 

The Atheist's "weak" brother, did want the room, and had the Agnostic evicted. As the Agnostic wanders the streets, he wonders how the Atheist formed the belief that a being, as incomprehensible as Godot, does not exist. :ears:


Peace

 

The atheist, who is no less a wanderer himself, considers the wondering of the agnostic, for he has wondered thus before, and marvels that no being is incomprehensible, so long as one draws ones own before all others, so long as one can draw ones own before all others. If godot existed, he should have to be him, and that would be quite out of the question.