Any atheist is agnostic. Why? Are they compatible?

[bhsmte]

Lol that’s a blanket statement? The person gave an example of an atheist, so I responded with “the atheist would be blah blah blah”

A blanket statement would be plural starting with “atheists are...”

Lol! But really? You hurt by THAT?????

Lmbo, you funny I’m gone. Turn to Jesus. Bye!

Ba, bye.

 

[joinfree]

Do you believe us when we say we have no gods?

Do you believe in Absolute Truth? No. Then you are liars.

 

[gaara4158]

If by “god” you just mean “authority” then monotheism seems pretty ridiculous.

 

[Juvenal]

Theism is about belief. Gnosticism is about knowledge.

One of my favorite posters, and at one time a mod on IIDB under the handle seebs, called himself an agnostic theist, because he believed, but didn't know.

The real problem with calling oneself an atheist is that it's a description of what one is not.

"I'm not a redhead" doesn't tell you much about me.

 

[Tinker Grey]

"I'm not a redhead" doesn't tell you much about me.

'Zackly

 

[bhsmte]

Theism is about belief. Gnosticism is about knowledge.

One of my favorite posters, and at one time a mod on IIDB under the handle seebs, called himself an agnostic theist, because he believed, but didn't know.

The real problem with calling oneself an atheist is that it's a description of what one is not.

"I'm not a redhead" doesn't tell you much about me.

It tells me you are not a red head. Just as, being an atheist tells me something about a person on one specific topic.

Problem comes in, when some folks try to expand what atheism specifically refers to.

 

[DaisyDay]

The atheist would have himself as his own god, if he was rejecting the ultimate authority God, because then he would see himself to be the authority over his life.

Not necessarily - he may not see himself as the ultimate authority; but if you define "god" to mean "an atheist to himself" then you're just getting precious. You may as well argue that I consider my nose to be god since I always follow it.

And based on biblical definition of a god, yes they would be considered, or it would at least wouldn’t be out of whack to refer to them as a god during those times.On today’s definition, no. We think the term of god now strictly reserved for a highly spiritual being or divine.But that wasn’t the case in the Bible.

Sure it would. Do you know any actual history or anthropology? Were Saul, Solomon or David considered gods? No. Were Kings Laius and Oedipus worshiped as gods? No.

There’s a few references of it but the most pronounced is when Jesus referred to the Jewish Leaders as “gods” in John 10:34. I believe the Greek Word is “theos” meaning “god” but more towards calling one mighty as oppose to divine authority. So it’s just stating their high position in society. But doesn’t automatically mean divine authority.

What relevance does that have to atheists?

Some of the leaders , some of them wanted to see them as someone ultimate or divine. They wanted to be worshipped. Some people worship their own selfs. That would be idolatry.

Again, "worship" can be so loosely defined as to make any argument essentially meaningless.

 

[gaara4158]

Theism is about belief. Gnosticism is about knowledge.

One of my favorite posters, and at one time a mod on IIDB under the handle seebs, called himself an agnostic theist, because he believed, but didn't know.

The real problem with calling oneself an atheist is that it's a description of what one is not.

"I'm not a redhead" doesn't tell you much about me.

A description in terms of what one is not varies in significance based on what the norm is. It’s trivial to call yourself an atheist in places where theism isn’t prevalent, but calling yourself an atheist where 90% of the population is religious is much more meaningful.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I agree with @lao tzu in the sense that telling you what I don't believe doesn't tell you what I do believe. That isn't to say that saying "I am an atheist" is without significance, but there isn't much that one can infer from it.

 

[Athée]

There was a graphic on the first page of replies that really gets this right in my view.

Knowledge is a subset of belief, there are things I believe without knowing them to be true.

Agnosticism is a claim about knowledge.

Atheism is a claim about beliefs.

I don't claim to know that there is no God (therefore I am agnostic), but in light of the lack of evidence, I don't believe that there is (therefore I am an atheist ), leading me to identify myself as an agnostic atheist.

Peace

 

[salt-n-light]

There was a graphic on the first page of replies that really gets this right in my view.

Knowledge is a subset of belief, there are things I believe without knowing them to be true.

Agnosticism is a claim about knowledge.

Atheism is a claim about beliefs.

I don't claim to know that there is no God (therefore I am agnostic), but in light of the lack of evidence, I don't believe that there is (therefore I am an atheist ), leading me to identify myself as an agnostic atheist.

Peace

But that’s out of assumption that you can split those two into two neat categories. Knowledge and belief are not estranged.

The lack of evidence would be part of your belief, or how would you be able to come to the conclusion that you can’t claim that there is no God?

The belief would be based on your knowledge you have about the matter, how you would be able to come to a conclusion that there is no God?

There must be some sort of suriety. We bank on info given to us everyday, including imagery on tv and books that people can easily manipulate. There’s things we put trust in that we can’t throughly explain. There has to be some sort of trust level and some system of examining taking place.

What would be the evidence that would be the driving force of an agnostic athiest? Would it be more towards knowledge, or more towards belief? What would be that marker to say “ok there’s enough” or “ not enough” to conclude? And then what would then be the marker that it’s safe to believe it? What would the liability of information on their belief look like? It would be hard to pinpoint that.

Is it based on trusting on the possibility of God or based off of trusting on the possibilty that theres is no God or....what would be the starting hypothesis?

 

[Athée]

But that’s out of assumption that you can split those two into two neat categories. Knowledge and belief are not estranged.

The lack of evidence would be part of your belief, or how would you be able to come to the conclusion that you can’t claim that there is no God?

The belief would be based on your knowledge you have about the matter, how you would be able to come to a conclusion that there is no God?

There must be some sort of suriety. We bank on info given to us everyday, including imagery on tv and books that people can easily manipulate. There’s things we put trust in that we can’t throughly explain. There has to be some sort of trust level and some system of examining taking place.

What would be the evidence that would be the driving force of an agnostic athiest? Would it be more towards knowledge, or more towards belief? What would be that marker to say “ok there’s enough” or “ not enough” to conclude? And then what would then be the marker that it’s safe to believe it? What would the liability of information on their belief look like? It would be hard to pinpoint that.

Is it based on trusting on the possibility of God or based off of trusting on the possibilty that theres is no God or....what would be the starting hypothesis?

Interestingly I agree with a lot of what you said there. Knowledge and belief are intertwined. That is why I said that knowledge is a subset of belief. That is to say that of the set of all my beliefs, there is some smaller set of those that I would call knowledge. For instance I believe that somewhere in the universe there is other life. I hold this belief for a variety of probabablistic reasons but I obviously wouldn't claim to know that other life exists out there. The belief about this life is something I hold with a relatively low confidence interval, maybe a 70 out of 100. One day we might verify that such life does exist and then I would both believe it and I would also know it.

So in the case of theism, the lack of compelling evidence leads me to believe that no gods exist... but I don't claim to know this is the case. There may be a God that exists and has hidden himself from me completely for whatever reasons. I don't believe this is the case but concurrently I don't know that it isn't...therefore agnostic atheism.
Does that help?

 

[Juvenal]

Problem comes in, when some folks try to expand what atheism specifically refers to.

The closest I ever saw to knock-down, drag-out fights on IIDB were the threads where someone made that attempt. (The only time I saw the spit fly faster, oddly enough, was a discussion about the equivalence of .999.... and 1. Go figure.)

On occasion, I'll see atheism conflated with humanism.

And wish that happened more often.

Even if it's not true.

Namaste.

 

[Athée]

The closest I ever saw to knock-down, drag-out fights on IIDB were the threads where someone made that attempt. (The only time I saw the spit fly faster, oddly enough, was a discussion about the equivalence of .999.... and 1. Go figure.)

On occasion, I'll see atheism conflated with humanism.

And wish that happened more often.

Even if it's not true.

Namaste.

I agree, they are different labels with different ideological content but to the extent that such conflation would rehabilitate the image of atheists I would be pleased despite the inaccuracy.

As an aside I also wish that in debates when the theist says "atheists" but clearly means people who ascribe to naturalism, that we atheists could just make a quick off the cuff correction rather than jumping down their throat

 

[variant]

Maybe, but outside the “mind games” of whether something is logical or is proof or not, I think for most atheists they simply haven’t had any personal experience of god, or that they would call god.

I don't think God is even defined in a way a human can really think about, experience or judge. So, I have exactly zero evidence of the legitimacy of human understanding and thoughts of God.

I am an atheist because I do not believe in God.

I am agnostic because I don't think the question of God's existence is answerable with current human experience.

 

[Eudaimonist]

1. Atheism in an atheist says "God does not exist. Period.", but
2. Agnosticism in an atheist says: "Possibly there is God."

That is a common misunderstanding. An atheist is not someone who claims knowledge that a God doesn't exist. An agnostic is not someone who claims that it is possible that God does exist.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of a God (or gods).
An agnostic is someone who either does not claim knowledge of the existence or non-existence of a God (or gods), or who denies the possibility of such knowledge.

Atheism pertains to belief, and agnosticism pertains to knowledge.

I'm an agnostic-atheist because I don't believe in the existence of a God (or gods), nor do I claim knowledge that no God (or gods) exist.

Any human has a god. Existence is the main property of a thing. So, there are two Gods only: existent for theists, and a-existent for atheists. Therefore you are coming to people, who like their own god, not yours.

That is gibberish. Existence in and of itself isn't God. God is thought to include far more traits than mere existence. Atheists don't deny that entities exist, but only that this has anything to do with divine beings.

I have a nitpick I need to mention: existence isn't a property, at least in any direct way. It is the condition of having properties. If an entity has any properties at all, we say that it "exists". Existence isn't something separate from volume, mass, shape, cheeky smile, etc, it is having those properties -- any properties. It is merely something we say when we recognize that properties are present.

I don't object to saying that we live in a realm of "Existence" (things that exist), but I don't see this as some distinct property or entity from the properties of tables, chairs, cats, human beings, etc.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

The atheist would have himself as his own god, if he was rejecting the ultimate authority God, because then he would see himself to be the authority over his life.

Not so. If I were such an authority, I would have to take the view that I determine right and wrong instead of discovering what right and wrong are. You'll note that I don't take the godlike view.

I'm not the "authority" over my own life. Rather, I am autonomous. I have the responsibility of making decisions regarding my life, but I also have the responsibility of making wise and ethical decisions, and to correct personal errors as I encounter them.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave RP]

The PhD has said about herself: "The more correct term is agnostic, but I am atheist." in the video:

How compatible is following contradiction in any atheist:

1. Atheism in an atheist says "God does not exist. Period.", but
2. Agnosticism in an atheist says: "Possibly there is God."

How can a logical human step from "currently there is no globally accepted academic proof for God" into "there is no God"? Would it more logical for atheist to say "I am agnostic, but hope that there is no God"?

I can add little to this debate but here's my thoughts.

I call myself an atheist because I do not believe that god exists as described in the major religions that I know a little about (Christianity, Islam, Judaism), I don't believe that a god exists who made the universe as described in the bible, interferes in the world, judges us on death, grants (or not) eternal life..... etc. More than that, I actually find it ludicrous that people believe these things as to me they are just so incredibly unlikely that they cannot be considered in any way realistically possible.

What I suppose brings a little agnosticism into my thoughts is that I always say that I would not be surprised if it turns out that there is a force of nature so far beyond our ability to understand it that we label it god. After all the universe is so massive and complex and we are so puny and short-lived that the forces of the universe are astonishingly huge and complex and impossible (maybe) for anyone to explain fully.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Yes, they are compatible, and other forum members have done a good job explaining why.

I'll go a step further, though. Because there are myriad god concepts, I hold that it is possible to be gnostic about some, agnostic about others. I have to call myself agnostic with regard to most, mainly do to vague or incoherent definition on the part of the theist.

But there are some god concepts for which I am gnostic atheist. Any logically contradictory definition of a 'god' falls into this category.

 

[holo]

I'm an atheist in the true sense of the word: I don't believe there is a God. But I'm not an atheist in the popular sense of the word, which is someone who claims to know God doesn't exist.

The term agnosticism is also used incorrectly. Agnosticism is a way of relating to claims, it's about not believing stuff without good reason. Any reasonable person should have an agnostic attitude. So I try to be agnostic in the original meaning of the word, and I'm also agnostic in the normal sense, i.e. I simply don't know whether or not God exists.