Atheists/Agnostics & Death

[Colter]

The part that says they wrote as they were inspired by God to write shouldn't be given any credence, then?

I'm sympathetic with my fellow believers but I'm also honest. If you are referring to 2 Timothy, the authentication of which is in dispute, then that writer was giving his or her opinion about the OT as the NT wasn't yet in existence like we know it today. Even still we can call the Bible inspired by events, but that doesn't mean written by God.

 

[Colter]

Not all atheists have faith that there is no God, merely lack faith that there is. Subtle distinction, but important.

Some people are nutral, don't care, don't join Christian forums to promote neutrality. Others promote godless-ness, the doctrines of doubt. That is what I am refering to, a form of religious doubt.

 

[Albion]

I'm sympathetic with my fellow believers but I'm also honest. If you are referring to 2 Timothy, the authentication of which is in dispute, then that writer was giving his or her opinion about the OT as the NT wasn't yet in existence like we know it today. Even still we can call the Bible inspired by events, but that doesn't mean written by God.

Well, no one thinks he literally penned it, but he did inspire the men to write as they did--at least that's what the Bible itself states and that's what the church has ratified. Of course, everything we think we know in life could be an illusion.

 

[Colter]

Well, no one thinks he literally penned it, but he did inspire the men to write as they did--at least that's what the Bible itself states and that's what the church has ratified. Of course, everything we think we know in life could be an illusion.

I'm one of those people who think the bible is mostly man made containing many mistakes, revisions etc. But it's all that remains of those distant days so we are left to draw our own conclusions from it. I take it cafiteria style.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Meaning, I'd think, that they're embarrassed about being thought to be Atheists.

No, meaning that atheism isn't a decision.

I'm not at all embarrassed to be thought an atheist, thought atheism is just a footnote to my worldview, so I'd prefer to be thought a eudaimonist or some other term more comprehensive.

By the way, what would such Atheists say that the word "Agnostic" refers to, if not what they themselves believe??

Agnostic means someone who doesn't claim to know that a God exists, or who believes that it is impossible to know that a God exists.

One can be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time because they are two separate issues. One has to do with belief, and the other knowledge.

If you're without a belief in God, you believe that there is none. If you are unsure, you are Agnostic.

Incorrect. For instance, I don't believe that there is a gas giant in orbit around the Sun beyond the orbit of Pluto, but that doesn't mean that I believe that no such gas giant exists.

Agnostic doesn't mean "unsure". It means that one has no knowledge on the issue.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Cute Tink]

If you're without a belief in God, you believe that there is none.

Incorrect. You are changing my assertion. I have no reason to believe there is no God, but I also have no reason to believe there is one. Lacking any belief at all doesn't mean I believe either way.

If you are unsure, you are Agnostic.

I am that too.

That's what I would think. Because if you had knowledge of God you couldn't disbelieve, and there is no way of knowing that there is no God.

Which is why I am not an atheist that believes there is no God.

Why would the word "gnostic" be part of that? It seems superfluous, but more than that, it seems incorrect since "gnostic" derives from one who has knowledge, but it's not possible to "know" that there is no God, merely that you don't believe there is one (or several or many).

It's a differentiation that you don't seem to like.

 

[Albion]

I'm one of those people who think the bible is mostly man made containing many mistakes, revisions etc. But it's all that remains of those distant days so we are left to dew our own conclusions from it. I take it cafiteria style.

Which is what I was thinking. The answer to the previous question we talked about depends largely about what each of us thinks the Bible is. If it is NOT thought to be divinely inspired, there can't be much of an objection to viewing its contents as one would do with any other historic document.

My usual 'difference of opinion' comes in discussions with other Christian believers who want to affirm their belief in the Bible but yet also pick and choose which parts of it amount to God's word, and which other parts they're free to consider mistakes, purely human theorizing, or etc. THAT causes a totally different kind of impasse.

 

[quatona]

A = without, Theist = believer in God.

I am without belief in God.

But that isn't the same as I believe there is no God.

See the difference?

Agnostic usually referring to a lack of knowledge, which would mean I'm also agnostic.

A gnostic atheist would be someone who positively declares that there is no God.

I wonder if we can make a sticky thread about the definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic". This "ah, you don´t make a positive assertion, so you are not an atheist" nonsense (which is also completely irrelevant and off-topic) shows up in every second thread. It´s tiresome.

 

[Albion]

Incorrect. You are changing my assertion. I have no reason to believe there is no God, but I also have no reason to believe there is one. Lacking any belief at all doesn't mean I believe either way.

You see, I think that defines an Agnostic, not an Atheist.

It's a differentiation that you don't seem to like.

It's not that. In this case as with others, I feel it best to go with the dictionary definition of words. Precision in language seems to be important to me. However, I now know that there are a variety of terms used by self-described Atheists in order to make distinctions they think are necessary.

 

[Albion]

I wonder if we can make a sticky thread about the definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic". This "ah, you don´t make a positive assertion, so you are not an atheist" nonsense (which is also completely irrelevant and off-topic) shows up in every second thread. It´s tiresome.

I have the feeling that "seeker" isn't the best description of your position.

 

[quatona]

I have the feeling that "seeker" isn't the best description of your position.

Your personal feelings are irrelevant here.
(Btw.: If you have a problem with that title, complain to CF. It´s what they gave me without my consent.)

I don´t hold a belief in gods. I don´t know whether gods exist.
Your semantics games are of no interest.

 

[Albion]

Your personal feelings are irrelevant here.

Having a bad day today?

 

[quatona]

Having a bad day today?

No. It´s quite an ok day for me.
Is this the small talk thread?
How´s the weather over there?

 

[Cute Tink]

You see, I think that defines an Agnostic, not an Atheist.

Congrats.

It's not that. In this case as with others, I feel it best to go with the dictionary definition of words. Precision in language seems to be important to me. However, I now know that there are a variety of terms used by self-described Atheists in order to make distinctions they think are necessary.

You mean like Oxford:

A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

This is not to say that your definition is completely incorrect, merely incomplete.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

It's impossible for the rejection of God to be out of reason, because there is no reason that proposes the universe could have come from anything else.
What the secular world does a great job of masking over is that physics has become completely unorthodox. There is a struggle to show that the universe's origins are natural and all it's phenomena is analytical- a struggle that has fantastically failed and which is the reason these big wig atheists like Dawkins shouted at religion in the first place- the lack of results had brought them to dissuade religion by other means.

 

[Albion]

You mean like Oxford:

That'll do.

Or the Cambridge English Dictionary:

"someone who believes that God does not exist"

 

[Cute Tink]

That'll do.

Under that definition, I do not have to believe there is no God, merely lack belief that there is one. Both are atheistic.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Maybe this will help clarify things

 

[Cute Tink]

It's impossible for the rejection of God to be out of reason, because there is no reason that proposes the universe could have come from anything else.

Atheism is not "the rejection of God".

Belief from a position of incredulity is not a position of reason.

 

[jayem]

It's not that. In this case as with others, I feel it best to go with the dictionary definition of words. Precision in language seems to be important to me. However, I now know that there are a variety of terms used by self-described Atheists in order to make distinctions they think are necessary.

If I have to account for epistemic uncertainty, I like the term presumptive atheist. Based on all the evidence as I see it, I believe there is no God as described by any religion with which I'm familiar. But if compelling evidence to the contrary should appear, then I will change my position. By the same reasoning, wouldn't you consider yourself a presumptive theist?