---

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.  
-Stephen Roberts

---

that's racist

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

---

Quote: from Descartes at 9:28 pm on July 5, 2009

---

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
 -Stephen Roberts

---

that's racist

---

Racist? How do you figure.

-------
Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off
Cogito Ergo Sum
Stercus accidit

---

A friend of mine told me there was no point of it, you may as well just claim to be Atheistic. He said no matter what, if there IS a God and you don't fully believe in him, you're going to Hell.

Thoughts?

---

---

Quote: from Chasey at 12:09 pm on July 5, 2009

---

Quote: from Event Horizon at 4:44 pm on July 5, 2009

---

Quote: from Chasey at 11:42 am on July 5, 2009

---

no =/
  that's not right. he's a douchebag.
  being agnostic doesn't mean that you DON'T believe in god, it doesn't mean that you DO believe in god either. it's unfair of him to say that.

---

  You have to choose one way or the other. "I don't know" doesn't protect you from the obvious dichotomy. You either have an active belief in a deity or you do not, in which case you are an atheist--an agnostic atheist, but an atheist none-the-less.

---

 

 no - i don't believe there's enough evidence to prove if there is or isn't a god. obviously i'm not going to be a thiest but i'm definitely not an athiest. i'm unsure about my faith so i'm not going to be worshipping anything or anyone, and at the same time i'm not going to deny the possibility that there is a god and an afterlife etc. you dont HAVE to do anything.

---

If you are not a theist, then you are--by definition--an atheist. Like is said:

You don't have to have an active DISbelief in a deity to be an atheist; all that is necessary is the lack of an active belief in one.

---

yes you do - that's your opinion but the technical, actual definition of athiesm is having a DISbelief.

---

Quote: from Event Horizon at 2:04 am on July 6, 2009

---

Quote: from Chasey at 12:09 pm on July 5, 2009

---

Quote: from Event Horizon at 4:44 pm on July 5, 2009

---

Quote: from Chasey at 11:42 am on July 5, 2009

---

no =/      
   that's not right. he's a douchebag.      
   being agnostic doesn't mean that you DON'T believe in god, it doesn't mean that you DO believe in god either. it's unfair of him to say that.

---

   

  You have to choose one way or the other. "I don't know" doesn't protect you from the obvious dichotomy. You either have an active belief in a deity or you do not, in which case you are an atheist--an agnostic atheist, but an atheist none-the-less.

---

  no - i don't believe there's enough evidence to prove if there is or isn't a god. obviously i'm not going to be a thiest but i'm definitely not an athiest. i'm unsure about my faith so i'm not going to be worshipping anything or anyone, and at the same time i'm not going to deny the possibility that there is a god and an afterlife etc. you dont HAVE to do anything.

---

 

 If you are not a theist, then you are--by definition--an atheist. Like is said:  

 You don't have to have an active DISbelief in a deity to be an atheist; all that is necessary is the lack of an active belief in one.

---

yes you do - that's your opinion but the technical, actual definition of athiesm is having a DISbelief.

---

No it isn't. If you don't believe in a god, then you cannot be a theist.

Here is how the OED defines "atheism":

---

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

   disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

deny

  1. To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
  2. Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
  3. To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
  4. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.

---

That covers all aspects of atheism, from the weak atheism which simply holds that one does not actively believe in a god, up to hard [strong] atheism--which holds that no god exists.

As long as you don't believe in a god, you are an atheist. Agnosticism is some folks answer to a different question:

Here is the OED's definition of "agnostic":

---

   agnostic A. sb. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

---

Agnosticism speaks to our knowledge of things, it doesn't deal in one's belief or disbelief of gods.

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

---

Agnosticism is also suspicious for the fact that it simultaneously asserts that no knowledge of god is impossible (if some knowledge was possible, we could evaluate truth claims about god) but at the same time that we have knowledge about the properties of god (otherwise the god-concept would be meaningless and you would have to state that nothing that exist could be called a god).

---

I'm not sure there are any claims about the properties of God made by agnosticism. Agnosticism only says that we are not capable of knowing anything about god by virtue of how we've defined the thing. As the OED definition defined it, agnosticism only claims that: the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown. If we define god as anything but physical and material phenomena, then--the agnostic purposes--we cannot know anything about it. No properties necessary.  

Agnosticism is a gnostic stance, not a theistic one.

Post edited at 10:15 am on July 6, 2009 by Event Horizon

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

---

Quote: from Moridin at 1:02 pm on July 6, 2009

---

Agnosticism is also suspicious for the fact that it simultaneously asserts that no knowledge of god is impossible (if some knowledge was possible, we could evaluate truth claims about god) but at the same time that we have knowledge about the properties of god (otherwise the god-concept would be meaningless and you would have to state that nothing that exist could be called a god).

---

I'm not sure there are any claims about the properties of God made by agnosticism. Agnosticism only says that we are not capable of knowing anything about god by virtue of how we've defined the thing. As the OED definition defined it, agnosticism only claims that: the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown. If we define god as anything but physical and material phenomena, then--the agnostic purposes--we cannot know anything about it. No properties necessary.

Agnosticism is a gnostic stance, not a theistic one.

---

Agnostics has to make claims about the properties of god. If there was no meaningful properties, the god-concept could not refer to anything that exists and they would have to hold that nothing that exists in reality is god, or equivalently, that god does not exist in reality, which is strong atheism.

Yes, properties are necessary, because agnostics think that god has a property call "is unknowable to humans".

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

Quote: from Event Horizon at 8:15 pm on July 6, 2009

---

Quote: from Moridin at 1:02 pm on July 6, 2009

---

Agnosticism is also suspicious for the fact that it simultaneously asserts that no knowledge of god is impossible (if some knowledge was possible, we could evaluate truth claims about god) but at the same time that we have knowledge about the properties of god (otherwise the god-concept would be meaningless and you would have to state that nothing that exist could be called a god).

---

 

 I'm not sure there are any claims about the properties of God made by agnosticism. Agnosticism only says that we are not capable of knowing anything about god by virtue of how we've defined the thing. As the OED definition defined it, agnosticism only claims that: the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown. If we define god as anything but physical and material phenomena, then--the agnostic purposes--we cannot know anything about it. No properties necessary.    

 Agnosticism is a gnostic stance, not a theistic one.

---

Agnostics has to make claims about the properties of god. If there was no meaningful properties, the god-concept could not refer to anything that exists and they would have to hold that nothing that exists in reality is god, or equivalently, that god does not exist in reality, which is strong atheism.

Yes, properties are necessary, because agnostics think that god has a property call "is unknowable to humans".

---

See this is where I disagree with you; and where I'm pretty sure you are wrong. Agnostics surely do not think that god has a property called "is unknowable to humans". For one: We, to date, have no real knowledge of god apart from speculation. It is not a property of god that we don't know anything about it, but rather a truth-of-the-matter that we do not.

It is not a property of an undiscovered beetle to be "unknowable by humans", we just don't know it.

As I noted before, agnostics only argue that anything "behind or beyond" the material and physical is unknowable. They don't add any properties to the concept of god.

An agnostic might simply say "I'm not sure that our concept of god is valid, but according to how you've defined god, I'd say we are not capable of knowing such things."

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

---

Thoughts?

---

God should not be synonymous with 'Jehovah.' Because of how frequently people seem to take (big g) 'God' as referring to any vague conception of an all-powerful creator, things become very imprecise when no distinction is made between Jehovah ("God") and "God" (a nondescript, benevolent creator god).

Also, there is no point in holding any belief. A belief is a trait, not an end. Whether your friend likes it or not, everyone is either an atheist or a theist, and everyone is either agnostic or gnostic (not 'demiurge, pleroma' Gnostic). One does not choose to hold a combination of these beliefs to make a statement; they're there, or they're not.

---

Quote: from Moridin at 1:19 pm on July 6, 2009

---

Quote: from Event Horizon at 8:15 pm on July 6, 2009

---

Quote: from Moridin at 1:02 pm on July 6, 2009

---

Agnosticism is also suspicious for the fact that it simultaneously asserts that no knowledge of god is impossible (if some knowledge was possible, we could evaluate truth claims about god) but at the same time that we have knowledge about the properties of god (otherwise the god-concept would be meaningless and you would have to state that nothing that exist could be called a god).

---

  I'm not sure there are any claims about the properties of God made by agnosticism. Agnosticism only says that we are not capable of knowing anything about god by virtue of how we've defined the thing. As the OED definition defined it, agnosticism only claims that: the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown. If we define god as anything but physical and material phenomena, then--the agnostic purposes--we cannot know anything about it. No properties necessary.

  Agnosticism is a gnostic stance, not a theistic one.

---

 

 Agnostics has to make claims about the properties of god. If there was no meaningful properties, the god-concept could not refer to anything that exists and they would have to hold that nothing that exists in reality is god, or equivalently, that god does not exist in reality, which is strong atheism.  

 Yes, properties are necessary, because agnostics think that god has a property call "is unknowable to humans".

---

See this is where I disagree with you; and where I'm pretty sure you are wrong. Agnostics surely do not think that god has a property called "is unknowable to humans". For one: We, to date, have no real knowledge of god apart from speculation. It is not a property of god that we don't know anything about it, but rather a truth-of-the-matter that we do not.  

It is not a property of an undiscovered beetle to be "unknowable by humans", we just don't know it.  

As I noted before, agnostics only argue that anything "behind or beyond" the material and physical is unknowable. They don't add any properties to the concept of god.  

An agnostic might simply say "I'm not sure that our concept of god is valid, but according to how you've defined god, I'd say we are not capable of knowing
such things."

---

So you seriously arguing that agnosticism deny knowledge about god, yet does not think god is unknowable? That would be a contradiction.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)