Support NeoGAF

[Ashes]

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive concepts.

If you don't believe in any gods but recognize that their possibility cannot be 100% disproven, you're an agnostic atheist.
If you believe that gods definitely 100% don't exist, you're a gnostic atheist.
If you believe that gods definitely 100% exist, you're a gnostic theist.
If you believe in gods but recognize that their existence cannot be 100% proven, you're an agnostic theist.
If you have no concept of gods whatsoever (e.g. newborn baby), or are completely apathetic about anything pertaining to theism or atheism, you're an implicit atheist.

Wiki on atheism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism


People who identify as non-theist or non-religious or secular are atheists who think the connotations of the atheism label are too negative/strong/polarizing to associate with. "Atheists are douchebags! Me, I'm a secular humanist non-theist, nothing to see here."

So going back to an earlier question, what makes a person become atheist from the agnostic position? And why are both equally reasonable positions?

edit: Except you say they are not mutually exclusive positions, so I'm not even sure how to phrase the question.

 

[Raist]

You wish to deny it? Science stand upon the achievements of Christianity and Classical Antiquity before it. And no oops, the Muslim Iberians influence is almost exclusively that of reintroducing Classical texts through Arabic translations. For the rest their path was a dead end.

So what now, Islam is a sect of christianity?

And older civilizations like babylonians, mayans or egyptians were pretty good at maths. That's just another example.

So going back to an earlier question, what makes a person become atheist from the agnostic position? And why are both equally reasonable positions?

Question is moot, you don't start as an agnostic and then become an atheist.

 

[KHarvey16]

So going back to an earlier question, what makes a person become atheist from the agnostic position?

They describe different things. Your question is like asking what makes someone left handed from a position of liking the color blue.

 

[jaxword]

I don't know, in a thread like this where tensions are high, I don't see anything wrong with someone saying that its childish to argue that your way of thinking is superior to another persons, because at the end of the day that's really what this thread and the multiple religious based threads usually boil down to.

That's just me though.

Going into a thread just to say you don't care is childish and really really immature.

Here, use different topics as an example. How would you respond to:

Football.

"Hey guys, your argument over the Packers or Redskins being better is stupid and I just want you all to know I DON'T GIVE A SHIT!"

Smash Bros:

"Hey guys, your argument over Fox or Falco being better is stupid and I just want you all to know I DON'T GIVE A SHIT!"

SOPA:

"Hey guys, your argument about governments being allowed to censor or not censor is stupid and I just want you all to know I DON'T GIVE A SHIT!"

See?

What kind of childish-attention-grabbing garbage is that? Why even bother posting at all? And now I'm guilty of giving him attention, too.

 

[GrizzNKev]

So going back to an earlier question, what makes a person become atheist from the agnostic position?

I would describe it as someone who said, "I don't believe in what you claim to be god because there is no evidence to support your claim. However, when you provide sufficient evidence, I would have no choice but to agree that your god exists." And I would say that's the most reasonable approach. Sadly for theists who aim to provide evidence, the chances of that god existing and having evidence to back it up come out to pretty much zero. It's almost a waste just to make the offer in the first place.

 

[JGS]

So going back to an earlier question, what makes a person become atheist from the agnostic position? And why are both equally reasonable positions?

I wish I could figure out why it mattered, but a lot of time is spent distinguishing them. To an atheist, is an agnostic only sorta loopy?

To me the difference between an agnostic and an atheist is purely one of opinion. The end result is the same, but clearly I'm missing something when there is an almighty cube that can determine what you are.

 

[Ashes]

They describe different things. Your question is like asking what makes someone left handed from a position of liking the color blue.

That doesn't make sense to me. Can you try a different example?

 

[Zaptruder]

look at bunch of cells talking

Is this sarcasm? Or is it just curt interjection? I thought you were a muslim. Or is that some other poster with a monkey in his name?

 

[Wotan131]

So what now, Islam is a sect of christianity?

And older civilizations like babylonians, mayans or egyptians were pretty good at maths. That's just another example.



Question is moot, you don't start as an agnostic and then become an atheist.

Islam is irrelevant as it does not know the kind of tradition of critical thinking that Christianity has. You think Christians were not good at maths? How do you think they built all those immensely expensive churches in Italy?

 

[Raist]

That doesn't make sense to me. Can you try a different example?

Precisely because it doesn't make sense to try to antagonize, or make a clear distinction, between atheism and agnosticism

So, another one. What made you like pasta from liking pizza? They're both related to the same domain (food) but are not mutually exclusive and there's no sense of hierarchy between them.

 

[Log4Girlz]

You wish to deny it? Science stand upon the achievements of Christianity and Classical Antiquity before it. And no oops, the Muslim Iberians influence is almost exclusively that of reintroducing Classical texts through Arabic translations. For the rest their path was a dead end.

As I've said earlier, scientists in the beginning were concerned about proving the bible correct. It didn't turn out well.

 

[Lionheart1337]

So going back to an earlier question, what makes a person become atheist from the agnostic position? And why are both equally reasonable positions?

edit: Except you say they are not mutually exclusive positions, so I'm not even sure how to phrase the question.

Agnostic -> Atheism ~= Agnostic theism or atheism -> Agnostic or gnostic atheism

They are not equally reasonable imo. I`m just as agnostic towards god as I am to the Tooth Fairy.

 

[GrizzNKev]

Islam is irrelevant as it does not know the kind of tradition of critical thinking that Christianity has. You think Christians were not good at maths? How do you think they built all those immensely expensive churches in Italy?

They hired people?

 

[Ashes]

Precisely because it doesn't make sense to try to antagonize, or make a clear distinction, between atheism and agnosticism

So, another one. What made you like pasta from liking pizza? They're both related to the same domain (food) but are not mutually exclusive and there's no sense of hierarchy between them.

So they are on a continium, but one cannot justify the trend towards the end of the scale? It just is?

 

[Raist]

Islam is irrelevant as it does not know the kind of tradition of critical thinking that Christianity has. You think Christians were not good at maths? How do you think they built all those immensely expensive churches in Italy?

Dude you were the one claiming that christianity led to science. Then how the fuck did babylonians or egyptians or mayans did all that stuff while they didn't receive that very special enlightenment of yours? Aliens?

Also LOL at the bolded. Never heard of the islamic golden age, heh?

 

[jaxword]

That doesn't make sense to me. Can you try a different example?

Maybe this example will make the atheists vs agnostics clearer:

Aliens.

Atheist: I don't think there's alien life. We can tell there's no alien life. There is no alien life on Mars.

Agnostic: I don't know if there's alien life. Maybe there is, maybe there is not. We can't tell. Maybe we will discover life on Mars.

You can see how these are not the same stance, and indeed they could philosophically disagree quite strongly.

 

[Ashes]

Maybe this example will make the atheists vs agnostics clearer:

Aliens.

Atheist: I don't think there's alien life. We can tell there's no alien life. There is no alien life on Mars.

Agnostic: I don't know if there's alien life. Maybe there is, maybe there is not. We can't tell. Maybe we will discover life on Mars.

You can see how these are not the same stance, and indeed they could philosophically disagree quite strongly.

They could, and I guess I'm just missing the debate where that happens.

 

[KHarvey16]

That doesn't make sense to me. Can you try a different example?

Atheism and theism speak to belief, agnosticism and gnosticism speak to knowledge. The two are not on a continuum and are not mutually exclusive. A car can be blue and have 2 doors or it can be blue and have 4 doors. No car goes from being blue to having 4 doors, just like no person goes from being an agnostic to being an atheist.

 

[DCKing]

So going back to an earlier question, what makes a person become atheist from the agnostic position? And why are both equally reasonable positions?

It's an easy mistake to consider different gradations of non-theism different categories. It's more like a smooth curve from accepting to God to denying God, on which agnostics are usually taken to be further up the curve than atheists.

In general agnostics either grant more possibility to the existence of Gods or feel they should not have an opinion about it at all. Which is a perfectly reasonable position. It's about the way I feel about alien intelligent life (I mean actual scientific discovery, not UFO stories). I'm much more sure of God's non-existence because it is an obvious human invention in nearly all forms it takes.

 

[crazy monkey]

Is this sarcasm? Or is it just curt interjection? I thought you were a muslim. Or is that some other poster with a monkey in his name?

100% muslim.

 

[jaxword]

They could, and I guess I'm just missing the debate where that happens.

Well, start an existence of aliens thread and see various degrees of Definitely/maybe/probably not/no.

Although I suspect there's actually very FEW "alien atheists" out there, simply because most people accept the reality we're a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, small planet in a very big universe.



Really, though, you don't need religion to see if people are believers/agnostic/atheist on a subject. You could do a thread on, for example: Fate, predicting the future, magic, alien abduction stories, fursonaes, drug use, lotteries, etc. etc. etc. and you'll see which people BELIEVE IT ALL and which are NO, THAT'S STUPID.


We are all atheists, agnostics, and believers on different subjects.

 

[Raist]

So they are on a continium, but one cannot justify the trend towards the end of the scale? It just is?

They're not a continuum, that's the point. They're two completely different things which can or cannot overlap and are not necessarily related to the same topics.

 

[Ashes]

Atheism and theism speak to belief, agnosticism and gnosticism speak to knowledge. The two are not on a continuum and are not mutually exclusive. A car can be blue and have 2 doors or it can be blue and have 4 doors. No car goes from being blue to having 4 doors, just like no person goes from being an agnostic to an atheist.

So athiests aren't agnostics with balls. I here ya. Though I don't agree.

They're not a continuum, that's the point. They're two completely different things which can or cannot overlap and are not necessarily related to the same topics.

Never mind. I'm too utterly confused on the issue. I suppose I'll have to ask an athiest why they are more sure than an agnostic, except I can't, because you've defined to not be so.

 

[Wotan131]

Dude you were the one claiming that christianity led to science. Then how the fuck did babylonians or egyptians or mayans did all that stuff while they didn't receive that very special enlightenment of yours? Aliens?

Also LOL at the bolded. Never heard of the islamic golden age, heh?

What is there to even claim? Where did the scientific method develop? In Western Europe in the 16th to 18th centuries, where everyone was Christian.

The Mayans, Babylonians and Egyptians did not know the modern scientific method. Classical civilizations had a far more philosophical approach to science.

I know of the Golden Age of Islam, but in my eyes it is primarily a continuation of the flourishing of Classical Roman/Hellenistic culture that continued under Muslim minority rule. By the time Muslims became a majority in the Middle East around the year 1000, the Golden Age was gone as tolerance was no longer necessary for control. Just look at what Islamic rule has done for Southeastern Europe. Up until 1500 they were at the same level of development as Western Europe. By 1850 they were just coming out of the Middle Ages while the West was building steam engines.

 

[Uchip]

ust like no person goes from being an agnostic to being an atheist.

Pretty sure the director Danny Boyle made that change while directing Sunshine

 

[Raist]

So athiests aren't agnostics with balls. I here ya. Though I don't agree.

I'm guessing the problem might come from your definition of atheism.
Is it "there is no god" or "I don't believe in god"?

 

[Joni]

Although I suspect there's actually very FEW "alien atheists" out there, simply because most people accept the reality we're a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, small planet in a very big universe.

The Rare Earth hypothesis is quite popular and that leads to alien atheism. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis ) And the Fermi paradox also supports alien atheism (If there are intelligent aliens, why haven't we seen them yet?) (Not violating my resolve not to post here anymore about religion)

 

[GrizzNKev]

Maybe this example will make the atheists vs agnostics clearer:

Aliens.

Atheist: I don't think there's alien life. We can tell there's no alien life. There is no alien life on Mars.

Agnostic: I don't know if there's alien life. Maybe there is, maybe there is not. We can't tell. Maybe we will discover life on Mars.

You can see how these are not the same stance, and indeed they could philosophically disagree quite strongly.

That's still too broad and doesn't properly describe an agnostic stance.

Gnostic Atheist: From all of our observations of outer space, we have not seen evidence of alien life. Surely, there is no alien life.

Agnostic Atheist: It is extremely unlikely that there is alien life. From all of our observations of outer space, we have not seen evidence of alien life. However, there is still a vast amount of space to observe so I can't rule it out completely.

Agnostic Theist: It is extremely likely there is alien life. Although our observations of outer space have not shown evidence for alien life, the chances that there is a planet similar to Earth on which life has developed is quite high due the massive number of possible planets.

Gnostic Theist: I know for sure there is alien life, regardless of all evidence stating otherwise. It must exist.

 

[Raist]

What is there to even claim? Where did the scientific method develop? In Western Europe in the 16th to 18th centuries, where everyone was Christian.

The Mayans, Babylonians and Egyptians did not know the modern scientific method. Classical civilizations had a far more philosophical approach to science.

I know of the Golden Age of Islam, but in my eyes it is primarily a continuation of the flourishing of Classical Roman/Hellenistic culture that continued under Muslim minority rule. By the time Muslims became a majority in the Middle East around the year 1000, the Golden Age was gone as tolerance was no longer necessary for control. Just look at what Islamic rule has done for Southeastern Europe. Up until 1500 they were at the same level of development as Western Europe. By 1850 they were just coming out of the Middle Ages while the West was building steam engines.

Oh wow. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method

 

[KHarvey16]

So athiests aren't agnostics with balls. I here ya. Though I don't agree.

It isn't my opinion, it's literally what the words mean. Theism and atheism is a binary pair, you are either one or the other. If you lack a positive belief in a god, you are by default an atheist. A person who believes in god but recognizes they cannot know god exists for certain comprises what I imagine is the vast majority of the religious. In other words, they have faith.

At the very least we must recognize that gnosticism has a meaning and it is not describing the same thing as theism. Why would adding a prefix change that?

 

[Ashes]

It isn't my opinion, it's literally what the words mean. Theism and atheism is a binary pair, you are either one or the other. If you lack a positive belief in a god, you are by default an atheist. A person who believes in god but recognizes they cannot know god exists for certain comprises what I imagine is the vast majority of the religious. In other words, they have faith.

At the very least we must recognize that gnosticism has a meaning and it is not describing the same thing as theism. Why would adding a prefix change that?

So there is no agonstic position? there is only the agnostic atheist position? or the agnostic theist position?

 

[jaxword]

At the very least we must recognize that gnosticism has a meaning and it is not describing the same thing as theism. Why would adding a prefix change that?

Because labels are very, very important in these sorts of debates.

If you want to strawman the side you disagree with, you need an easy label to be applied.

For example, look at the hypocrites in this thread that don't know what "atheist" means but they're happy to use it as the label for the behavior of a nonreligious person they don't like.

 

[Raist]

So there is no agonstic position? there is only the agnostic atheist position? or the agnostic theist position?

Regarding religion there is definitely a gnostic position (either way, although I've seen far more gnostic theists than gnostic atheists). In religion's particular case it's a seriously unreasonable position to have (again, either way).

 

[GrizzNKev]

Because labels are very, very important in these sorts of debates.

If you want to strawman the side you disagree with, you need an easy label to be applied.

Look at the hypocrites in this thread that don't know what "atheist" means but they're happy to use it as the label for the behavior of a nonreligious person they don't like.

Says the person who doesn't know what agnostic means. This goes beyond just atheist and theist, but any subset as well. A full understanding of all of them should be held before accusing others of misusing or misunderstanding.

 

[KHarvey16]

So there is no agonstic position? there is only the agnostic atheist position? or the agnostic theist position?

Of course agnostic exists. It just says nothing about what that person believes. If you ask someone if they believe in god, they could answer they are an atheist(which means they don't). If you ask someone if they know gods exists(or do not exist), they could say they are an agnostic(which means they don't know if god exists or does not exist).

 

[Wotan131]

Oh wow. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method

You mean I'm saying exactly what your source of all information, ie. wikipedia, is saying. Muslims made steps in the direction of modern science inspired by the Greco-Roman culture in place in the Middle East. When the Islamic world fragmented around the 11th century and after Turkic peoples invaded the region, these small steps were completely nullified. The modern scientific method started in Western Europe, which was Christian.

 

[jaxword]

(Not violating my resolve not to post here anymore about religion)

Come on, you're not fooling anyone with that cowardly copout.

Multiple people already proved you wrong about your misuse of Stalin and being wrong about what you think the "atheist ideology" is.

At least admit you're wrong but refuse to change your mind about atheists.

 

[Vaporak]

So there is no agonstic position? there is only the agnostic atheist position? or the agnostic theist position?

Agnostic just means "don't or can't have knowledge of". It's not a religious position, it's just an adjective. To make an analogy, you're are basically asking for what the position of the "mono"-ists are, because you heard mono-theistic used in a religious discussion. Mono is just an adjective meaning "singular", it isn't a religious position.

 

[Ashes]

Of course agnostic exists. It just says nothing about what that person believes. If you ask someone if they believe in god, they could answer they are an atheist(which means they don't). If you ask someone if they know gods exists(or do not exist), they could say they are an agnostic(which means they don't know if god exists or does not exist).

Ahh. That makes sense. So what is the point of the athiest position? how is one not just an agnostic athiest? are there even any gnostic athiests out there?

 

[Vaporak]

Ahh. That makes sense. So what is the point of the athiest position? how is one not just an agnostic athiest? are there even any gnostic athiests out there?

Some, but very few. Certainly far fewer than Gnostic Theists.

 

[jaxword]

Says the person who doesn't know what agnostic means. This goes beyond just atheist and theist, but any subset as well. A full understanding of all of them should be held before accusing others of misusing or misunderstanding.

No need to be a pedantic dick, dude. I was clearly just giving a simplified example of of atheist vs agnostic for Ashes, and JUST atheist vs. agnostic. He was clearly confused at how those two even differed.

I didn't say a thing about the various subdivisions of agnostics since I knew there'd be plenty of people to go into that in detail if he wanted.

 

[Satyamdas]

Ahh. That makes sense. So what is the point of the athiest position? how is one not just an agnostic athiest? are there even any gnostic athiests out there?

Tons, even on GAF.

You can spot them when their arguments look like this:

God does not exist, and this is obvious, therefore
Anyone who believes in God is stupid or irrational, therefore
Any arguments that God exists are invalid, therefore
God does not exist QED

 

[Ashes]

Some, but very few. Certainly far fewer than Gnostic Theists.

What about 99% agnostic-athiests? are they just suffering from cognitive dissononace? They are essentially Gnostic athiests, no?

Tons, even on GAF.

You can spot them when their arguments look like this.

God does not exist, and this is obvious, therefore
Anyone who believes in God is stupid or irrational, therefore
Any arguments that God exists are invalid, therefore
God does not exist QED

 

[Uchip]

So what is the point of the athiest position?

scientific integrity

 

[KHarvey16]

Ahh. That makes sense. So what is the point of the athiest position? how is one not just an agnostic athiest? are there even any gnostic athiests out there?

Sure, some atheists claim there is no god. In fact the prevailing opinion in many groups is that all atheists are gnostic atheists claiming to know there is no god. Gnosticism is generally seen to be the more unreasonable position, regardless of belief.

 

[Satyamdas]

What about 99% agnostic-athiests? are they just suffering from cognitive dissononace? They are essentially Gnostic athiests, no?

No. They don't believe in the existence of god but they don't claim to know with certainty. Agnostic atheism is not a position of cognitive dissonance and in actuality is the most pragmatic and rational position to start from.

 

[EviLore]

Ahh. That makes sense. So what is the point of the athiest position? how is one not just an agnostic athiest? are there even any gnostic athiests out there?

The deal with gnostic atheism is that it's mostly used in an informal context. For example:

Does an invisible, undetectable magical dragon live in my garage?

informally: "LOL no."

formally: "Well, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. While the assertion cannot be proven or disproven, it's entirely irrelevant, entirely unlikely given the current data, and on the bottom rung of all possibilities in the universe."


So it's not as simple as saying "well, if you say that the personal christian god doesn't exist then you're taking an irrational unscientific gnostic position," because that's just how human beings talk without going insane or working at a college campus.

This is essentially what you'll get out of Dawkins if you ask him informally whether gods exist and then formally whether he's taking a position of gnostic "strong" atheism or not, for example.

 

[Ashes]

Sure, some atheists claim there is no god. In fact the prevailing opinion in many groups is that all atheists are gnostic atheists claiming to know there is no god. Gnosticism is generally seen to be the more unreasonable position, regardless of belief.

It's human to have doubt though, so if a thiest, is 99% sure, and 01% unsure, they are -though they might not admt it- agnostic theist. Is that right?

 

[DCKing]

You mean I'm saying exactly what your source of all information, ie. wikipedia, is saying. Muslims made steps in the direction of modern science inspired by the Greco-Roman culture in place in the Middle East. When the Islamic world fragmented around the 11th century and after Turkic peoples invaded the region, these small steps were completely nullified. The modern scientific method started in Western Europe, which was Christian.

Except the fact that you choose the start of 'modern scientific method' to be arbitrarily at the point on which Western Europe started making the major contributions, you're ignoring that the founders of this scientific line of thinking were heavily opposed by those Christian powers. Besides that, Bacon and Descartes were as atheist as you could get at the time.

There is only evidence against to suggest that the correlation between Christianity and Europe and its scientific proliferation is in fact causation. It's called the Enlightenment for a reason.

 

[cutmeamango]

Why can't people read past Dawkins and Hitchens?