The terms aren't mutually exclusive. You can be an Agnostic Atheist also known as a weak atheist under a different set of definitions. I tend to reject them all because they tend to clutter up the matter. If you are agnostic, you're an atheist.
Actually, no... atheism: A= no or lack of theism= belief in god No belief in god.. Agnosticism is the belief in, essentially, not knowing... there may be a god, there may not be, but you're not ruling it out...
This is a question to all believers who can't imagine a reason to be good without their god. Would you want to live in a world where it was acceptable to be an immoral person? A world where you and everyone else was free to steal and kill and rape and cheat and generally act like a psychotic madman? I'm guessing you wouldn't, and most nonbelievers wouldn't either. You know that you're happier living in a world where you and everyone else agrees that you shouldn't kill each other. You don't need any god to tell you that, you just know because you can think. You don't get all of your moral beliefs from God's word. If you did you would still follow old testament law. You'd completely reject all pork and shellfish, you'd understand the proper way to treat your slaves, and you would never wear mixed fabrics. How do you now know that those things are ridiculous, especially the slavery part? Because you are a rational thinking person and you know that shellfish and pork are safe to eat, that slavery is evil because it harms your fellow man, and that mixed fabrics are lovely for creating a waterproof winter coat. You can pick which parts of your god's scripture that you do not need to follow because you make your own moral decisions both instinctively and rationally, otherwise you would have no way of knowing that those things don't apply any longer. Morality makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective as well. Those people who carry genes that predispose them to cooperate with each other will absolutely survive and thus reproduce at a much higher rate than people who act on their own. You can see it in the animal kingdom as well; nearly every living thing benefits by working together with other members of its gene pool, whether it is antelope moving as a herd to keep watch for lions, or the lions hunting as a pack to bring one of them down. We aren't moral because it is written in a book that we shouldn't kill each other, we're moral because we are animals, it is encoded in our genes that we will work together for the benefit of everyone. Interestingly, it also explains why we are so divided as well. We have a constant "us vs them" mentality. USA vs the Terrorists, Red Sox fans vs Yankee fans, Red vs Blue, AR vs BR, or religious vs nonreligious. That stems from the competition for survival among early groups of people. The groups that lived together bred together, and fought off anyone competing for their land. Any group that didn't carry the "us vs them" gene was easily conquered by those who did, and the "us vs them" genes spread to the whole population. Those genes aren't nearly as useful now that we've got farming and technology, so we would almost certainly benefit from thinking in terms of our entire species rather than splitting ourselves into groups, but the predisposition remains because it was successful in getting us here. I'd like to write more, but I'm afraid I've got an essay already so I'm just gonna leave it off here.
Personally, it is one hell(no pun intended) of a lot easier to believe in science over 'gods' and such. I believe that I can take a picture of any animal, put it in a time capsule, and wait for a few hundred years, have some futuristic redneck find it, and notice that all animals on the drive have evolved into a better and more powerful species. Animals must adapt to survive an ever changing world that we live in. I also believe that we humans have evolved from water-borne amoebas to monkey's and so-forth. That over having 'something' snap (it's) finger's and creating a perfectly adapt human capable on surviving with nothing but brainpower, making eating an apple and suddenly becoming smart, or something along those lines.(I've only read the christian bible once when I was six, and it seemed like a bunch of bull back then too. I also believe in Karma too, because it seems like whenever I do something bad, something bad happens, although nothing good ever happens... And Reincarnation. I have unnatural fear of being on a boat in the open sea, so it's safe to assume that one of my past lives died coming to America, or something along those lines. You never know. (just wanted to put that in there for some reason or another.)
No. That kind of life is hard, and anyone sensible would know that. Drugs only "alleviate" your problems for a moment while you are lost in your high. God or not, I want to have a fulfilling life. I want people to remember me for being helpful and not a drunk ass. People are all born with the capability to do good. I don't need God to give me what I already have. And um, is God the only thing holding you back from doing some things in life?
Agnosticism, no matter how you want to define it, isn't some happy, intellectual middle ground. It is an avoidance of the question. The question is, "do you believe a claim?" The claim is 'X.' 'X' exists. You either believe the claim is true or it isn't. What people do not realize is that there are actually two claims and four answers. "'X' does exist" and you can believe it does or it doesn't. However, the second claim is "'X' does not exist" and you can believe it does or doesn't. Disbelieving 'X' exists does not necessarily mean you accept that 'X' does not exist. A person makes the claim 'X' exists, I ask for evidence and if they fail to convince me I disbelieve it. I can also say to a person (who says X does not exist) what evidence do you have to support the claim. If I am unconvinced again I disbelieve that, as well. I am noncommittal on the truth factor but I do not believe that it exists. This does not make me agnostic, it makes me an atheist because theism is defined as accepting that claim to be true. There's theism, atheism, and anti-theism just like there's moral, amoral, and immoral. Just because you're amoral doesn't mean you're immoral, though, you can be. In this case I'm both. I am not saying with certainty that no god exists but I believe no god exists and I can give you my reasons for it and if you don't accept it that's fine. I can tell you, however, those that do advocate one side or the other have never met the burden of proof.
wait. ? But if you have assessed both sides and see no solution, why take a side? Agnosticism isn't avoiding the question, it's just seeing both sides of the table. p.s. Isn't the "2 claims 4 answers" thing kinda redundant?
Because you are taking a side no matter what. Do you believe in a god? No. Do you not believe in a god? No. So obviously you are not committed to either side, however, the definition of theism is the belief in a god. If you do not believe in a god you are an A-theist. Seeing both sides of the table has nothing to do with agnosticism. Agnosticism isn't an answer, it is an avoidance of the question. Atheists do not believe with certainty one way or the other on the existence of god, though they believe, since they are unconvinced by evidence, there isn't one. I find it funny that I specifically describe atheism as the assessment of both sides and you feel the need to underline that portion of your arguement as if it was somehow unaddressed. Atheism and agnosticism address two different questions entirely and are not mutually exclusive. Atheism and theism relate to what we believe to be true and agnosticism and gnosticism relates to what we know is true. Definitions: Gnostic - pertaining to knowledge. Agnostic - asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge. Theism - belief in the existence of a god or gods Atheism - disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Deism - 1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation 2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it. (threw deism in there for the hell of it) Do atheism and agnosticism seem mutually exclusive under webster's definition? Why do you even have an opinion on this matter, rusty? You are obviously uninformed and unwilling to inform yourself. Dogma - a system of principles or tenets, as of a church. Dogmatic - of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a dogma or dogmas; doctrinal. Atheism has no principle or tenet or church. It is the disbelief in a god, that's it. It is impossible to be dogmatic and atheist.
Arguing over the definitions of words is retarded. If you're unclear of what people mean when they say they're agnostic or atheist, then just ask them. If they're like me and they describe themselves as atheist, ask them if they are certain that there is not and absolutely could not possibly be a sentient creator of the universe, and if they're like me they'll say no. I'd say no because you can't disprove the existence of a god. I describe myself as atheist because I am certain that every religion is false. If they say they're agnostic, ask them if that means they think there's a pretty good chance of there being a god or diety. I think most would say that no, there probably isn't a good chance of one existing, but they aren't certain of it so they call themselves agnostic. Or they just don't want the negative connotations of being an antagonistic aggressively anti-religious jerk that some people associate with the word atheist. And don't throw a dictionary at anyone, because just like the colloquial version of the word theory versus the scientific one, the everyday accepted use of certain words is not the strict definition.
The everyday form of the word is wrong. You're assumption that atheists are anti-religion is foolish. That's anti-theism.
It doesn't matter if the everyday form of the word is wrong if you and the person you're talking do have different definitions. You just have to clear that up and you can move on. And I didn't say that atheists are anti-religion, I simply said that that is a connotation that some people associate with it. Check out a youtube video comment section on any religious video. The kinds of people that will go there and start a several page flame war are in many cases the image that people get when they hear the word "atheist." All I was saying is that someone saying they're agnostic may just be an atheist that wants to avoid that image, even though you or I would describe their nonbelief as atheism.
Originally Posted by EonsAgo "But if you have assessed both sides and see no solution, why take a side? Agnosticism isn't avoiding the question, it's just seeing both sides of the table." If I didn't know which to choose, I'd just go with God anyway. It seams like a safe bet considering if you're wrong, you go to hell.
In everyday speech if you want to declare yourself an agnostic or an atheist then I'm ok with that. It doesn't bother me. But if you are going to formally debate something it is best you know what it is. Anyway, this tangent wasn't meant to just slay agnosticism out of nowhere. It was a response to haruki. Moving on. . . Assuming there is a god, why would he reward fear and ignorance over an honest attempt at truth? He must know, if he's god, the evidence for him is nil, so why punish someone for doing exactly what he programmed them to do? It just seems so cruel and petty.
Can't we just take that same idea and apply it to anything else? We will never truly know if there are aliens controlling our brains... it is better to be safe and always wear a tinfoil hat than risk being mind controlled. What if I were to tell you that there is an invisible pink unicorn behind you, who will impale you unless you immediately gnaw off your own thumbs? You have no way of knowing if there is currently an invisible pink unicorn behind you, so the best bet would be to start gnawing. The bet you made (known as Pascal's Wager) is the same. Both pascal's wager and the two I made above require you to change your own life in a signifigant way, given only the incredibly small chance of something existing that doesn't have any proof.
There is no way to prove of a God, or any other higher beings, existence. Thus it seems irrational to pick a side either way based on facts, being as there are no sources of information that can claim without a doubt, God does or does not exist.
Yea I tried to push this idea too, people can't take a hint. You won't change anyone's mind which is usually the point of a debate.
Ah, so you're both atheists. Welcome to the social. Unfortunately it does matter because evangelicals have an exceptional voting block and we've seen the results of Bush/Cheney. Most evangelicals vote on faith, if I can remove that faith then they vote for more valid reasons.
I cannot tell you if there is a magical invisible teapot 1 millimeter in diameter orbiting pluto. There is no way to disprove it and no way to prove it, so we must all be 'teapot-agnostics'. My point is that this is a bad argument. You can't prove or disprove anything. (Disprove that I am god- you can't, I can just say I don't use my powers). We need to look at the evidence that has been presented to us and make conclusions based on it. As far as I have seen, there is no evidence for god, so until there is evidence we must assume that god does not exist.