Agnosticism is not a logical stance

[Jameson]

I used to claim I was simply agnostic, but I realized this is not logically possible.

When asked the question, "Do you believe in God?", one cannot answer "I don't know". If you do not explicitly express a belief in God, then you are an atheist. There is no middle ground on a yes or no question. You can be a strong or weak atheist, or even an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism pertains to believing that the concept of God can be proven or not. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.

Any thoughts?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I used to claim I was simply agnostic, but I realized this is not logically possible.

When asked the question, "Do you believe in God?", one cannot answer "I don't know". If you do not explicitly express a belief in God, then you are an atheist. There is no middle ground on a yes or no question. You can be a strong or weak atheist, or even an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism pertains to believing that the concept of God can be proven or not. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.

Any thoughts?

I don't know if you are talking semantics, or trying to describe how people feel. As far as I'm concerned, a person can be anywhere they are in terms of belief. All of us are trying to translate the current state of our certainty into words.

God, that is a tough one.

My current opinion is a feeling, not a mental state. I feel there is something more than physical processes. I have not had the privilege of being able to observe the details of what that is. I don't know what it is capable of. I am not fully certain of what its role is in creation.

Sometimes when people ask "do you believe in God," they are asking if you believe in some religion's model of God. But we aren't required to say yes or no to that. We can say we don't know about THAT concept of God, but that we feel there is something more (or not) than physical processes involved in creation.

Is that agnostic or atheistic? Does it matter if we have a word for where we are in terms of our sense of something more?

 

[Jameson]

You're right. We must define God into certain terms in order to ask the question "Do you believe in 'x'?". What I'm saying is that when a question is asked liked that, you cannot logically say "I don't know" and have that as an answer. If you don't know if you believe something, you do not believe it. Beliefs are a positive statement, while negating those beliefs do not have to be an affirmation, although they can be.

If I asked, "Do you believe that the Earth is flat?", unless you said "yes", logically is would be understood that you do not have that belief.

I haven't taken philosophy or anything, these are just my own thoughts.

 

[Les Sleeth]

What I'm saying is that when a question is asked liked that, you cannot logically say "I don't know" and have that as an answer. If you don't know if you believe something, you do not believe it. Beliefs are a positive statement, while negating those beliefs do not have to be an affirmation, although they can be.

I think you are correct. I didn't understand that you were asking a logic-semantic question. If you ask someone if they "believe" and they say I don't know, then they don't believe, just as you say.

 

[honestrosewater]

If you do not explicitly express a belief in God, then you are an atheist.

This is not how atheism is usually defined. Atheists *deny* the existence of God. Agnostics *do not deny* the existence of God.
If you asked an agnostic, "Do you deny the existence of God?" they would not answer, "Yes." Thus they are not atheists. Only a person who answers, "Yes" is an atheist. If you have any doubt, theists also would not answer, "Yes." and certainly theists are not atheists.
____
Actually, I think the problem is here:

There is no middle ground on a yes or no question.

True, either you are or are not a thiest, that is, a theist or a nontheist. This doesn't mean that all nontheists are identical.

An object is either a circle or noncircle, but the set of all noncircles can contain more than one object (squares, trees, people, etc.). This is logically permissible.
A object is either a theist or a nontheist, but the set of all nonthiests can contain more than one object (atheists, agnostics, chairs, etc.). This is also logically permissible.
A square can be neither a tree nor a circle since "tree" does not mean the same thing as "noncircle."
A person can be neither an atheist nor a thiest since "atheist" does not mean the same thing as "nonthiest."

Does that help?

 

[Royce]

If an agnostic is asked; "Do you believe in God?" then logically he cannot answer the question directly with a simple yes or no. In that you are correct. However, that does not make being an agnostic illogical. If he must answer then he can only say that his belief is that the question of God is not yet proven or disproved and he has not made up his mind one way or another. Remember that not deciding one way or another is also a valid decision. Not every question can be answered yes or no.

 

[harvey1]

I used to claim I was simply agnostic, but I realized this is not logically possible.

When asked the question, "Do you believe in God?", one cannot answer "I don't know". If you do not explicitly express a belief in God, then you are an atheist. There is no middle ground on a yes or no question. You can be a strong or weak atheist, or even an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism pertains to believing that the concept of God can be proven or not. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.

Any thoughts?

I can argue that all the positions are off base.

Atheism: It's not a specific enough position. Do you mean that only material stuff exists? If so, then you are a materialist and we have no need for the atheist title. If you are a non-materialist and still an atheist, then how do you know non-material things exist? In fact, how do you know anything of anything that is ontological-based?? It seems agnosticism is all anyone can be about anything. So, scratch atheism and call yourself an agnostic materialist.

Theism: Again, it's not specific enough position. Do you mean that material stuff is not the ultimate reality? Then you are an idealist or platonist. Which one? If you think only God exists, then you are an absolute idealist. And, like above, how do you know anything of anything? I think if you are the least bit humble you acknowledge that you can't prove the existence of anything (even yourself), and therefore you are either an agnostic idealist or an agnostic platonist.

Agnostics: Since everyone in the world has to profess some form of agnosticism, why not just admit that the description is utterly useless! Say what you think, and stop taking pride in the fact that you don't know - who the hell does?? If you don't even want to take a guess, then why the hell are you talking about ontology in the first place?? Just say to everyone "you are wasting your time" and go back to your calculator.

 

[physicskid]

I'm always very unsure about the defintition of agnosticism. If its definition is the belief that there's no proof for the existence of God, then agnostic theist can also exist too!

 

[honestrosewater]

I can argue that all the positions are off base.

Theism, atheism, and agnosticism deal strictly with the concept of god(s). An atheist can still believe in, for instance, duality of mind, and so not be a materialist.
There are also differences within these groups. Like pantheism, panentheism, etc. Agnostics can take several stances; we don't know, we can't know, we can't know if we can know, etc. The thing to remember is just that they deal strictly with the concept of god(s).

You do raise an important problem with our communication: Humanity has more concepts than words. This is especially bad for philosophy, where concepts become more nuanced, complex, and are often defined imprecisely and inconsistently. Even the concept of god doesn't have clearly established limits, like a minimum set of required properties.
If you can think of a way to solve the problem, let everyone know

 

[Aquamarine]

The assumption is that one must either believe in God or not. That is the common logical principle of bivalence, every statement is either absolutely true or absolutely false.

It is however possible to build other logical systems based on probability, like fuzzy logic.

Then an atheist is one who assigns 100% probability to God does not exist and 0% to God exist. A theist is the opposite. An agnostics is someone who assigns other values than 0% and 100%.

 

[honestrosewater]

I'm always very unsure about the defintition of agnosticism. If its definition is the belief that there's no proof for the existence of God, then agnostic theist can also exist too!

See the post right above this one. Agnosticism can mean different things. Not all agnostics believe there is no proof for the existence of any god. What they all share is a suspension of belief. Theists believe in some kind of god. Yes, some theists believe in their god without needing proof, some even believe despite proof against their god.
Agnostics don't believe in god(s), theists do. Agnosticism and theism are logically incompatible. You can see previous posts in this thread for further clarification.
The designation of theist, atheist, or agnostic is only one part of the story. Like the designation of male or female is only one part of describing a human.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I think most of what everyone has said about atheism, agnosticism, and theism makes sense. However, I don't know if anyone but Royce addressed what Jameson put forth.

I asked him if his was a logic-semantic question and he answered, "What I'm saying is that when a question is asked liked that, you cannot logically say "I don't know" and have that as an answer. If you don't know if you believe something, you do not believe it. Beliefs are a positive statement, while negating those beliefs do not have to be an affirmation, although they can be."

To me it seems clear that his is a logic-semantic challenge to those who respond to the question of belief with "I don't know." A proper logical answer for an agnostic might be, "I don't believe in God, and I don't disbelieve in God."

 

[honestrosewater]

Fuzzy logic, that's great

 

[Tigron-X]

The question itself, "Do you believe in God?" is not specifically defined, and thus it is left to the individual to define his/her understanding of the term.

Now, unless someone states otherwise, I think it's safe to claim that there are forces in life at work. In fact, one can define various forces. Anhow, these forces can be defined as powers in nature or powers in life. Nature and life being existence.

So, from the above, one can ask the following questions:
--Is there a hierarchy of power?
--Does said individual profess an awareness to these powers?
--Does said individual believe in a higher power other than oneslef?
--What is the highest power said individual can perceive?
--Is this perception an understanding of God if the term "God" was to be defined as a higher power?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Fuzzy logic, that's great

True, but I think that was Jameson's point; granted, it's not a very significant point. But he seems right that technically an ambiguous answer to the question of belief is not very logical since to believe or not believe implies certainty. It is the inclusion of the word "believe" that screws up the logic of the answer.

 

[honestrosewater]

True, but I think that was Jameson's point; granted, it's not a very significant point. But he seems right that technically an ambiguous answer to the question of belief is not very logical since to believe or not believe implies certainty.

Granted, and I didn't comment on that point because it had already been resolved. But I couldn't ignore the rest of it:

If you do not explicitly express a belief in God, then you are an atheist. There is no middle ground on a yes or no question. You can be a strong or weak atheist, or even an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism pertains to believing that the concept of God can be proven or not. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.

Any thoughts?

In fact, I just noticed this, but I disagree with Royce here:

If an agnostic is asked; "Do you believe in God?" then logically he cannot answer the question directly with a simple yes or no. In that you are correct.

(Unless, by "directly", Royce means "fully.") Answering "No" to the above question is not the same as answering "Yes" to the question, "Does God exist?" This is the question an agnostic cannot answer with a yes or no, and claiming that "yes" and "no" are the only answers is a false dichotomy. Yes or no?

____
To clarify: The claim that a person can only be decided either for or against something leaves out the other available option of undecided.

 

[Royce]

What I mean is that a true agnostic cannot answer the question; "Do you believe in God?" because he doesn't know. He does not truly believe in God and he does not truly not believe in God. He doesn't know. He has not yet made up his mind what to believe or what not to believe. The question of existence and of belief is still open, undecided. The question therefore has no answer or meaning to him. He is undecided in what he believes and, as I said, that too is a valid, logical choice but not a direct answer to the question.
Not all questioned can be answered yes or no. There are also valid answers of I don't know , maybe, sometimes , duh and huh .

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I'm Agnostic and I can answer your question. Do I believe in God? I do not believe in God. I believe in the possibility of God existing. I do not hold it true that God exists but I do believe it is possible. I believe in possibilities. Agnostism is a much more logical faith than Atheism. Atheism is like a scientific theory that is held true - someone illogical denies the small possibility that a theory is wrong. There is not enough logic to discern whether or not God exists.

 

[honestrosewater]

Not all questioned can be answered yes or no. There are also valid answers of I don't know , maybe, sometimes , duh and huh .

On this I agree with you, (it's called a false dilemma if anyone wants to google). And I would add another valid answer:

"I'm a nihilist, you're questions are futile! Bwahahhaa!"

But my point is that, "I do not believe in a god" is the correct description of an agnostic's beliefs. It seems:

Your view: I do not = I do the opposite of
My view: I do not = It is not true that I do

We agree that, "Agnostics believe in god" is not true, right?
I'm saying the same thing:

My view: "It is not true that agnostics believe in a god."

and, if an agnostic is speaking,

My view: "It is not true that I do believe in a god."

Is that clear? Have I misunderstood your view?

 

[honestrosewater]

There is not enough logic to discern whether or not God exists.

That depends on how you define god, but that discussion would need another thread.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Most things depend on definition. The arbitrary nature of God makes Agnostism even more logical.

 

[honestrosewater]

Most things depend on definition. The arbitrary nature of God makes Agnostism even more logical.

I'd love to agrue that point, if you want to start another thread. It is too off-topic here.

 

[AKG]

I used to claim I was simply agnostic, but I realized this is not logically possible.

When asked the question, "Do you believe in God?", one cannot answer "I don't know". If you do not explicitly express a belief in God, then you are an atheist. There is no middle ground on a yes or no question. You can be a strong or weak atheist, or even an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism pertains to believing that the concept of God can be proven or not. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.

Any thoughts?

That's misleading. With regards to the truth of some proposition, you either have a belief, or you don't. If you have a belief, you either believe that it is true, or you believe that it is not true. When people answer the question, "Do you believe in God?" with "I don't know," the mean to say that they don't have a belief about the truth of the proposition, "God exists," and not that they have a belief about the truth of that proposition, but don't know whether they believe it to be true or not. If you have a belief, you know your belief (otherwise, what would make it your belief?), but that doesn't mean you have beliefs about everything. If you have a belief about something, you know your belief about that thing. However, there are plenty of things you don't have beliefs about at all in the first place, and God can be one of them.

Agnostics can be divided into three groups, 1) people who believe that there can never be a good reason to hold any belief about the truth of the proposition "God exists", i.e. people who think "God exists" and/or its negation are fundamentally unprovable, 2) people who are still waiting for justification for a belief, e.g. someone who thinks it can be proven that God exists, but hasn't found the proof yet, and 3) people who don't care enough to formulate a belief.

 

[Les Sleeth]

But my point is that, "I do not believe in a god" is the correct description of an agnostic's beliefs.

In terms of the logic of your statement, you are correct. Good point.

 

[Royce]

But my point is that, "I do not believe in a god" is the correct description of an agnostic's beliefs. It seems:

Quote:
Your view: I do not = I do the opposite of
My view: I do not = It is not true that I do

I may be quibbling here but my view is not "I do not = I do the opposite."
My view is very simply "I do not." That's it period. The statement stands alone by itself with no caveats. He, the agnostic may got on to add; "But neither do I disbelief in God nor do I believe that God does not exist. I just don't know, so I reserve judgment and hold no firm belief about God either way."

Why is that so hard to understand. Read the words for what they say. No more. No less and don't add anything or take anything away.
I say that logically a true agnostic cannot answer the question yes or no because he does not believe nor know either answer to be true or logical.
Does not apply. Does not compute period

We agree that, "Agnostics believe in god" is not true, right?
I'm saying the same thing:

Quote:
My view: "It is not true that agnostics believe in a god."


and, if an agnostic is speaking,

Quote:
My view: "It is not true that I do believe in a god."

Yes this is true; however, I would also have to say that is is true if you and/or our agnostic said; "It is not true that I believe that God does not exist."

We could go on forever tying and untying this logical knot.

Yes we are saying the same thing different ways, only emphasizing different points.

 

[Jameson]

Sorry, let me clarify what I'm trying to say. One cannot simply ask "Do you believe in God?" because that is undefined. The word "believe" does kind of mess up the question. What I'm saying is, that for someone to say I'm agnostic does not mean "maybe there's a God". It means that we do not have proof one way or another on the subject and that we are incapable to conceive either way. You cannot "kinda believe" straightfoward things. I think my point is significant because I'm saying that people cannot just say "they don't know". One does not have to refute a belief in order to negate it. Unless I explicitly believe something, I technically do not believe because of negation. I can also refute something and make my negation stronger.

 

[loseyourname]

One can say "I don't know" if they genuinely waver back and forth, unless your question refers only to the exact belief that they either hold or do not hold at that exact moment in time. Granted, I doubt very many people do waver. Most likely either believe, disbelieve, or have no belief. But, of course, these are three categories of people, which is why we use three words, instead of simply breaking atheists into "strong" atheists and "weak" atheists, even though doing so would be more in line with the strict translation of the word "atheist" from the latin.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Sorry, let me clarify what I'm trying to say. One cannot simply ask "Do you believe in God?" because that is undefined. The word "believe" does kind of mess up the question. What I'm saying is, that for someone to say I'm agnostic does not mean "maybe there's a God". It means that we do not have proof one way or another on the subject and that we are incapable to conceive either way. You cannot "kinda believe" straightfoward things. I think my point is significant because I'm saying that people cannot just say "they don't know". One does not have to refute a belief in order to negate it. Unless I explicitly believe something, I technically do not believe because of negation. I can also refute something and make my negation stronger.

A quick question here to help me understand your position. Are you more concerned about how someone makes a statement, or more about what they mean? So far the only "significant point" I've been able to get from you is a logic-semantic one.

If we were talking, and I wanted to know what you believe about the possibility of God, then I'd ask you questions until I ferreted out your meaning. I would not consider it significant if your statement wasn't logically perfect because we are trying to understand each other, I have the opportunity to figure out what you mean, and nitpicking about how words and ideas are put together isn't conducive to that.

However, if you were writing an article about agnosticism and belief, and I were your editor, then I would be more concerned about statements you make.

 

[Jameson]

Ok. Sorry for getting tied up in the semantics of the statements. This isn't about that. I'm after the truth in the philosophy of agnosticism pertaining to logic.

Would you agree that we are born without beliefs? (I understand that people would argue this by saying we have natural instincts) What I mean by that is that we have not made up our mind on any issue as of being born. So we do not believe anything in our minds more than the fact that we are hungry and want to get warm.

I guess what this debate comes down to is: on a given issue do you start in the middle and waiver to each side accordingly? or do you start something not believing in the issue and then decide to believe in it or not?

Let's take a look at Christianity as an example (I am not preaching). According to that doctrine, one must accept Jesus into one's heart in order to be saved. If you do not accept him, you are not saved. (I understand people's beliefs waiver on this issue; this is just used as an example). So, could one say we are all born without acceptance in Jesus and then we decide later whether to accept him or not?

I'm sorry if I'm going in circles. I really think it comes down to the issue I listed earlier.

Jameson

 

[Les Sleeth]

I guess what this debate comes down to is: on a given issue do you start in the middle and waiver to each side accordingly? or do you start something not believing in the issue and then decide to believe in it or not?

It seems to me it has to be the latter choice.

Let's take a look at Christianity as an example (I am not preaching). According to that doctrine, one must accept Jesus into one's heart in order to be saved. If you do not accept him, you are not saved. (I understand people's beliefs waiver on this issue; this is just used as an example). So, could one say we are all born without acceptance in Jesus and then we decide later whether to accept him or not?

I don't see how it can be any other way than we choose what we believe (although some would argue that conditioning steals some degree of choice from us). But I can't help but return to the issue of meaning.

We all currently decide what we believe, and each of us has our own standards for what we accept as true. When you ask someone if they believe something, every time you are going to hear an answer that's been determined by their standards. Now, whether or not their standards make any sense is an entirely different issue. Why did all those people believe the rantings of Jim Jones and follow him to the grave? Why is there a debunking forum here at PF peopled by individuals who wouldn't give Jim Jones the time of day? Different standards of trust and belief.

 

[honestrosewater]

Change all "Do you believe in god(s)?" to "Do you deny the existence of god(s)?"
Atheist answers yes, agnostic answers no.
In other words, everything said toward separating theists from agnostics can be applied in the same way to separate atheists from agnostics. There are at least three separate options.

Have we now covered all the bases?

 

[Royce]

Change all "Do you believe in god(s)?" to "Do you deny the existence of god(s)?"
Atheist answers yes, agnostic answers no.
In other words, everything said toward separating theists from agnostics can be applied in the same way to separate atheists from agnostics. There are at least three separate options.

Have we now covered all the bases?

God, I hope so; and, I think that you and I are finally on the same page.
The problem now at hand is not the logic and semantics according to Jameson's last post. It is more a matter of belief, what to believe or not believe and what to we call that set of beliefs.

When I was a young man I considered myself an agnostic. As far as the Old Testament and organized Christian religion was concerned ,I thought of myself as a definite non-believer, an atheist, but as far as a God/Creator was concerned, I didn't know and withheld judgment; so, I, therefore, was an agnostic at least in my mind. I didn't believe in God and I didn't belief that God did not exist. I didn't know and I didn't have any firm belief one way or the other. To me that position of no position is agnostic.

A theist believe in God. An agnostic doesn't believe either way and an atheist believes that there is no God. This is how I see and understand it. It of course is a continuum as different people hold different degrees of belief or disbelief. My believe will waver from one extreme to another throughout any given period depending on how I feel or what I am thinking about at the moment.

 

[Zlex]

I am a devout non-aligned secular agnostic theist. It means my faith without certainty or knowledge is restricted to believing in the existence of a God whose existence, nature, wants or desires I do not believe can be known in this life, which also means I have absolutely no faith in any merely man-made religion or man-made church.

It means that any attempts by any man, no matter if he is wearing a chess uniform or not, or how cute he may look in that chess uniform, to claim to insert himself into the personal futile attempt at understanding any of us might or might not be groping for on the concept of God, is an unrecognized and unwelcome projection of a baseless authority.

It means I see man-made religion and man-made churches as residue of dark age mystic politics, unrelated in a fundamental way to the concept of God.

Tammy Faye Baker, Elmer Gantry, the latest Pope in his gilded castle and bullet-proof Popemobile. It's all the same leg-lifting political shtick. The Bible is ancient manmade literature. I mean read it, it literally says, at most, "Some man said that God said..." It is proof, mostly, that The Big Question has festered for thousands of years.


Of course there can be no proof that God does not exist. If you believe that, you believe it without proof. To say, you won't believe it until you see it, like a unicorn or whatever, exposes a shallow understanding of the concept of God.

My understanding of the concept of God takes my devout agnosticism one step further; there can be no 'proof' in this life that God exists, even in the face of a candidate God. I challenge any mere human to devise a test that a candidate God must pass to prove to us that he is God, and not just some massively more capable life form in this universe.

Any test we can imagine, Steven Spielberg has probably already imagined and put on film. My point is, some merely 100 year more advanced life form with 'much better film' could spin us any tale we could imagine, and thus 'pass' out test. Would God need to fly? Go to the Moon? Bring the dead back to life? Transplant a heart? Come back from the dead? SHow us pictures from the beginning of time? Blow up a mountain? Destroy Saturn? Fly us to the next village? The next country? The next solar system? The next galaxy?

And, what of it? Suppose God fails to jump over the ant hurdle or through the ant hoop; does that prove that God is not God?

To ants in an ant hill, we must appear as Gods. Does that mean we are? Do we even ask ants about their God beliefs, and if we could, would we jump over their ant hurdles to prove that we were Gods? This argument is recursive and moot; how would we ants ever get a candidate God to jump over our ant hurdles, to prove to us that God is God?

A fools errand.


If God exists, and if God created the Universe, then He did not have to do it by the prescribed manner--ie, jump over our ant hurdles--to prove that He did. For all we know, if He created the universe, then he must have also designed it. If he designed it, then he imagined every detail. Yet if he imagined it, and designed it, and imagined every detail, then why would there actually be a need to create it? A creator able to imagine and design and build would also be able to simply imagine.

Such a creator would know the punch line to every cosmic joke in this universe; how does such a creator, if He is to create 'surprise' in the Universe, do that? Impossible? Hardly. He could do what any schizo on Earth does; he could divide his conciousness.

Is there conciousness in the universe? Sure. Is there divided conciousness in the Universe? Well, is there 'surprise?' Is any of that proof of anything? No, it is by illustration a demonstration that the whole concept of 'proof' of God is ridiculous and unanswerable. Either way, a matter of pure faith.

Whatever God is or isn't, one thing is for sure; there is exactly zero requirement that any such God jump through any ant hoops or hurdles to prove that He exists. He does not need a beard, he does not need to sit on a throne, He does not even need to be anything other than the entire material Universe that we live in, with all of its rules, surprises, and experiments, whether deliberate or random and chaotic. Whatever He is or isnlt is by definition forever above our pay grade.

Agnostics do not know. Agnostic theists believe that it is probably our job not to know; that is our function in the Universe. To not know, and to live here anyway, to create surprise in the Universe.

 

[Jameson]

If you are saying we are Gods to ants, that means that you are defining God as a being with our qualities, but to a greater degree. This would mean the rules of physics and time apply to him, which would be a contradiction of his definition. (all powerful, all-knowing). God must be different than us.

 

[honestrosewater]

If you are saying we are Gods to ants, that means that you are defining God as a being with our qualities, but to a greater degree. This would mean the rules of physics and time apply to him, which would be a contradiction of his definition. (all powerful, all-knowing). God must be different than us.

How would you change the statement "All laws of physics apply at all instances" to make it true for god? Which "all" would you change, and what would you change it to (some, no)?

Royce,
Yes, we're on the same page I actually said the same thing in my first response in this thread (#5), but the point was lost in the discussion.

 

[Zlex]

If you are saying we are Gods to ants, that means that you are defining God as a being with our qualities, but to a greater degree. This would mean the rules of physics and time apply to him, which would be a contradiction of his definition. (all powerful, all-knowing). God must be different than us.

I thought I made it clear; maybe I did not. As a devout agnostic theist, I believe only in an undefinable God.

I will explain my ant analogy.

By induction.

1] I am not God; I am a finite, human being. (You can argue this point, if you will. I'll wait.)
2] To an ant, I could well appear to be God.
3] To some other life form, I might be an ant.
4] If confronted with such a sufficiently advanced life form(could simply be just 'us' in a short 200 years...), I would be no more able to test it for its Godliness then an ant could test me for mine, as well, convince it to submit to my feeble ant tests, no more than ants are able to convince us to submit to theirs. So, to an ant, I might be God, or I might be a naked ape, or I might be God pretending to be a naked ape and just ****ing with me. As an ant in the natural world of 'proof', I would have no way of proving the truth of the matter, and, please don't tell me that God would not **** with me, because that claim would clearly be an ant hoop. (ie, God would only jump through these hoops, say the ants.)

 

[Jameson]

So months after this thread died out and after more thinking I've decided to try this again.

There are two concrete terms that describe one's belief in a god.
Theism - a belief in a god
Atheism - the lack of a belief in a god

My major point that someone how I poorly expressed last time I wrote was that atheists are not ones who deny the existense of a god, but simply do not have a belief. There is a difference between explicitly denying and simply not believing.

Now some define agnosticism as the middle ground of the latter two. It is not a belief in a god but not a belief in no god. To the best of my knowledge, the term agnostic is used to describe whether one believes that the existense or non-existense of a god can be proven. It is not a stance on a god, it only pertains to whether one can know for certain if a god exists.

The term "agnostic" was coined by Thomas Huxley. He stated that there was just not enough information for either side of "the god" argument that was convincing. Hence, he coined to the term agnostic. This term came out of wanting proof of a god, not believing or not believing in a god. This may seem like an insignificant difference, but to myself, this is a very important one.

So when people claim that he or she is an agnostic theist, what is this saying? By my previous definitions, this would mean a person who believes in a god, but does not think this belief is provable. Same thing goes for an agnostic atheist. That is someone who does not hold the belief in a god but does not think that belief is provable.

I have heard all forms of people thrown into the branding of "agnostics" and I think the lack of clarity to what this term means isn't good. If this argument seems to semantical, then I apologize, but it is the only way to articulate the intricacies that surround this.

Jameson

 

[loseyourname]

So months after this thread died out and after more thinking I've decided to try this again.

There are two concrete terms that describe one's belief in a god.
Theism - a belief in a god
Atheism - the lack of a belief in a god

My major point that someone how I poorly expressed last time I wrote was that atheists are not ones who deny the existense of a god, but simply do not have a belief. There is a difference between explicitly denying and simply not believing.

In contemporary philosophy of religion, the position of holding the belief that there is no God is generally referred to as 'strong' atheism. Simply not holding a belief is referred to as 'weak' atheism. Though these terms are more precise in defining a tripartite categorization of theological stances, I do believe it is still accurate, at least colloquially, to speak of the weak atheist as an agnostic and a strong atheist as an atheist, even though the etymology doesn't quite fit the definition.

 

[Jameson]

Right, but it's important to note that the term "agnostic" does not mean that one "doesn't know if there is a god". This means that the person does hold the belief that the proof of a god is unknowable, and he or she chooses not to believe. This agnostic stance is not a middle ground. That was the point in my original post and my point now.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Right, but it's important to note that the term "agnostic" does not mean that one "doesn't know if there is a god".

Are you sure there isn't a secondary meaning of that? What about someone who says ANY statement about the unknowable ineffable is silly and refuses to make any?

 

[Jameson]

Then I would call that person an agnostic atheist, because he or she lacks the belief in a god and does not believe that this view can be proven.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Then I would call that person an agnostic atheist, because he or she lacks the belief in a god and does not belief that this view can be proven.

I believe you are drawing unwarranted conclusions about the individual in my example. How is refusing to make any statement about "God", on the ground the all such statements are silly, evidence for a lack of belief?

I seems to me that you are like Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking-Glass, who made words mean just what he wanted them to mean, neither more nor less.

 

[Jameson]

Hmmm... ok then.

The only reason I am getting picky with words is because when many people use the same word to describe different concepts, the result is confusion. I was simply trying to post what I thought to be the source of all of these words originally and you are free to use them however you want.

I am not manipulating words, I am trying to follow their definition to avoid confusion, but if it pleases you, call that person an agnostic. This thread was simply me posting my thoughts to see if others could see my point.

Jameson

 

[LindaGarrette]

I'm Agnostic and I can answer your question. Do I believe in God? I do not believe in God. I believe in the possibility of God existing. I do not hold it true that God exists but I do believe it is possible. I believe in possibilities. Agnostism is a much more logical faith than Atheism. Atheism is like a scientific theory that is held true - someone illogical denies the small possibility that a theory is wrong. There is not enough logic to discern whether or not God exists.

In a sense, everyone is agnostic because no one knows there is a god. Some people believe there is and they are theists. Others don't believe and they are athiests. Pretty simple.

 

[Tigron-X]

Yeah.. or you can even say that everyone believes in their own personal definition of God. It's all the same thing -- a matter of perspective. And, perspective is individual reality, not reality.

To prove either side would define God. And that's not possible. It's like asking, can logic prove logic?

Well... No, it can't because logic proves alignment of thought with reality. So, we can't prove existence. We can only show the way we currently exist; rather the way we think we currently exist. Thus existence must prove itself. And so far we're lead to believe that it's all relative.

So yes, I do have to agree that in a sense we're all agnostic because no one's belief's are absolute.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

One's beliefs and the validity of one's beliefs are two separate things, otherwise I would say no-one is a theist because God does not exist. This is clearly wrong. The fact that beliefs are not absolute is irrelevant to describing those beliefs.

I've considered this for the last few days and have come to the following conclusions.

There are potentially two types of theist: those that assume God exists, and those that believe God exists. I'm not sure the former actually exist: either the theist is raised to believe in God, in which case the assumption is not their own, or they consider the notion of God and conclude he exists, which is a belief. If someone claims to have been born with an idea of God, then that would prove me wrong (if they were honest).

The traditional definition of an atheist is one who believes God does not exist. The word itself depends on the notion of God in the first place, and so to be an atheist requires that the notion of God is considered and rejected. However, this has a historical basis in that it was once or still is in all theistic civilisations a standard to believe in God - it would be traditionally unusual to believe God does not exist.

This word 'atheist' does not describe me well. I believe I am as I would be had the notion of God never occurred, whether he exist (and kept secret his existence) or not (man never invented him). I have no recollection of ever considering God as a real entity - he has, to me, always been a fictional character in a mythology. It may seem difficult for some theists to conceive of someone in this world never considering the possibility of God's existence, but this is no different to a Christian never having considered the actual existence of Zeus, Thor, Buddha or fairies. My idea of God, whether I choose to believe or not, has never been that of any theist.

Therefore I am not a theist: I have not been born with a belief in God, nor have I been raised to believe in God, nor have I concluded his existence is real. I am not an atheist: I have made no positive action to believe in God - the notion of God espoused by theists has not affected me. I have never considered or rejected the notion of God's existence and I do not require a notion of God to hold my position.

So am I an agnostic (as to God's existence)? No - I can not be said to lack knowledge to determine if God exists or not. I require no further knowledge to make a decision for there is no decision to make. I have a concrete assumption, not a belief, that God does not exist and have done since birth.

So there are theists, agnostics, atheists and those that are none of the above.

 

[Tigron-X]

One's beliefs and the validity of one's beliefs are two separate things, otherwise I would say no-one is a theist because God does not exist. This is clearly wrong. The fact that beliefs are not absolute is irrelevant to describing those beliefs.

In a way, you're expressing my exact point. Each perspective (or belief) is valid in its own right. The wording, "no-one is a theist b/c God does not exist," seems contradictory in itself, however I still see what you're getting at. And, I hope I didn't come off as implying that atheists believe in God or everyone believes in God. I was referring to the notion of God. Something everyone here has explored and reached a conclusion on. Of course the conclusion reached depends on the initial notion expressed in relation to one's own thoughts.

Also before I go on, I want to clarify one other statement. When I mentioned beliefs are not absolute, that didn't necessarily mean a theist will become an atheist one day down the road or vice versa. Our notion of the subject matter at hand is susceptible to change as different thoughts reveal various other perspectives that one may find diserving of consideration. But either way, in the end of a discussion one might find him/her-self strengthening his/her initial position on the matter. I would still consider this a change in one's initial belief because his/her awareness has changed. And to me, that's relevant because in essence it affects the validity of a belief. And I would like to add once again that I in no way find one of the given beliefs to be invalid, agnostic included.

Moving on, I couldn't say whether I was born with the idea of God or not, but I can say I've always been attracted to the ideas of a higher consciousness. So, naturally I seek an understanding of God. Of course I don't limit myself to a thiest's perspective, a single religion, or other ideas that are philosophically similar/related. Needless to say, I throw atheism as well as science in that same boat. If by chance you ask why, it's because they are all subject matters that express thoughts that shed light onto the world we live in and the ideas that form our way of life and that give notion to the existence we're all a part of as one whole being composed of individual dynamics.

To me, the belief in God is a belief in a higher consciousness that is always a thought away. A force that is discovered by seeking wisdom. I find that the various religions and mythologies help us explore the nature of our existence and existence itself. I've always considered God to be life itself. Something we're all a part of individually. Something that is defined and limited by our notions of thought. A notion held true when the perceived force gives a constant and consistent result. If it doesn't, the flaw is in our initial notion, not the system we're a part of and attempt to define with understanding. A higher consciousness is reached only by genuine thought.

In the end, I've come to the conclusion that we live in an existence that's a constant growing perfection. How, you may ask. Well, the system is perfect, but we continue to perfect our understanding of it by exploring various perspectives and seeking a higher consciousness. The unknown always seems chaotic. Furthermore, one can impose or project that higher consciousness as a separate being/entity apart from oneself that an individual being discovers, relates to, defines, and worships as God (or other diety); such as typically associated with theists. Or, one can impose or project that consciousness as knowledge/wisdom/enlightenment that one seeks and defines through math and science; such as typically associtaed with atheists. Just to clarify, an individual, whether atheist or theist, isn't limited to just one of those typical behavior patterns that I just expressed above because each side is defined by his/her belief in God, and not by the way one explores that belief.

However, an agnostic explores both sides, but doesn't allow his/her beliefs to be defined by a single set of the traditional beliefs, even though he/she may lean towards one side of the arguement. It seems agnostics need to explore their own thoughts before they can decide on the existence of God.

On a side note, El Hombre Invisible, I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but a "concrete assumption" is an oxymoron since an assumption implies an unsure thought. And I think it's safe to say that a belief implies the same thing except with more assurance. Either way, you're still accepting a thought that draws a conclusion on the existence of God. Something you can't consider without the notion of God. A thought that gave you awareness of your initial beliefs. A belief you continued and strengthened after giving consideration to someone's thoughts about God. You've always believed God did not exist. Well, you used the words "concrete assumption". But anyhow, how would you know if you've never had your own notion of God to begin with?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

In a way, you're expressing my exact point. Each perspective (or belief) is valid in its own right. The wording, "no-one is a theist b/c God does not exist," seems contradictory in itself, however I still see what you're getting at. And, I hope I didn't come off as implying that atheists believe in God or everyone believes in God. I was referring to the notion of God.

Yes, me too. And my 'no-one is a theist' comment was, I thought, clearly stated as being incorrect.

Something everyone here has explored and reached a conclusion on. Of course the conclusion reached depends on the initial notion expressed in relation to one's own thoughts.

NO - absolutely not. This was the very thing I was trying to say is not true. I have never, ever considered the actual possibility that God exists. I have never reached a conclusion because I have never contemplated it. I would say that one who has contemplated God's existence and as a result rejected the notion is an atheist. This person has arrived at the belief that God does not exist - it is a positive action. Not all people who do not believe in God, but are not agnostic, have considered the possibility that God might actually exist. This is why atheism is a bad term for such people - it relies itself on a notion of God to reject.

However, an agnostic explores both sides, but doesn't allow his/her beliefs to be defined by a single set of the traditional beliefs, even though he/she may lean towards one side of the arguement. It seems agnostics need to explore their own thoughts before they can decide on the existence of God.

I'm not sold on this definition of an agnostic. An agnostic in this capacity, so far as I can tell, is one who considers the idea of God's existence but finds himself unable to conclude - hence agnostic: lacking knowledge.

On a side note, El Hombre Invisible, I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but a "concrete assumption" is an oxymoron since an assumption implies an unsure thought. And I think it's safe to say that a belief implies the same thing except with more assurance.

Yes, but I'm sure you can appreciate it was a tough argument to word. I'll explain the background of my statement. I would have called myself up until a few days ago an atheist. On another thread, Evo and some others were trying to explain that an atheist is someone 'who does not think/care about God'. I thought this was wrong, but after consideration I could see what they were getting at, however the definition did not stick to the word.

It is not enough to say that an atheist does not believe in God, for nor does an agnostic. The logical statement, then, is that an atheist believes God does not exist. Two problems: 1) the definition depends on a notion of God; 2) we are born with no knowledge of God, and so a belief in his non-existence is a belief that must be achieved. These problems don't apply when you consider the example of one who considers then rejects God as a notion. However, I have not considered God in this way. God to me, and I mean no offense to theists as this is my personal philosophy and you know I'm going to hell so what are you complaining about anyway, is nothing more than a fictional character in a book. My parents did not even mention God, Jesus, whatever to me as a child. I was asked by some local mormons once if I said my prayers - I didn't even know what a prayer was. I thought he meant pears (I am not kidding). I knew about Greek mythology before the Bible because of Clash Of The Titans. When we did Bible studies at primary school, I automatically associated it with mythology. As a result, the notion of God as a theist understands him is not one I have ever contemplated. I have argued endlessly the fictional God of my own understanding, but never the real divive creator of a Christian's. That, I hope, explains the difference between an acquired belief in God's on-existence and the autmoatic assumption from birth that there is no such thing (there's just mother). That's not to say I was aware of the fictional God - Iwas just equally ignorant then as I am now of the real one. This assumption (not the best word I could have chosen) is concrete insofar as it has never been dented, eroded, etc. It appears indestructible.

Either way, you're still accepting a thought that draws a conclusion on the existence of God. Something you can't consider without the notion of God. A thought that gave you awareness of your initial beliefs. A belief you continued and strengthened after giving consideration to someone's thoughts about God. You've always believed God did not exist. Well, you used the words "concrete assumption". But anyhow, how would you know if you've never had your own notion of God to begin with?

Like I said, my notion of God has always been one of a fictional character in a book, therefore there has never been any consideration of whether or not he exists, therefore I have never acquired the belief that he does not.

Good chat, though. I'm enjoying it.

 

[hypnagogue]

These points have been covered here before, but an explicit summary might be helpful.

Agnosticism and theism/atheism, strictly speaking, are not positions that lie along a continuum (although they can be taken that way colloquially, as loseyourname has pointed out). Agnosticism is an epistemological view about what we can know about God's existence, and (a)theism is a metaphysical view about whether God does, in fact, exist. For instance, consider the following statement: "God exists." Agnosticism is a position on whether this statement can be justified, and (a)theism is a position on whether this statement is true. These are evaluations of the statement along two independent dimensions. For instance, one might conjecture that Fermat's Last Theorem is true (or false), while simultaneously believing that it cannot (or can) be proven. The matter of belief in the theorem's truth or falsity is separate from beliefs about whether it can be proven (at least while no conclusive proofs have yet been demonstrated).

Thus, whether a person is agnostic or not has no logical consequence upon whether s/he is theist or not. Rather than thinking of theism, atheism, and agnosticism as lying along a continuum, we should think of them as being orthogonal to, or independent from, each other. If we decide to differentiate between strong and weak atheism, then we have six possible views arising from the possible combinations on the metaphysical and epistemological stances. In the following, let b(x) mean "believes that x," and let G be the statement "God exists."

agnostic theist: b(G); believes that neither G nor ~G can be justified.
non-agnostic theist: b(G); believes that either G or ~G can be justified.

agnostic weak atheist: ~b(G); believes that neither G nor ~G can be justified.
non-agnostic weak atheist: ~b(G); believes that either G or ~G can be justified.

agnostic strong atheist: b(~G); believes that neither G nor ~G can be justified.
non-agnostic strong atheist: b(~G); believes that either G or ~G can be justified.

Note that ~b(G) does not imply b(~G) if we allow statements to be evaluated in ways other than "true" (T) or "false" (F). For instance, we might allow a third possibility sitting on the fence between truth and falsity, along the lines of "not enough information to decide" or "no commitment either way" (call this N). Then ~b(G) means that an individual evaluates G as either F or N, but not T. By contrast, b(~G) means that an individual evaluates G as F.

Also note that taking a definite stance on G does not require one to believe that the converse cannot proven. For instance, a non-agnostic strong atheist might firmly believe that God does not exist, but might nonetheless be open to changing his mind upon presentation of what he would consider sufficient evidence that G is true.

 

[Photongod]

Well well--things sure have gotten complicated since I took philosophy. Thank you George Smith for stirring the waters and causing mass confusion to a simple subject.
1. A theist has a belief that divine beings exist. If one is not a theist, he is a "non-believer".
2. An Atheist has a belief that divine beings do not exist.
3. If one is not either one of the above, then he/she could fall into many other catagories--such as ignorant of the idea, appathetic to the idea, agnostic, and so on.
4. The agnostic can fall into one of two types--a or b
a. believes that we can never know the answer to the god question.
b. Claims that he/she does not know for a lack of good evidence either way.
This b. type agnostic is the most logical of all of the above in that he/she is not involved with any belief--just a statement of ignorance.
There is no need for all the flimsy half definitions that cover this topic--it is just very simple. Photongod.