Poor Suzy

[hellomynameis]

Agnosticism, to not know. To be an agnostic is to be an atheist.

It is my understanding that an atheist does not believe in God, while an agnostic is uncommitted either way. Two different animals.

Ugh, let me ask you this, what does "uncommitted either way" mean?

As an agnostic:

You don't positively deny the possible existence of a god(s), but neither do many atheists, myself included.

But you do not believe in a god(s) because you're uncommitted, you lack belief in god(s), and that ladies and gentlemen makes you an atheist by default.

Gnostic/agnostic = knowledge or lack thereof.
theist/atheist = belief or lack thereof.

The positive knowledge claim that there are no gods can be held by a gnostic atheist or 'strong atheist'. But that is certainly not the default position implied when the term 'atheist' is used.

I'm not making this up.

But I'm sure editing it a lot ;)

[Nebula]

I'm confused. Is an agnostic girl with two boyfriends uncommitted either way?

[fluffy]

Ugh, let me ask you this, what does "uncommitted either way" mean?

I feel there is insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the existence of some manner of higher power, "God" if you will, so I stand uncommitted. I do not deny the possibility of such an existence, but as yet there is insufficient proof of that existence.

As an agnostic:...You don't positively deny the possible existence of a god(s)...

Bingo.

...but neither do many atheists, myself included.

That's where you lose me, as the definition of an atheist specifies a disbelief in any deity.

But you do not believe in a god(s) because you're uncommitted, you lack belief in god(s), and that ladies and gentlemen makes you an atheist by default.

It's a fine line I admit, but a disbelief in god(s) is different than being unconvinced as to the existence of god(s). An atheist, by the dictionary definition does not believe, an agnostic by definition neither believes nor disbelieves, accepting that these things are at present unknowable.

I use the "G" word freely, but in a metaphorical sense. To me it describes a whole pack of things that fall under "real hard if not impossible to put into words", but basically it's the good stuff. I suppose in a sense that should get me kicked out of the agnostics' clubhouse just as your unwillingness to deny the existence of god(s) would get you ejected from the atheists' clubhouse.

[unclemarty]

dictionary aside, the sense i've always had is that;

- the atheist is convinced there is no other god above himself

- the agnostic chooses to keep a measure of humility about the whole thing.

[hellomynameis]

It's a fine line I admit, but a disbelief in god(s) is different than being unconvinced as to the existence of god(s). An atheist, by the dictionary definition does not believe, an agnostic by definition neither believes nor disbelieves, accepting that these things are at present unknowable.

I use the "G" word freely, but in a metaphorical sense. To me it describes a whole pack of things that fall under "real hard if not impossible to put into words", but basically it's the good stuff. I suppose in a sense that should get me kicked out of the agnostics' clubhouse just as your unwillingness to deny the existence of god(s) would get you ejected from the atheists' clubhouse.

Just focus on the part of my post that you didn't quote,

gnostic/agnostic = knowledge or lack of
theist/atheist = belief or lack of in a god.

atheist - literally, "one without theism"
agnostic - literally, "one who lacks knowledge"

Those are the definitions and root origins of the terms. "neither believes nor disbelieves" is a fallacy, you have to pick one but positive disbelief is not necessary. The fact that it is not necessary, that the epistemological problem of proving a negative can be avoided by an atheist also speaks to a validity of the position I'm trying to explain to you. That's something you can disagree with that until the cows come home if you wish, not going to hurt my feelings. The fact that there can be agnostic atheists or gnostic atheists, gnostic theists or agnostic theists precludes your position de facto. And, btw no, my stance is perfectly harmonious with the atheist position.

But whatever, I'm not going to repeat the same things over and over again and neither should you.

atheist_chart.gif

How about you call me whatever you want and I'll call you an agnostic (or whatever the hell you want) and we can be done with it.

[forum]

Beyond reasonable doubt is the best thing we can come up with sometimes. Crime investigators don't have to be at the scene of a crime to determine what events occurred. They use proven techniques to reach a conclusion. I can't help but laugh when people say "well, why don't I see evolution happening right before my eyes?"

Why is it that everytime a religious individual gets backed into a corner defending their rediculous religious belief, they fall back into "you can't prove there isn't a god”.

We've proved there were dinosaurs.
Noahs ark is totally bogus
Every year Jesus doesn't show up to save his followers.
Adam and Eve...yeah right.
Evolution lines up beautifully and we learn from it to enrich our lives.

All Atheists have done is thrown out the whole ball of wax, including god, and started with a clean page. And so far it is coming together beautifully.

[fluffy]

Just focus on the part of my post that you didn't quote,

gnostic/agnostic = knowledge or lack of
theist/atheist = belief or lack of in a god.

atheist - literally, "one without theism"
agnostic - literally, "one who lacks knowledge"

I see what you're saying. While the terms have different meanings, they can overlap with each other at their edges, with situations like "atheist-lite" venturing into area that traditionally qualified as agnostic. I can see a place for these distinctions, as the evolution of spiritual thought diversifies more and more, the black/white of belief and non-belief becomes more of a gray zone as people seek to harmonize their own viewpoint with what we know to be true and what as yet do not know.

I think that is the essence of spiritual growth, that we find a place in the big picture that sits okay with us personally, that doesn't leave us forced to cop to beliefs that plainly aren't believable. Wasn't it Shakespeare who said "This above all else, to thine own self be true" ? It's an entirely human thing to want to define that position, and to have the terminology available that reflects the myriad possibilities of just what place one finds himself at any given point in the journey certainly makes it easier to organize ones thoughts.

[Thinktank]

Suzy doesn't really pray for the millions of poor and suffering
in the world. The only thing Suzy really cares about is herself.
So the video is totally wrong.

It's true, though - I was in church for three years - and we do
say 'Thank You Lord' a lot of times. We thank God continually and for everything,
because the only thing we really care about is ourselves, and we're hoping
by saying 'thank you' to God often, that somehow we'll get more
good things in our lives and less bad things. But right after saying 'thank you'
to God for stuff, we go and try to rip one of the church people off. Or at least,
that's what many of us Christians do. Not all.

The video is still *bleep*. It trys to say a crazed gunman shoots the pastor of a church,
but it doesn't say that thousands of Mexicans dealing in drugs (going against God) get shot
every year by themselves. It doesn't say 'he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.'

The video is still *bleep*.

[Omnitheo]

I use the god word freely as well, but to me god does not represent a being, or a deity, it represents the universe itself. The blind watchmaker which jump started billions of processes which over billions of years created life on our world, and us ourselves.

We interact with our "God" all the time, most people however choose only to believe a narrow minded view that ignores these processes in favour of bronze age stories from before we had proper understanding.

I am an Atheist in my disbelief of the judo-christian god, as well as the pagan gods of olds, but as someone who worships the universe around us (and attempts to see it with an open mind), and views the universe itself as the "creator" I am an Omnitheist. Everything is god, and it is far greater and more powerful than any false deity which people swear their blind faith to.

We are a part of that universe, and it is our responsibility as the latest process to leave our mark, to create change and leave a legacy. That is why it is the here and now that matters. These are the days of our lives, and our only chance to create that legacy; to leave our mark on the universe. This is the life that matters, and the one we should be living, not pandering to the idea of an unproven afterlife, spending our lives indoctrinated in preparation for the false notions of the hereafter. Our afterlife is our legacy, and the reuse of our molecules in more universal processes.

[Born_again]

It is my understanding that an atheist does not believe in God, while an agnostic is uncommitted either way. Two different animals.

-fluffy-, for fear of sounding like a pedant, can I ask that you consider the following terminology that would be more apt:

An Atheist has an absence of belief in God or gods(or anything supernatural really).

Technically, having an absence of belief is different to not believing. To 'not believe in something' is to imply that there is something 'not to believe in'. It's subtle, but crucial if you are ever going to understand our position more accurately. We do not disbelieve in God/gods, we simply have an absence of belief that they exist. If evidence for deities were to present itself in a manner that is verifiable, we would shift from an absence of belief to either a belief or disbelief in whatever deity/deities that have made their presence felt.

The simplest way to look at the difference is from a Christian standpoint(if you can?). How do they regard Thor? An absence of belief or a disbelief? As a Christian already has a God³, (who asserts that He is the only God³) it would be improper for him/her to disbelieve in Thor, as this contradicts God's³ word, and implies that there is another god in addition to God³. That would be a no-no!

[fluffy]

Hey, I'm just going by what I read in the dictionary: atheist- one who believes that there is no diety, and agnostic- one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God, Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition. But what the heck, if I can redefine God to my convenience, it would be hypocritical of me to criticize you for rewriting the dictionary. :127:

[eMeM]

I'm only guessing this hasn't been posted yet as I only read the first page and a half before I thought I'd pose a question.

To those that would like more evidence for the existence of God, I'd like to know what you think of biblical prophecy. Is that any indication of his existence or is it just brushed off as fluke, "reading too much into it", "some guy just wrote down what had already happened", or...what? Is it even a consideration?

[Nebula]

I'm only guessing this hasn't been posted yet as I only read the first page and a half before I thought I'd pose a question.

To those that would like more evidence for the existence of God, I'd like to know what you think of biblical prophecy. Is that any indication of his existence or is it just brushed off as fluke, "reading too much into it", "some guy just wrote down what had already happened", or...what? Is it even a consideration?

Personally, I'm not 'looking' for 'more' evidence of the existence of any god; I would be very surprised if I found 'any' evidence of any god.

As for prophesy, all of your reasons above do nicely.

[hellomynameis]

To those that would like more evidence for the existence of God, I'd like to know what you think of biblical prophecy. Is that any indication of his existence or is it just brushed off as fluke, "reading too much into it", "some guy just wrote down what had already happened", or...what? Is it even a consideration?

Having read the bible a few times I know there isn't a valid (*to my mind) prophecy in it. No more convincing than the rest of the prophecies listed in the Great Appendices that can be found in the back of the Great Pantheon.

The allowances to scepticism and reason that would have to be made to believe biblical prophecies are the same allowances that grant a vast sum of (mutually exclusive in many cases) prophecies made throughout history and throughout the world. We are great at deceiving ourselves and compartmentalizing our beliefs.

[Glacier]

Having read the bible a few times I know there isn't a valid (*to my mind) prophecy in it.

http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophe ... lity-bible