Atheism or Agnosticism, which one is correct?

by Joey Jo-Jo 78 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Phizzy

  Agnostic when Thomas Huxley first coined it in 1869 meant according to him, that we cannot know anything beyond material phenomena as explained by Science, so far from a wooly-headed point of view , when it started it was a rationalistic view.

  In modern time many label themselves Agnostic without appreciating this original meaning, and if you question them their postion boils down to "it hurts my head to think about it, so I use the label as a cop out".

  Atheist, a word going back to the 16th Century, meaning without God was very similar, not saying there was no God, but that we could not know anything beyond the space-time continuum we live in.

  The meanings ascribed to the two words today depend upon the context and how the person applies them to himself or what he/she thinks they mean, hence Cofty's wise attitude of lets not faff about with semantics.

  New Atheist was coined to explain the antics of Dawkins and others who felt simple non-belief was not enough, that the religious beliefs of others should be attacked, an idea I go along with to a certain degree, young earth creationists for example deserve to be exposed as twats.

  As people today have certain ideas in their head if you use either word about yourself I tend to style myself a secular humanist or something similar, if the person who needs the label wants to take things further I will explain my stance on God , Life, the Universe and even the virtues of real ale if they will listen.
• 

  bohm

  Jo-Jo:

  I think the (endless!) discussions about atheism vs. agnostisism boil down to not making it clear what the phrases mean.

  The obvious problem is that we cannot have the discussion about the question "does X exist" without having a notion of what X is. So when we say: "Does God exist" it is no more clearly-defined question than "Does Animal exist" (which obviously have different answers if we imply the animal is a dragon or a horse).

  Secondly, if you want to apply labels to a particular position on a particular God (atheist vs. agnostic) I think it would be prudent to primarily let the people who apply the labels to themselves define what they mean. To me being an atheist is shorthand for "I do not feel compelled to accept the existence of any of the gods", ie. a 6 on the dawkins scale. It is not an expression of absolutely certainty.

  An argument that can be used about a deity is -we cannot prove nor disprove that god exists- this is referred to as a Null Hypothesis, an assumption that we cannot create a hypothesis to prove or disprove this deity. This to me is agnosticism and is more correct than the idea of atheism.

  First and foremost i would suggest you use "default position" rather than null hypothesis since null hypothesis come with a lot of baggage from statistics where it is used in a different way than you use it here.

  Secondly i find myself doubting if you really believe what you are writing. For instance, are you truly agnostic with respect to the flying spaghetti monster, or do you as i, believe it is a mock-god made up by an atheist? Do you really believe we cannot know if we will live on the slopes of a beer vulcano near the stripper factory when we die, or do you believe that is highly implausible?
• 

  Joey Jo-Jo

  IsaacJ22 and bohm, yes i think it's important that we all explain what our definitions of agnostic and atheism mean (I already gave examples of some), when Bart Ehrman in a debate told his audience that he was an agnostic he also explained what his own definition of the word was so people wouldn't get it confused with another form of agnosticism. I really didn't want this to turn into something about semantics lol

  bohm wrote "I do not feel compelled to accept the existence of any of the gods", ie. a 6 on the dawkins scale. It is not an expression of absolutely certainty.

  Would it any any different if I said that I do feel compelled to accept the notion that something/s created the universe?

  First and foremost i would suggest you use "default position" rather than null hypothesis since null hypothesis come with a lot of baggage from statistics where it is used in a different way than you use it here.

  The principal can still be applied without the baggage (I hate statistics, the hardest course in my accounting degree). If you don't think it can I would like to know why.

  Secondly i find myself doubting if you really believe what you are writing. For instance, are you truly agnostic with respect to the flying spaghetti monster, or do you as i, believe it is a mock-god made up by an atheist? Do you really believe we cannot know if we will live on the slopes of a beer vulcano near the stripper factory when we die, or do you believe that is highly implausible?

  My logical fallacy senses are tingling, proof to me that God does not exist so I can answer your questions :)
• 

  Joey Jo-Jo

  Phizzy: I hate labelling but it's important, these words are so weak and have been interchangeable, it's like the words brain wash and mind control used in the same manner yet mean completely different things, and maybe in 40 years’ time they will mean the same thing.
• 

  bohm

  Would it any any different if I said that I do not feel compelled to not accept the notion that something/s created the universe?

  I think they are, but i cannot give you a better answer without a definition of th eGod whos existence we are discussing. Again, if i told you: "Do you believe X exist" i would need to tell you what X is (at least roughly) before you can have any oppinion. Do creation for instance simply imply causation or does it imply agency, intention and intelligence?

  First and foremost i would suggest you use "default position" rather than null hypothesis since null hypothesis come with a lot of baggage from statistics where it is used in a different way than you use it here.

  The principal can still be applied without the baggage (I hate statistics, the hardest course in my accounting degree). If you don't think it can I would like to know why.

  Because the way you phrase it would seem that you are using "null hypothesis" the way most statesticians would use "we do not know". To take an example from statistics, it is not the null hypothesis that we do not know if a drug cure cancer, a common null hypothesis would be "there is no corrolation between taking the drug and survival rate".

  Furthermore null hypothesis also imply something which can be falsified and so on.

  My logical fallacy senses are tingling, proof to me that God does not exist so I can answer your questions :)

  What is the logical fallacy? I am simply asking you if you are an agnostic with respect to the flying spaghetti monster. Your previous statements would imply it since you directly said we could define God as the flying spaghetti monster and you believed agnosticism is the default position on the existence of God.

  To me it would seem to be an extremely negative result if science and reason cannot inform us if something like the flying spaghetti monster exist or not. I would rather believe i am correct when i invoke my atheism and say (like Dawkins!) with confidence the flying spaghetti monster allmost certainly do not exist.

  You are perhaps of a different oppinion?
• 

  WTWizard

  Technically, an atheist believes that there is no God. Thus, no Satan either. This person has no doubt about it, and is certain that there is no God--either benevolent or not.

  You can have practical atheists that are actually agnostics. Some will believe that there is a God and not give a fxxx or do anything to obey him. They blow off church and are usually unchurched. Some believe that there may be a God. And some believe that there is a God, but that he doesn't fit all three of the criteria (all knowing, all powerful, and all benevolent). While many classify these people as atheists, they are not strictly atheist.

  Then you have what is known as spiritual Satanists. This group is something I expect to hear much more about during the next few years, as we get deeper into the Age of Aquarius. These people think Satan is their father, the demons are their friends, and that original religions actually venerated (properly) the demons. They also believe that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all corruptions of these ancient religions. As this makes a lot of sense and explains why so much rubbish continues happening despite Jehovah being always there, I expect spiritual Satanism to grow. Note that it doesn't mean Satan is more powerful than Jehovah--but that Satan created, and Jehovah and his filthy angels are the bullies that destroy and hinder.

  Of course, many Christians think Satanism is nothing more than drinking blood, offering children and live animals as sacrifices to Satan, and glorifying death. This is not Satanism but evil worship. And it is a reaction to Christianity, unlike spiritual Satanism which was around long before Christianity. Note that spiritual Satanists are not strictly atheists, even though they are viewed the same by churches.
• 

  DT

  It is common to view theism, agnosticism and atheism as a spectrum. This can be convenient since many people gradually shift their perspectives over time. However, this approach isn't really compatible with the meanings of the words themselves and can cause a lot of confusion. There is no need for the term agnosticism to fill in a gap between theism and atheism. Theism is a definite state of belief and atheism merely refers to those who don't have that belief, regardless of whether they lack belief or believe the opposite.

  Agnosticism refers to lack of knowledge rather than lack of belief. Therefore, it includes some theists and atheists. I viewed myself as an agnostic, even when I had a positive belief in God, because I recognized the fact that I couldn't know for sure. Now, I still consider myself an agnostic, even though I am now an atheist. I can respect many atheists and theists, but I have a hard time respecting those who claim knowledge that they don't have.
• 

  breakfast of champions

  I don't really see it as an issue between atheist or agnostic.

  It should be more about critical thinking skills than anything. You could have a person who is completely atheist (believing there is no god), yet they used absolutely no critical thinking skills in making the decision and are thus still subject to superstitions and weird beliefs.

  It's almost like a "potato chip" vegetarian- sure, they don't eat meat, but all they eat is crap like potato chips because that's what comes easy.

  If you apply critical thinking skills in life and are completely honest with yourself, it doesn't matter how you label yourself or are labeled by others.
• 

  jaguarbass

  I am an agnostic.

  An agnostic is one who doesnt know.

  An atheist is one who knows there is no God.

  A thiest is one who knows there is a God.

  30 years in the the tower, 30 years out.

  convinced me no one knows anything regarding matters of

  our existence and consciousness.

  I feel foolish for the 3o years I could swear up and down Jehovah was the true God.

  I cant swear up and down and say there is no God or intelligent creator, or supreme

  intelligence behind everything.

  All though I respect and understand and have read much of the atheist opinions including all of Dawkins.

  My claiming to be agnostic allows me wiggle room, and room to grow and learn.
• 

  sabastious

  Agnosticism is a woolly headed cop-out when it comes to god. Do you have a belief that god is real? You are a theist. Do you lack that positive belief? You are an atheist.

  Theism -> Agnosticism -> Atheism

  ~

  Republican -> Independent -> Democrat

  -Sab