I think an atheist agnostic is an agnostic who more likely thinks there is no god, but wouldn't act on it either way.

Where as a theistic agnostic leans that there might be some kind of god, but also don't act on it either way.

Where an agnostic really truly has no feelings either way, and could either become a religious person or a full blow atheist, with enough persuasion.

1/4/2007 8:01:53 PM

Quote :

"moron: Where an agnostic really truly has no feelings either way, and could either become a religious person or a full blow atheist, with enough persuasion."

No. Agnostics aren't on the fence where they can be persuaded one way or another. They're people "who hold that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience."

I also don't think you need to put "full blown" in there either. It's like you're saying agnostics are atheists that aren't "full blown" yet. Agnostics are as far from atheists as they are from theists.

[Edited on January 4, 2007 at 8:15 PM. Reason : sss]

1/4/2007 8:14:58 PM

/thread

This issue can't possibly be difficult past what's been presented here. If it is then you don't belong in college.

1/4/2007 8:18:27 PM

^^ Your definition does not disagree with my statement, and I did not mean to imply that an agnostic was a lesser degree for atheism.

1/4/2007 8:24:11 PM

THEISM = THE BELIEF IN A GOD/MULTIPLE GODS
ATHEISM = NO BELIEF IN A GOD/MULTIPLE GODS
AGNOSTIC = ATHEIST SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THEY DON'T ACTIVELY BELIEVE IN GODS. THEY ALSO DON'T ACTIVELY DISBELIEVE, BUT IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THEN YOU ARE ATHEIST

1/4/2007 8:34:40 PM

Look you fucking downy, this is really quite simple.

Atheism is the thesis that God does not exist.

Agnosticism is suspension of belief.

Agnostics are not atheists.

1/4/2007 10:06:47 PM

Quote :

"more likely thinks"

Quote :

"full blow atheist"

Ok, the thread just hit a new low point.

1/4/2007 10:31:39 PM

Why do people suffer so badly from retardation that they can't see McDanger is as right as rain on this shit.

For the love of God they are different.

1/4/2007 10:44:47 PM

^ hahahaha

You should fix it to say "for the love of God, the disbelief in God or the unability to know about loving God."

1/4/2007 10:49:37 PM

I'm seriously baffled at how much this issue comes up, and at how much misunderstanding still manages to prevail.

1/5/2007 12:22:03 AM

*sigh this isn't a matter of who finds which definition on the intranetz

[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 1:56 AM. Reason : jank]

1/5/2007 1:54:02 AM

look

an agnostic can claim there is no way to prove the existence of god for or against

however, if this agnostic claims to have faith/believe in a god, then he is a THEIST

if this agnostic does not have faith/believe in a god, then he is an ATHEIST

otherwise you may as well claim that ALL people with faith are agnostic because there is absolutely no way to prove the existence of god or prove the non-existence. at least none that we know of yet (try telling this to any christian who obviously believes 100% in a god)

[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 2:08 AM. Reason : jank]

1/5/2007 2:08:15 AM

You can't be this stupid.

It's just not possible.

1/5/2007 2:12:21 AM

[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 3:52 AM. Reason : ]

1/5/2007 3:52:07 AM

People are hung up on the "disbelief" part...

Quote :

"atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

If that word "disbelieves" wasn't in there and it was just "denies," everyone would admit that, of course, agnostics are not and can not be atheists. But the word is in there so we're stuck with this nonsense when everybody knows that agnostics are not atheists.

There's some other bullshit at play here. "Society" wants it set up so you're either religious or atheist. When your kid says he's questioning things, you can tell him he needs to get his ass in church to work that evil, witchy atheism out of him. Force people to make a choice by denying them the option of agnosticism, and most of them will choose religion. And then everybody will be filled religious goodness!!!

[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 5:31 AM. Reason : sss]

1/5/2007 5:29:21 AM

This better?

atheist (someone who denies the existence of god)

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheist

1/5/2007 8:33:51 AM

^Yes! Let's go with that.

1/5/2007 9:18:32 AM

jesus christ, I can't believe this thread got started in the first place

1/5/2007 9:27:34 AM

Why?

1/5/2007 9:28:51 AM

the issue can very simply be resolved by reading two dictionary definitions and realizing that, by definition, one can not be an athiest and agnostic.

1/5/2007 9:35:28 AM

Quote :

"actively believing there is no god is far different from not believing there is a god"

isn't believing in any form actively believing? Not believing is not the absense of belief, it is simply believeing there is not, which is a form of actively believing.

for arguments sake what would be an example of a time where some one beileves something, but not actively? I don't think an example exists.

1/5/2007 10:25:09 AM

Quote :

"Not believing is not the absense of belief, it is simply believeing there is not, which is a form of actively believing."

[no]

1/5/2007 10:47:31 AM

Quote :

"Not believing is not the absense of belief, it is simply believeing there is not, which is a form of actively believing."

wrong. seriously read what you wrote. it doesn't make any sense.

not believing /= believing in something else. it is simply not having a defined belief on the subject.

[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 10:50 AM. Reason : ^ha]

1/5/2007 10:49:44 AM

Quote :

"it is simply not having a defined belief on the subject."

which /= believing there is not,

Quote :

"actively believing there is no god is far different from not believing there is a god"

both of those are defined beliefs, correct? (the same defined belief said in a different way imo) The only non-defined belief I can think of is "I don't know if there is or not"

1/5/2007 11:11:47 AM

Quote :

"both of those are defined beliefs, correct? (the same defined belief said in a different way imo) "

no

Quote :

"The only non-defined belief I can think of is "I don't know if there is or not""

this is exactly what agnosticism is. and exactly what not believing is.

[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 11:14 AM. Reason : .]

1/5/2007 11:14:43 AM

The thing that is well defined about agnosticism are the reasons behind suspending belief.

1/5/2007 11:20:13 AM

not believing is not saying "I don't know",

I don't believe there is a God..........I don't know if there is a God

^there is NO god..................................^there MAY or MAY NOT be a god, I can't say


totally different.

[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 11:21 AM. Reason : .]

1/5/2007 11:20:26 AM

jesus. no. you don't get it AT ALL. and it's really not a very difficult concept.

believing is something one does.

saying "there is no god" is an affirmation.

not believing there is a god is not. it is simply not making the affirmation "there is a god". it is not making the affirmation "there is no god".

1/5/2007 11:27:21 AM

You know when you're trying to explain something incredibly simple to somebody who is just so fucking stupid that they cannot begin to comprehend it?

I hate that.

1/5/2007 11:28:45 AM

if you make the affirmation "there is no god", I would say by context, you don't believe there is a god.

I just don't see the diff.

agree to disagree.

Quote :

"You know when you're trying to explain something incredibly simple to somebody who is just so fucking stupid that they cannot begin to comprehend it"

I know, you guys just don't get it.

[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 11:33 AM. Reason : .]

1/5/2007 11:32:36 AM

Quote :

"if you make the affirmation "there is no god", I would say by context, you don't believe there is a god."

i agree.

but "if A, then B" does not imply "if B, then A"

1/5/2007 11:35:58 AM

Quote :

"agree to disagree."

No, you're wrong.

Believing that not P is not the same as not believing that P. How else can we put this to you?

1/5/2007 11:39:07 AM

seriously if this site had sticky topics, a topic about basic logic should be at the top of soap box all the time. it seems like simple logic (in conjunction with a dictionary definition) should put this topic to rest for any high school educated person.

[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 11:45 AM. Reason : .]

1/5/2007 11:45:11 AM

Quote :

"but "if A, then B" does not imply "if B, then A" "

no argument about that, nothing can affirm the statement "there is/is not a god."

I am simply saying i don't see the difference between the statements:

"i believe there is no god" and "I don't believe there is a god"

per

Quote :

"actively believing there is no god is far different from not believing there is a god"

1/5/2007 11:50:03 AM

let's say i don't know if there is a god or not. i'm on the fence, so to speak. i would have to say that i don't believe "there is a god". i would also say i don't believe "there is no god". i would not say "i believe there is a god" nor would i say "i believe there is no god", because neither would be true.

1/5/2007 11:54:57 AM

agnosticism lies in the middle of theism and atheism by definition because it neither accepts nor denies the other. it instead recognizes that neither can be proven, and thus chooses not to side with either.

apparently this is what has been misunderstood here, no?

1/5/2007 11:55:32 AM

I completely understand the principles of each.

I don't think we're disagreeing so much on that, as the way it was conveyed.

1/5/2007 12:04:58 PM

You mean the misnomer in the thread title?

1/5/2007 12:06:20 PM

no, this

Quote :

"that's the thing: most people who are deemed atheists really aren't. actively believing there is no god is far different from not believing there is a god."

I just think that "believing there is no god", and "not believing there is a god" is for all intents and purposes the same thing.....an agnostic would smiply say "i don't know if there is a god", which is neither a belief of existence, nor a belief of non-existence.

1/5/2007 12:14:26 PM

deemed so by the mainstream american with no understanding of the term, sure.

atheists, in my opinion, are pretty ridiculous. it's pretty ballsy to say that there is NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER that there is a force beyond us.

1/5/2007 12:17:35 PM

^On the flip side of that you have people who identify with mainstream religions who are equally closed minded, just on the other end of the spectrum.

1/5/2007 12:23:12 PM

yeah, i don't see how ^^ is any different than a christian saying I KNOW WITH 100% CERTAINTY THAT A BENEVOLENT GOD LIVES IN THE SKY AND WATCHES EVERYTHING I DO AND HE IMPREGNATED A VIRGIN 2000 YEARS AGO WHO HAD HIS SON WHO LATER DIED AND CAME BACK TO LIFE AS A ZOMBIE BEFORE ASCENDING TO HEAVEN.
If you don't "know that with 100% certainty" then you have no right to call yourself a Christian. Welcome to the world of Agnosticism.

1/5/2007 2:14:44 PM

To say that you aren't 100% sure doesn't make you a non-believer or an agnostic either.

I'm not 100% sure gravity works the way physicists say it does, but it doesn't make me a gravity-agnostic.

1/5/2007 2:29:52 PM

I'm gravity agnostic. We can't know if it exists, people. OPEN YOUR EYES!

Quote :

"let's say i don't know if there is a god or not. i'm on the fence, so to speak. i would have to say that i don't believe "there is a god". i would also say i don't believe "there is no god". i would not say "i believe there is a god" nor would i say "i believe there is no god", because neither would be true."

^ this is what I'm saying, too

1/5/2007 2:38:48 PM

^^ well, the bible says the only way to get into heaven is to believe that jesus is the son of god. If you don't believe that with all your heart (i.e. you are 100% certain), then god will know, and therefore, no heaven for you. so.... if you (the collective you) call yourself a christian and expect to go to heaven, then you'd better be pretty damned sure about god and jesus, both of which are non-provable or observable.

the analogy about gravity doesn't work. I too may not be 100% sure gravity works the way physicists say it does, but even so, I am 100% sure that there is a natural force that exists that we observe and describe as gravity, no matter how it actually works.

1/5/2007 2:44:16 PM

Quote :

"let's say i don't know if there is a god or not. i'm on the fence, so to speak. i would have to say that i don't believe "there is a god". i would also say i don't believe "there is no god". i would not say "i believe there is a god" nor would i say "i believe there is no god", because neither would be true."

1/5/2007 2:45:35 PM

Quote :

"well, the bible says the only way to get into heaven is to believe that jesus is the son of god. If you don't believe that with all your heart (i.e. you are 100% certain), then god will know, and therefore, no heaven for you. so.... if you (the collective you) call yourself a christian and expect to go to heaven, then you'd better be pretty damned sure about god and jesus, both of which are non-provable or observable. "

but how can one be 100% certain of something that is non-provable or observeable?

1/5/2007 3:22:48 PM

this is why agnosticism catches on.

1/5/2007 3:23:44 PM

^^ hey man, don't ask me. that's not my problem. that's why christians and religious folks go on and on about faith, because essentially, faith takes the place of logic, reason and proof as an excuse for certainty.
That's why it's so hard to be 100% atheist, because if you're completely logical and you know that you can't disprove the existence of a god, then you should probably consider yourself agnostic.

^ yeah, what he said.

[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 3:26 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2007 3:25:54 PM

^^after reading up on it, it actually seems much more sensible than most other religious beliefs, but a lot of things look good on paper.

[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 3:27 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2007 3:27:24 PM